The $76,000 in donations that the City of Butler received during 2005 from individuals, businesses and groups was appreciated by the cash-strapped city government.

But the nagging question surrounding that figure is why a struggling city with more than $22 million of tax-exempt properties is able to collect only such a paltry sum when its needs are so great.

Tax-exempt properties, as well as groups and organizations that operate within the city, are provided the same city services that tax-paying properties receive. The fact that the tax-exempts don't legally have to pay doesn't mean that they need not feel any obligation to help the city financially.

Unfortunately, most of the city's tax-exempts are taking advantage of the freedom from taxation by not not giving and not considering the downside of that decision. The tax-exempts in question effectively turned a deaf ear to the efforts of former Mayor Leonard Pintell and former Councilman Joseph Bratkovich when they sought donations to help pay for police and fire coverage, as well as street repairs and other city services.

With a new era having begun on the city council — a new mayor took office this month, as well as two new council members — hopefully a new era also will begin in terms of tax-exempts' financial loyalty to the city. Hopefully, more of their consciences will dictate that they come forward with a donation, either designating the money for a specific use or for general city expenditures.

Meanwhile, there is nothing illegal about a person remembering the city in his or her will. Butler has done much for many people in terms of providing a place to work and achieve financial security. It would be uplifting if more people sought to give something back in appreciation for the opportunities that the city has made available over the years.

It was the city police department that benefited most from last year's donations. Of the $76,000 collected, $60,000 was donated specifically for the purchase of new surveillance cameras for the public safety building.

The remaining $16,000, most of which was donated by churches, was added to the city's general fund.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the city should be able to collect a minimum of $250,000 annually, if all potential sources of contributions would come forward in a spirit of generosity and concern for their city's well-being. Some people believe that the total could be significantly higher, and they're probably correct.

Financially strapped Pittsburgh collected more than $4 million in donations last year. While that probably is much less than that city's contributions potential, the figure collected shows that there is serious concern about the city's future.

Serious concern is not evident from Butler's 2005 donations figure. A measure of shame ought to be felt by those capable of helping but who have chosen to ignore the city's very-real needs.

Butler's financial picture is brightened by the availability of additional revenue from the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax, but that levy will not rescue the city from its fiscal plight and its inability to address many nagging needs.

A higher level of donations also is necessary and such a commitment should not be put off or ignored any longer.