Looking ahead: Not enough local planning
Kittanning Council last week voted 7-0 (with one member absent) to pay more than $71,000 into the police pension fund. There really wasn't anything else the council could do.
Later, members voted 6-1 to give Hose Co. 4 credit for $4,500 for a maintenance expense carried over from last year. It will restore the money to the hose company's coffers when it can.
There also were some comments that the borough's finances are in pretty good shape. Some other, lesser business was discussed, and the meeting was adjourned.
For another month in Kittanning — as is typical with most municipal boards — there was no discussion about the future.
The public deserves more than the consensus that so long as we're paying our bills, we're OK.
In Kittanning, for now, the pension fund beast will be fed and a financial issue for one of three fire companies will be taken care of. But will any council member press for a dialogue on pension reform? Will there be any discussion about the efficiency of having three hose companies in Kittanning?
No, of course not. Those cans get kicked down the road.
And speaking of roads, some of the street surfaces in Kittanning are horrendous. But there are plans afoot to beautify the main street and maybe change some traffic patterns.
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.