Judge OKs Monroeville request to raise property taxes above state limit
By Kyle Lawson
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013, 5:33 p.m.
An Allegheny County Common Pleas judge on Wednesday approved a tax rate hike for Monroeville that exceeds a state anti-windfall provision.
The increased millage will generate about $1.4 million more this year than the 5 percent annual increase in revenue state law allows following a property reassessment. Municipal solicitor Bruce Dice said Monroeville Council's argument was strong because elected officials were faced with two options: either increase millage or reduce municipal services.
He said if residents are unhappy with an increase this year, “The remedy is at the ballot box.”
Council last month agreed to petition Common Pleas Court to allow the municipality to raise its tax rate by an additional 0.547 mills, bringing total millage to 2.431. Judge Judith L.A. Friedman issued the ruling.
The owner of a property assessed at $100,000 will pay $243 in municipal property taxes this year, compared to last year's $220 at the previous millage.
To balance this year's budget, council first raised taxes an additional 0.084 mills this month, plus the 0.547 it sought from the court.
Council is expected to vote on the court-approved increase March 7.
Kyle Lawson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400 or at 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.
- Kovacevic: Big Ben’s contract clock ticking
- Westmoreland County Courthouse in Greensburg to be featured in TV series
- Robert Morris University Polling Institute poll finds value of college in doubt
- Talented center Sutter is proving to be ‘pretty important’ for Penguins
- Parking tickets in Downtown Pittsburgh spark outrage
- Ailing Downtown August Wilson Center awaits rescue; no real estate offers yet
- Democratic governor candidate Wagner remains confident amid skepticism
- Junior ROTC program a training ground
- Western Pennsylvania engineer aboard missing Malaysia Airlines flight
- Tax refund promise led Ligonier Valley High School teacher to second career as corgi breeder
- School board debates dress code