A year-end ritual: Ho-hum budgeting
The year winds down in its inevitable fashion, our eyes fixed on the holidays that will arrive soon.
Equally traditional is the passage of budgets by borough councils and township supervisors around Armstrong County.
Rarely do the deliberations result in creative thought or public input. Though these decisions directly impact local real estate taxes and will have the most immediate effect on the quality of life in our hometowns, we say little about them. Public attendance is marginal. Few residents, if anyone, ever check the tentative budgets, and there are no letters to the editor.
Ford City is looking at a 1.5-mill property tax increase and Kittanning this week proposed a no-increase fiscal plan that makes some personnel changes, including the decision not to have a police chief once the current one retires and to use an “officer in charge” instead.
Budgeting is complicated, and meeting pension costs is one bugaboo. We never seem to get out of the morass, able to see any new direction for our communities that will take us to better, affordable police protection or ways to invigorate our housing stock and business districts.
The answers will never be easily found.
Yet our leaders must muster the energy and enthusiasm to find these solutions.
The deliberations of elected officials are the important part; the vote becomes secondary. Municipal leaders need to understand what the “public” aspect of “public official” means.
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.
- The Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
- ‘Diversity’ or discrimination?: A step back
- The MH17 tragedy: Putin’s duplicity