Incumbents retain Penn Hills council seats
Penn Hills Municipal Council incumbent candidates Sara Kuhn and J-Lavon Kincaid, both Democrats, held onto their seats in Tuesday's election.
Kuhn, who also serves as deputy mayor, had 31 percent of the vote. Kincaid had 29 percent, with all 50 precincts reporting.
The remaining votes were split between Republican challengers Brent Rambo (19 percent) and Linda Rupert (21 percent).
The challengers' showing is the best a pair of Republican council candidates has done since 2009, when James McCollum and Lawrence Paladin Jr. took 23 and 20 percent of the vote in a race against Kincaid and Kuhn.
Kincaid said he was “honored and humbled” to have been reelected.
“It's an honor to serve with the mayor and current council, and to have the support of the committee-people who work so hard for our election,” Kincaid said.
“In the next four years we'll continue more of the same in terms of good government,” he added. “Keeping the budget balanced, which we've been able to do; having accountability on behalf of taxpayers' dollars, and also to keep taxes down, which we've managed to do.”
In total, 5,064 votes were cast at the 50 precincts in Penn Hills.
All results are unofficial until certified by the Allegheny County Division of Elections.
Patrick Varine is an editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7845 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.