Newcomers, incumbent win Pleasant Hills council seats | TribLIVE.com
South Hills

Newcomers, incumbent win Pleasant Hills council seats

1907774_web1_shr-LECKENBY-103119
Courtesy Nicole Leckenby
Newcomer Nicole Leckenby received 23% of the votes for a seat on Pleasant Hills Council.

A mix of newcomers and incumbents alike prevailed in a race for Pleasant Hills council that saw two incumbents lose their bids for reelection, according to unofficial results.

In the race for three open four-year seats, newcomer Andy Codelka, who appeared on both the Democratic and Republican ballots, was the top vote-getter with nearly 32% of the votes.

Newcomer Nicole Marie Leckenby, a Democrat who was nominated by the Pleasant Hills Democratic committee to appear on the ballot after council President Dan Soltesz withdrew from the race, came in second with 23% of the votes.

Incumbent Gregory Smith, a Republican, rounded out the winners with 22% of the vote.

They beat out incumbent Justin Horvat, a Democrat, who had 22% of the vote, according to unofficial results.

In the race for one, two-year seat on borough council, newcomer Eileen Solinas, a Republican, bested incumbent Matthew Miceli, a Democrat, to secure the win.

Solinas received 54% of the vote, while Miceli received 46% of the vote.

All results are unofficial until certified by the Allegheny County Elections Division.

Categories: Local | South Hills
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.