TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Cheswick VFC: No real savings

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Letter to the Editor
Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

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!

Joe Ferrero

Cheswick

The writer is the president of the Cheswick Volunteer Fire Co.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Improve diabetes education
  2. International hurt USW locals
  3. Indians true victims
  4. Sickened by politicians
  5. Much to explain
  6. Physician-data danger
  7. Not impartial
  8. Burden eased
  9. No concessions by ATI top management
  10. ATI unfair
  11. Anatomy of the pension fiasco