Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Strabane supervisors revert to prior budget after proposed budget unavailable; staff warns of shortfall
Summary
Board members said the proposed budget will receive no action after the full document was not made public as required; staff reinstated the previously approved budget and projected a $250,746 shortfall, citing dwindling Act 13 funds and high lease/bond payments.
The South Strabane Township Board of Supervisors voted not to act on the proposed budget after staff said the full budget had not been made available to the public as required by law, reinstating the previously approved December budget as the governing document for township expenditures.
A staff member told the board that because the proposed budget was not posted online or available at the office, “the proposed budget… can no longer … it's void ab initio. So that means we're back to December.” The staff explanation referenced the township’s duty to make budget documents available under the Second Class Township Code (section 3202, subparagraph c), as noted at the meeting.
Township staff said they reviewed revenues line by line after reopening the budget and concluded that, without reducing expenditures, the township would face a projected shortfall of $250,746. “If we would not have adjusted the expenditures, we would have a shortfall of $250,746,” a staff member said during the meeting.
Board members and staff flagged several revenue pressures that shaped the decision. The board was told Act 13 funds — one-time energy-related distributions the township has used to balance prior budgets — are declining and cannot be relied on at prior levels. Supervisors also raised ongoing debt and lease obligations: one supervisor said lease and bond payments for equipment, vehicles and facilities total about $452,000 per year, putting additional pressure on operating funds.
Residents who addressed the board said the reversion did not necessarily restore services automatically. When a resident asked whether reversing to the December budget meant parks-and-recreation funding was back in place, supervisors replied that while the December budget is in effect, individual spending and program restorations still require board action and clear appropriation lines.
Next steps: staff said they will provide a detailed accounting of bills and expenditures made since the budget was reopened and recommended that board members proceed cautiously when relying on projected one-time revenues. The board did not take further budget action at the meeting.
