Little change in Whitehall budget
A status-quo budget has been approved for Whitehall Borough for 2013.
Few changes were made to the town's spending plan from last year, and no major capital projects are included in the budget, borough Manager James Leventry said.
“There's nothing in there that's out of the ordinary,” he said.
Whitehall Council last week, in a unanimous vote, approved a budget of $13,664,791 for 2013, which includes an $8.8 million general fund, $4.6 million sewer fund and $252,169 liquid fuels fund.
Council members, also in a unanimous vote, set the tax rate for this year at 4.32 mills, down from 5.5 mills in 2012.
Municipalities in Allegheny County are required to change their property tax rate to become “revenue neutral” based on the final certified reassessed valued of property, meaning they will not get any surplus funding from the court-ordered reassessments. That is what triggered the reduction in Whitehall's property taxes for 2013. Whitehall's total assessed property value for 2013 is $810 million. That is up from the roughly $650 million in 2012, Leventry said.
“We're very comfortable with the number and the millage rate that we came up with,” Leventry said.
Allegheny County municipalities were allowed to take a 5 percent “windfall” in 2013, something Whitehall officials opted against.
“Even though that is a reduction from our 5.5 mills last year, that is a neutral calculation,” Councilman Robert McKown said.
How the change in tax rate will affect Whitehall residents depends on the individual property owner's 2013 reassessments, Leventry said. Those who had an increase in their property value based on reassessments could be paying more, while those whose property values decreased in the reassessment process could pay less.
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.
- Jefferson Hills’ fall fest in 5th year
- Pleasant Hills sets ordinance banning farm animals
- Baldwin-Whitehall officials aim to stop ‘revolving door’
- Baldwin-Whitehall assistant superintendent lands new contract
- Bags, food can’t be brought into district facilities under new rules
- Brentwood council seems likely to vote for EMS provider
- Investigator begins review of Brentwood police department
- Caste Village festival boasts throwback rides