November's Meeting: Ah the Budget

It was great seeing all the newly elected council members at the meeting and there was a fairly large turn out. 

Budget

I voted to advertise the Budget but I am not going to vote for the Budget.  It is not sustainable.  I am going to briefly describe what I mean by Sustainability.  As an aside I am currently working on three potential webinars for PSAB to introduce three aspects of this term.  The great thing for politicians is this buzzword is flexible and it can mean anything or nothing and being used without a firm context can make the user of the word appear like they are in the political know.  Here is how I mean the word when I use it:

Sustainability is using today's resources to satisfy all basic needs and reasonable wants without depriving future generations the same opportunities to meet their basic needs and reasonable wants while considering the three main pillars of Social, Environmental, and Economic factors and maintaining no net loss of those resources.

I have no idea what other council members have in mind when they use the term.  

After all essentials were budgeted we were approximately $10,000 over expected income.  As an aside remember even doubling the per capita tax to the maximum allowable by law would only yield approximately $9,000.  We made the $10,000 disappear by reducing amounts for gas for vehicles, electricity, building maintenance, tool expenditures, and vehicle maintenance.  Any unexpected expenses in these areas or exceedances in the cushion amount for public safety and we are in for some real issues.  This is the icing on the cake on my views of why the budget is unsustainable but the key factors prior to this realization where:

• No budgeting for Planning.
• No budgeting for Council Education and Training.
• No Budgeting for Community Development
• No Budgeting for Economic Development
• There is no budget for Grant acquisitions- By this I mean money set aside to meet any necessary matches for funding opportunities.

Sewage

Yes, I made the proposal to raise the sewage rate $4.00 and I was removed from the Sewage committee for bad behavior.  Did, I want to raise it?  Heck, No!!  I don't want to pay more!!!  By ignoring or not taking initiative will not make problems go away.  Ignoring them will compound the issue, weaken the infrastructure and make Delmont less desireable.  For anyone that wants to write to me and complain feel free.  Nothing that could be said to me would be worse than when I told my wife what I did.  I have to live with her and still do.

I would also like to comment on a point made by Ms. Rebitch about the issue on the Rock Springs Trust Property.  She made a comment about the inconsistency of inspections of the area being made at the property after a substantial rain event by Borough employees that was made by a former Sewer Committee Chairman a number of years ago.  In all honesty, I was never aware of that requirement when I served in the position either.  In my view this pointed out a much larger issue that transcends Borough operations.  That is a need for a Policy, Procedure, or Operations manual of some sort to remind everyone of things that have been said or down by previous Council members that are still current although Council has changed.  If I had $1 for every time I heard Phrases like: "Did we do that?"  "Where we suppose to do that?", "We did what?", "Wasn't that how it was always done?", "Who was responsible for that before?", and put that $1 in the General Fund I doubt we would have had to shave off that $10,000.  More writing and documentation may not always be fun and can add a bit of administrative burden and maybe slight cost, but it would be the right thing to do in all areas of Borough Administration and not just with sewage practices.  

Zoning Ordinance Adoption 

I know it is not necessary for me to explain my reasons for proposing or voting the way I do on certain issues, well any issue.  I have been involved with this project from the very beginning ( I view it a vital piece of the planning process.  Many would argue that the Plan should come before the Zoning Ordinance.  Any progress is welcome and beneficial to Delmont as a whole).  I have spent many hours reading and thinking about the consequences of this Ordinance from all perspectives.  I was a bit taken back when Becky Matsesevac implied I was giving special consideration to Kelley's Auto over Thompson Machinery's request.  1) The request of Thompson was the same as another stipulation that Kelley's and Manordale Tire would have liked to see as well.  I thought the slight modifications that were made to address the C-1 and C-2 Designations were more than reasonable for the initial Ordinance.  2) The request made by Kelly's service has been going on for decades and is part of present day use.  3)  The C-1 and C-2 controversy are  based on future as yet undetermined impact on sale of property and consideration of other uses.  When I studied the various uses in the categories and available land for use it seemed highly unlikely, in my judgement, that the designation difference would not substantially reduce the property owner's ability to make money on the sale of the property. 4) The Thompson request directly affects three properties that are being used as primary residence.  5)  Nothing is in stone and land uses can be challenged at any time.  It is always easier to have stricter standards to start a process, then to have less strict initial requirements and try to stop an activity after it started.  6)  There is no standard that everyone would find 100% acceptable, a lot of time, money, and energy went into this project it was time to move forward.

I took the time to explain my reasoning because it is important to me that you the people I have the pleasure of representing spend a lot of time researching and studying important issues.  I like to have a solid base of information to base my decisions and votes upon.  I will make mistakes because I am human but I will always strive to serve your interests the best I can.

Resolution Roulette 

To me this was the most comical part of the whole meeting.  Serving on the Policy and Resolutions Committee for Westmoreland County's representation at PSAB I have been aware of the push to allow local governments (aka: Delmont Council and others) more say so over the ability of utility companies to place small antennas and cellular signal boosting devices on utility poles.  

Before I go on explaining more about this particular issue, I want to make a comment about the irony of deciding not to support this resolution by highlighting a citizen's comment, who was once on Borough Council, about the Municipal Planing Code.  I am paraphrasing the sentiment of the remark the best my memory allows me.  If I miss the sentiment in the meaning of the question, I hope this citizen will contact me and tell me I screwed up.  It goes something like this, "Why do we have to allow areas for those kinds of businesses or structures when we don't want them in Delmont?"  One reason is because people, even local officials, do not always know what is going on in higher levels of government, nor how it could effect them.  Furthermore, they may have information, but for whatever reason do no act on it.  The result is legislation is passed, and we like the citizen paraphrased above are asking How? or Why did that happen?

I did not make any reports to counsel because: 1)I didn't think there was any interest.  This is not to imply that Counsel necessarily lacks interest in what is happening at the State level, but the reality is that it is difficult to keep abreast of developments within the Borough. 2) I really didn't think Counsel would be interested in what I had to say. 3) In all honesty I viewed passage of the Resolution as symbolic only and not having a chance to succeed based on the strength of utility lobby.  On a personal note, I feel that utilities become monopolies, they don't really have to worry about customer service, they provided services deemed necessary so they can do almost anything they want with little recourse.  Some utility companies do try to provide good service and have good relations with customers, but if there are any issues with their delivery systems and property rights.  They don't care about the property rights so that the least costly option for them is exploited.  Communications seem to me to be the worst offenders of not caring on multiple levels.  Consequently, I believe strongly that local authorities ought to have say in where and how the placement of these antennas is accomplished within it jurisdiction.

Now the part I find amusing.   I was ecstatic that Becky had the Solicitor draft a Resolution, my best guest is this action cost between $150-$175 unless it is included somewhere else to support this activity, and when I moved to pass it she didn't even support, by seconding, the resolution she drafted.  When I called her on this at the meeting the Solicitor responded something like, " That is ok, she wanted to see what it looked like in a Resolution."  I would say get the facts and decide how you feel about an issue before having the Solicitor draft it.  I will have  to say that Dave Weber made some interesting points that I was ignorant of, but like most people didn't necessarily process he said something like, " Coming from the Telecommunications Industry......"  This statement has two very important points to keep in mind 1) He is a subject matter expert and has more knowledge on the subject then I do, and 2)  His subconscious bias could be arguing for the industry he served for so many years.  Right or wrong by bias is for autonomy in local governance as much as practicable.  Another possible issue and I studied this when I worked for a cellular carrier is the radiation associated with cellular phone use.  I believe the research that indicates that cancer could develop from use of this technology, but weighing all the evidence and probabilities of it happening to me, I choose to still use my phone.  Would I like these antani devices close to schools and playgrounds? No!, but that is my opinion based on my interpretation of the data I have read.

Recreational Survey

It was ironic that our Solicitor asked Stan if an informal recreational survey would be comprehensive enough to obtain funding.  Why am I even mentioning this in my blog?  Simple this information could be part of the Master plan of how we want Delmont to grow and develop.

Conclusion

One ting that concerned me was when I had some constituents ask me why it appeared that members of Counsel are afraid to talk and lead discussions on issues.  I told them that I wasn't sure but that I would have no problem presenting the concerns that citizens ask me to present, or discussing any issues that I think will make Delmont a better place.

As always if you have any feedback feel free to contact me at david4delmont@gmail.com.