Cheswick VFC: No real savings
Some Cheswick councilors routinely misrepresent the borough's fire protection budget; therefore, we must respond with a budget analysis.
Be aware that none of the “budgeted“ funds actually go directly to the fire company. Besides normal operating costs, the funds pay for hydrant repairs, communication upgrades, capital purchases, supplies, etc., many of which have little expense or have never been used in the past. For example, $1,800 is “budgeted” for capital purchases; however, those funds were not spent 2011 and 2012. The fire chief generally receives a stipend of $200 versus a budgeted amount of $1200. The fire hydrant repair budget is $1,700. If fire services are subcontracted, what does that mean for hydrant repairs, etc.? Will these costs be incurred by the subcontractor fire department?
The fire service's actual operating costs (insurances, gas, repairs) should be used to compare costs instead of a budgeted number. In 2011, the actual expenditures were $9,994 versus a budget of $16,725. In 2012, actual spending was $10,631 versus a budgeted $16,536. Both were well below the budget.
The subcontractor's bid is $8,900. Where is this great savings?
Do Cheswick taxpayers want their dollars going to an outside contractor for virtually the same cost? You be the judge!
The writer is the president of the Cheswick Volunteer Fire Co.
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.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Thanks for the coverage
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Russia, not Rice
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- Article painted wrong picture
- Blame judges