New Florence council wants to pare street light costs
New Florence officials are exploring ways to cut the expense of powering the borough's 70 street lights, which cost about $137 each per year.
Councilwoman Kim Fuller this week suggested switching electricity providers to find a cheaper rate than the nearly $9,600 annually the borough is paying with First Energy.
Council President Kelly Luther suggested a streetlight audit and looking into passing on the cost of street lights and fire hydrants to residents.
Neighboring community Bolivar recently adopted a budget that eliminated its fire hydrant expense. Borough officials will ask Highridge Water Authority to charge residents up to $21 a year to cover the cost.
“It's something to talk about,” Luther said. “We take $800 a month out of liquid fuels (for street lights). We've got to start getting creative. We've always been able to afford (street lights), but times are changing.”
Council discussed the November election, when four members' seats will be open. Councilwoman Georgia Ludwig said she plans to seek re-election, but Sharon McGinnis and Roger Sheriff said they will not. Councilman Don Jones, whose term also ends this year, did not attend the meeting.
Candidates must circulate and file nominating petitions at the Westmoreland County Courthouse by March 13 for their names to appear on the May 21 primary election ballot.
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 â 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.