Can't afford project
The article “Costly bids may threaten project” (Nov. 2) stated that the lowest bid for East Vandergrift's sewage-separation project was $147,000 more than the funds available. This would have left council scrambling to find the extra money needed, so now the project will be rebid.
At the September council meeting, I presented a petition signed by 90 of our 300-plus residents stating that our little town could not afford the increase in the proposed sewage recovery fee. It would hike our monthly bill from $11 to $46, a 300-percent increase.
Many of our residents just can't afford this. The petition stated council should try to find more grant money to pay for the project so our residents won't bear such a burden.
When I presented this petition, council President James Staczak looked at it for a few seconds, then turned it upside down on his desk and it was never mentioned again.
You would think it would have gotten them scrambling to find more money in grants to help, but nothing was done.
Daniel T. Serena
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.
- Board’s-eye view
- Ask for help; don’t steal
- Thanks for the support
- Reward good service
- Majority defied
- Blame judges
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- ‘Trust’ in God
- Fitz draws ire
- Pols’ real interest