By Tribune-Review

Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Updated: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

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.

1. What am I paying for?
2. Distorting or ill-informed
3. Sadly missed, fondly remembered
4. Enviro leftist tactics
5. Malak thanks
6. Multiple Bibles: It’s OK
7. Fox sarcasm
8. Spanier’s pay shameful
9. Faulty mindset
10. Local zoning essential
11. Guns a public health issue

There are currently no comments for this story.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.