Whitehall Council expected to vote on budget Wednesday
Adjustments will be made to Whitehall Borough's 2013 millage in an attempt to offset an increase in total assessed property values for the town that occurred due to court-mandated countywide reassessments.
Whitehall Borough Manager James Leventry this week said he spoke with county officials and received the municipality's total value for property assessments, which now will enable the community to set its 2013 millage.
Whitehall's total assessed property value for 2013 is $809,901,000. That is up from the roughly $600 million in 2012, Leventry said.
Municipalities in Allegheny County must change their property tax rate to become “revenue neutral” based on the final certified reassessed values of properties, meaning they will not get any surplus funding from the court-ordered reassessments. However, towns can take a 5-percent “windfall,” something Whitehall officials have said they do not plan to do.
Whitehall's “revenue neutral” millage will be 4.073, Leventry said. The municpiality's 2012 real estate tax rate was 5.5 mills.
Municipalities in Allegheny County have until Jan. 31 to pass their final budgets and set their millage rates, thanks to an extention granted by Senior Common Pleas Court Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr.
Whitehall Council members will vote on the municipality's 2013 budget and new property tax rate at their meeting Wednesday, Leventry said.
Council members and borough officials at their meeting last week raised concerns about the passage of the final budget, because at the time they had not received final certified numbers from the county, they said.
Leventry told council members that Whitehall officials had received a CD that individually listed the reasessment values for each property in Whitehall, totalling more than 6,200 parcells. It also included properties that were tax exempt and had no totals, he said.
“They just said, ‘here you go. Here's your evaluation,'” he said.
An email received by the borough about three weeks before that showed that the town had about 320 appeals still pending, he said.
Stars and nativity scenes were popular decorations in Whitehall this holiday season, Councilwoman Kathy DePuy told her colleagues last week, as she handed out the awards to residents in attendance for the borough's 2012 house decorating contest.
“This is the fun time of the year,” DePuy said.
Fifteen residents each were asked to drive throughout a portion of the borough this holiday season and nominate their favorite decorations and displays for the contest, DePuy said. Then, a committee, made up of borough officials and one of DePuy's 12-year-old relatives, visited each of the nominated homes — totalling three pages this year — to decide the winners.
This year's winners were:
Best Overall Display: Doreen Valentine, 4850 Old Boston Road; Best Colored Lights: James and Kathleen Peelor, 5045 Azalea Drive; Most Fun Display: Susan Gonano, 50 Windvale Drive; Best Nativity: Donald and Jeannie Kemmler, 5345 Orchard Hill Drive; Best Star: Richard and Mary Debski, 1019 Varner Road; and honorable mentions: Tracey Ruscitto, 221 Maxwell Drive and Kenneth and Kristin Figura, 125 Audbert Drive.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 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.
- Baldwin settles lawsuit for $7,500
- Overgrown trees leave Brentwood residents frustrated
- Baldwin Borough pool closes for repairs, residents may use Brentwood pool
- Study explores potential changes to busy Route 51 corridor
- Pleasant Hills family’s beach vacation takes tragic turn
- Shaler senior places 1st in Desktop Application Programming category of national conference
- Highlander Summer Camps allow kids to explore interests
- Officials take first step to transform vacant Brentwood properties
- Baldwin Borough Council looks to clarify zoning rules
- Grant to be used for Baldwin park improvements