Aspinwall officials want to get most out of Council of Governments
Aspinwall officials want to get more out of the borough's membership with the Allegheny Valley North Council of Governments.
Aspinwall Council approved spending $7,700 on dues for 2013 but members want to analyze if they get their money's worth from being part of the organization.
Aspinwall is on the border between the Allegheny Valley North COG and the North Hills Council of Governments.
Sharpsburg, Fox Chapel and O'Hara belong to the North Hills organization. Councilman Joe Giuffre, the borough's representative for the COG, said the question of whether to change affiliations has been discussed in the past.
“We are right on the border,” Giuffre said. “This is something we look at every so often.”
Giuffre said the dues are not too different between the groups.
Councilman Kevin Gordon suggested paying the dues for 2013 but getting more from their membership.
“My impression is we continue to stay with the north COG but do a better job of trying to access some of the things we can get through them,” Gordon said.
Officials plan to ask Tom Benecki, executive director for the COG, to speak to council about what services are available to them.
Borough officials currently uses the COG to bid for its salt supply.
Grants and other opportunities could be available as well.
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.