Baldwin officials trim early budget numbers
Adjustments and alterations to an early draft of Baldwin Borough's 2013 budget enabled officials to reduce a proposed $1 million deficit by nearly $700,000.
Borough Manager John Barrett told council members last week during a special budget meeting that there were several options that would take a proposed deficit in 2013 of $1,059,742 to about $346,134.
Yet, the preliminary budget — with $11.3 million in revenues and $11.7 million in expenditures in the general fund — remains unbalanced.
“Really there's two ways to do it: increase revenues or decrease expenditures,” Barrett said.
Due to a countywide reassessment, all municipalities in the region must pass an equalization ordinance that would adjust its millage to become “revenue neutral,” Barrett said.
Municipalities do have the option to take 5 percent additional real estate tax revenue during the millage adjustment, he said.
Barrett said the additional 5 percent would generate $333,000 in revenue for Baldwin in 2013.
This draft of Baldwin's budget also allows for the borough to have a $600,000 surplus in the 2012 budget, up from the initially anticipated $400,000.
It also allows for a transfer of $118,848 from the Highway Aid fund to the general fund, money that could be used for several projects including roads, officials said.
Yet, a reduction in streetlights this year and minimal use of rock salt last winter allowed for this “unique” savings, Barrett said.
With extra money still being needed to balance the budget, council members said one option could be to require cuts to all department budgets, possibly as much as 2 percent.
Council members will hold additional budget meetings at 6 p.m. on Tuesday and Oct. 23 and Nov. 13.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.