Share This Page

Apollo-Ridge raises hurt taxpayers

| Saturday, July 12, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

The Apollo-Ridge School Board hit property taxpayers with a double whammy on June 26.

The board voted to increase expenditures to $22.89 million and raised taxes by 2.1 mills for Armstrong County property owners. The board also — unfortunately for the struggling taxpayers — sought counsel from the National Education Association (NEA), an anti-traditional family, liberal labor union. It took the NEA's recommendation to increase the district's starting teacher salary from $31,000 to $35,000. This move did not reflect the economy of the Apollo-Ridge district or the ability of its dwindling taxpaying population's ability to pay.

The NEA is an outside policy driver that will feel no pain from this decision, but taxpayers will. Making the taxpayers' wounds even more painful, the 2014-15 budget contains unaffordable pay increases for administration employees. Taxpayers were already saddled with a continuing debt burden from the elementary school and the football stadium.

We are not in a blossoming local economy prepared to pay more. Apollo-Ridge and Armstrong County have a depleted business and industry job base. That leaves a limited population to fund these unjustified wage hikes for A-R employees.

To bring taxpayer relief, call your state legislators and ask them to push for passage of HB 1722. This bill will help alleviate increasing pension costs. And when teacher layoffs are necessary, they will be based on teacher performance in the classroom — not on seniority.

Regina Liermann

Kiski

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.