Plum School board postpones vote on preliminary budget
The Plum School Board on Tuesday night postponed consideration of a preliminary budget for the 2014-15 school year.
The vote was 5-4 to table a vote on a $58.1 million proposed spending plan that used nearly $800,000 in money from the district's reserve fund to balance it and did not include a tax increase. The proposed spending plan held the line on taxes at 18.758 mills.
The vote went along party lines with the five Republicans voting for the table while the four Democrats voted against it.
Board vice President Joe Tommarello made the motion to table consideration of the proposed budget.
“We believe there is a lot more information to digest,” Tommarello said. “There is still a lot to be figured out.”
Tommarello said some board members want to take another look at using nearly $800,000 in reserve money to balance the budget. Tommarello also wants to further explore board President Sal Colella's suggestion to raise taxes to the Act 1 index, give the money back to property owners and put them on notice that a tax increase to the index would be enacted for the 2015-16 school year.
Board member Tom McGough who has said the board needed to “move forward and get off dead center” with a preliminary budget and who voted against tabling consideration of a spending plan, said Wednesday that members will continue their work.
“It was tabled by the majority,” McGough said. “We will come back together as a team next month and go back over the budget item by item.”
The next finance committee meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. on May 21 in the board room at the high school, 900 Elicker Road.
Karen Zapf is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8753 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Plum budget holds taxes, but adds ‘flood mitigation fee’
- Plum Council OKs budget with no tax increase