so Council approved hiring an "environmental specialist" for $45,000 instead of having a SEO inspect approximately 60 in ground tanks on the outskirts of town??? this is in the best interest of the majority of the taxpayers???? seems to me they SHOULD have replaced GENERAL LABOR PERSONNEL IN BOTH HIGHWAY & WASTEWATER DEPTS INSTEAD.
If, by SEO, you mean Safety Engineering Officer, wouldn't that position command a higher salary that that of an "environmental specialist" (whatever that is)? I'm wondering about these "in-ground" tanks. Are they septic tanks? If so, why aren't those properties hooked into the borough sewer system? Why are taxpayers being charged for the inspection of these tanks? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the property owners? Maybe I'm missing something.
SEO stands for Sewage Enforcement Officer. I would imagine there are properties on the fringes of town that are not hooked into the public sewer system. According to the article, there are about 60 properties. This makes no sense to me. Many rural townships enter into a contract with a private SEO to handle their needs and they have hundreds of properties without public sewer. Take West Hempfield for example....this copied from their budget summary for 2012: "The Township appoints a sewage enforcement officer (S.E.O.) to provide the necessary testing to permit on-lot sewage systems per D.E.P. requirements. The S.E.O. also responds as needed to inspect failing systems and recommends corrective action. The cost for our S.E.O. was changed from a paid monthly salary to a payment for actual services performed, thereby reducing our overall costs in this account." In 2012, West Hempfield budgeted $ 3,600.00 for this service. Why in heck do we need to hire a full time person at $45,000.00, and I assume benefits, to perform this function. I would have to believe West Hempfield has many more septic tanks than Columbia. Something does not seem right.
Columbia could save a lot by following West Hempfield's example. I wonder if the borough considered all options before making their decision. Thanks for the info.
i agree with post from 11/28 @ 8:38....i smell something shitty WHY WHY would they hire mgmt position $45,000 to inspect a few in ground tanks??? the owner of those properties should pay ANY qualified SEO to perform that needed inspection.....is this in the best interests of the majority of us taxpaying residents. NO,,,no...it is NOT. what is the real deal here and what is really the reason for this??? and we elect these councilors to approve such nonsense? we need our heads examined. as it stands, highway doesn't perform the scheduled and advertised leaf pickup and street sweeping because they don't have enough personnel....and council hires more mgmt? shame on them for NOT doing their homework. anything Norm says goes ????? wow - that's scary but true. wake up people. i'm moving out. lived here all my life. i can NOT afford the taxes, the games, the bs, the lying, no one is for the average joe taxpayer.it's all about spending money we do NOT have and for things we can NOT afford-take the Riverpark for example. there's more. much more.
8 comments:
so Council approved hiring an "environmental specialist" for $45,000 instead of having a SEO inspect approximately 60 in ground tanks on the outskirts of town??? this is in the best interest of the majority of the taxpayers???? seems to me they SHOULD have replaced GENERAL LABOR PERSONNEL IN BOTH HIGHWAY & WASTEWATER DEPTS INSTEAD.
If, by SEO, you mean Safety Engineering Officer, wouldn't that position command a higher salary that that of an "environmental specialist" (whatever that is)?
I'm wondering about these "in-ground" tanks. Are they septic tanks? If so, why aren't those properties hooked into the borough sewer system? Why are taxpayers being charged for the inspection of these tanks? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the property owners? Maybe I'm missing something.
SEO stands for Sewage Enforcement Officer. I would imagine there are properties on the fringes of town that are not hooked into the public sewer system. According to the article, there are about 60 properties. This makes no sense to me. Many rural townships enter into a contract with a private SEO to handle their needs and they have hundreds of properties without public sewer. Take West Hempfield for example....this copied from their budget summary for 2012: "The Township appoints a sewage enforcement officer (S.E.O.) to provide the necessary testing to permit on-lot sewage systems per D.E.P. requirements. The S.E.O. also responds as needed to inspect failing systems and recommends corrective action. The cost for our S.E.O. was changed from a paid monthly salary to a payment for actual services performed, thereby reducing our overall costs in this account." In 2012, West Hempfield budgeted $ 3,600.00 for this service. Why in heck do we need to hire a full time person at $45,000.00, and I assume benefits, to perform this function. I would have to believe West Hempfield has many more septic tanks than Columbia. Something does not seem right.
Columbia could save a lot by following West Hempfield's example. I wonder if the borough considered all options before making their decision.
Thanks for the info.
i agree with post from 11/28 @ 8:38....i smell something shitty
WHY WHY would they hire mgmt position $45,000 to inspect a few in ground tanks??? the owner of those properties should pay ANY qualified SEO to perform that needed inspection.....is this in the best interests of the majority of us taxpaying residents. NO,,,no...it is NOT. what is the real deal here and what is really the reason for this??? and we elect these councilors to approve such nonsense? we need our heads examined.
as it stands, highway doesn't perform the scheduled and advertised leaf pickup and street sweeping because they don't have enough personnel....and council hires more mgmt? shame on them for NOT doing their homework. anything Norm says goes ????? wow - that's scary but true.
wake up people. i'm moving out. lived here all my life. i can NOT afford the taxes, the games, the bs, the lying, no one is for the average joe taxpayer.it's all about spending money we do NOT have and for things we can NOT afford-take the Riverpark for example. there's more. much more.
The borough's decision doesn't make a lot of sense, considering the other options available.
so why do our elected officials say yes yes yes to everything???
Good question. I wish I had the answer.
Post a Comment