posted by Joe Polk at 11:06 AM /
Mt. Lebanon officials on Monday released a proposed $28 million budget for 2011 that includes a new monthly fee for storm sewer repairs and a .48-mill property tax increase for road repairs.
Raising taxes would require the commissioners to overturn an ordinance they approved this year that prohibits increases for road projects. The municipality needs $1.8 million to rebuild a mile of roadway each year, but it has spent about half that each of the past two years, Municipal Manager Steve Feller said.
Read the full article:
Raising taxes would require the commissioners to overturn an ordinance they approved this year that prohibits increases for road projects. The municipality needs $1.8 million to rebuild a mile of roadway each year, but it has spent about half that each of the past two years, Municipal Manager Steve Feller said.
Read the full article:
- www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_707132.html (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
Labels: municipal budget, stephen feller
10 Comments:
All the more reason the commissioners should vote NO for the shared parking agreement. The judge said the project should be scaled back which the School Board is not doing. A vote of NO could help offset school tax increases ahead and municipal storm sewer fees and property tax increases.
Elaine Gillen
Let’s be honest, the Judge did not tell the SB to scale back the size of the project. Instead, the Judge determined that the Zoning Board did not commit an error of law, abuse its discretion or make findings that were not supported by the evidence when it denied the variance. That was the extent of the Judge’s standard of review. As part of this analysis, the Judge noted that the SB did not introduce evidence (as is required to get a variance) regarding alternative designs or undue hardship. Please – everyone – stop polluting the discussion with half truths and misinformation.
And besides, we all know that the real reason for the tax increase is the fact that we have too many young families, with too many meddling kids, who go to too many schools and play too many sports!!!
(wink...wink...nudge...nudge)
Mr. Franklin,
How do you interpret this:
"The School District failed to establish that it would be unreasonably difficult or more expensive to have a smaller athletic building or a six lane swimming pool. These amenities are not necessary to create a modernized high school although they might be preferred by the community."
?
It forms the basis for Ms. Gillen's statement, "The judge said the project should be scaled back..."
Let's be honest, you left out that part of Judge James' ruling because it does not support your argument. David Huston
OK, how about this?
All the more reason the commissioners should vote NO for the shared parking agreement. On page seven of the Order of the Court, Judge James writes on October 12, 2010, “Specifically, the project includes a large athletic building and an eight lane swimming pool. The School District failed to establish that it would be unreasonably difficult or more expensive to have a smaller athletic building or a six lane swimming pool. These amenities are not necessary to create a modernized high school although they might be preferred by the community.”
A vote of NO could help offset school tax increases ahead for these amenities that are not necessary for a modernized high school, municipal storm sewer fees and property tax increases.
Elaine Gillen
Sigh . . . why do I bother?
Mr. Huston, I wasn't making an argument. My reasons for explaining the standard of review were to point out that Judge James's only task was to determine whether the Zoning Board acted correctly, and not to perform his own independent evaluation of the project. If you want to interpret those 2 sentences as Judge James affirmatively stating that the plans "should be scaled back," I guess you're entitled to that interpretation. However, I'm relatively certain that Judge James would not agree with that interpretation simply because such an evaluation was outside of his scope of review. In fact, Judge James even notes in his Opinion that “the School District would be permitted to enlarge or expand the building as long as the enlargement or expansion cured the nonconformity.” In other words, Judge James could care less about the size of the project. His job was to review the decision of the Zoning Period – nothing more, nothing less.
Dave Franklin is right we have too many kids playing too many sports. Let’s fund raise or charge user fees to cover the additional expense of all those sports or shut down the number of sports. Then we won’t need as many fields or the maintenance expense that goes with them.
Not to get off topic, but Mr. Ewing you're cordially invited to attend the next meeting of either the Soccer, Baseball or Football Association as my guest. You can hear and read about all of the money we raise, the grants that we apply for, what we do independently of the municipality or the school district to maintain the facilities that we use and how it all goes to improve the kids in our community. Let me know when I should pick you up.
Mr. Franklin the dollars you are raising now are the result of past boards refusing to fund sports and building maintenance so they could fund the teachers contract instead. The athletic supporters would better use their time to fund raise for the field house as they indicated. Where is the $8-Million dollar fundraiser?
I would enjoy a round of golf with you though.
Sorry Mr. Ewing, I'm not sure I could handle 4 hrs of redundant negativity - even on the golf course. I'd rather you come to a meeting and meet the folks you continue to bash.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong with what I am going to say.
I seem to remember hearing Bill Baldwin speak at a Republican Committee Meeting around 1990, shortly after he became the Municipal Manager. Bill told us that our budget was going to be about $20MM and that we were buying a $500,000 fire truck that year.
So, here we are, almost 21 years later and the proposed municipal budget is $28MM.
In contrast, I seem to remember the school district budget increasing by a factor or four over that same period of time (from about $20MM in 1990 to around $80MM today).
If I am incorrect, please tell me.
How can the municipality control their costs and maintain generally good police, fire, etc services; while our school district continues to spend more money, and the student achievement is in decline.
What's happening in our community? Why do we let this continue?
Post a Comment
<< Home