Penn-Trafford officials consider lobbying for restoration of PlanCon
After sending a message to state officials regarding prevailing wage requirements, Penn-Trafford officials might target the state's construction-reimbursement program next.
District officials said that next month they might decide to officially encourage state legislators to restore funding for the Planning and Construction Workbook, known as PlanCon.
With a $32-million construction project on the horizon, district officials estimate they could be eligible for $8 million to $10 million in state funding if state officials lift a moratorium that has been in place since 2012.
“Every help we can get, we appreciate it,” Superintendent Matt Harris said.
With no guarantee of reimbursement in sight — despite an application on record with the state — the school board has been issuing bonds to raise money for construction at the high school. State officials say districts are awaiting payments for more than 350 projects.
State Rep. George Dunbar, R-Penn Township, is a cosponsor of a bill that would release funding to districts and impose some PlanCon reforms.
“I can't say for certain where it's going to go, but, at least, it's being talked about,” Dunbar said.
Chris Foreman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8671, 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.