Facts on Brackenridge finances
Regarding the Dec. 5 article about Brackenridge water rates and taxes: Councilman William Beale seems to blame the cost of police protection as to why the borough has found itself in a deficit position. The deficit was not depicted in its entirety:
• While the borough did hire a new, full-time officer, Beale neglected to say we were exceeding our overtime and part-time police budgets before this hire. The cost for a new officer's salary is less than our budget overage.
• The almost $25,000 in unfunded police pension costs are being made up through officer and borough contributions.
• The $10,000 increase in workers' compensation should not be a borough expenditure. ATI pays the borough for additional police traffic detail. If any cost is incurred by the taxpayers, the blame falls to poor management of these fees.
• Solicitor Craig Alexander's fee is higher than other solicitors. In his short tenure, he has worked diligently for his salary. He saved us $300,000 by directing us toward debt refinancing, is available to council 24/7 and has kept the best interest of Brackenridge as his focus. Craig is the best solicitor we've ever had and well worth his salary.
Brackenridge Council is full of dedicated people, and each takes the position seriously. Continue doing your job, Mr. Beale, but please remember that half-facts and misleading information do not promote the borough's best interest.
The writer is mayor of Brackenridge.
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.