Despite an early start to this year’s budget process and every intention of actually getting a bud-get adopted before the end of the year, Bellevue officials hit a snag when it came time to vote on the first reading of the budget ordinance at Tuesday’s regular meeting.

Lingering concerns over a hefty increase in the sewer surcharge and salary increases were complicated by a change in adoption procedure introduced by the borough’s solicitor to send officials back to the drawing board before a substantive vote on the bud-get is taken, probably on Dec. 14.

The biggest hang-up in the budget adoption process came from the proposed change in the sewer surcharge. The budget is based on changing from a flat fee of $19 per property to a fee based on usage, charged at $3 per 1,000 gallons of water used in a quarter.

The surcharge originally was introduced as a way of funding repairs required by a federal administrative consent order (ACO) designed to stop the wet weather overflow of raw sewage into waterways.

Council member Jane Braunlich said that the borough’s engineer had estimated that meeting the ACO mandates in 2011 would cost $335,000. The sewer fund budget, however, she said, is “charging our citizens $585,000.”

The sewer fund budget also includes repayment of a portion of the borough’s bond issue, financing non-ACO mandated sewer projects such as the costly West Bellevue Station work required by the Allegheny County Health Department, and a $150,000 transfer to the borough’s general fund based on the cost of Bellevue renting its own public works equipment back to itself at rates of $50 and $100 per hour.

“I don’t like us fixing our budget with the sewer money,” Braunlich said.

Director of administrative services Doug Sample said that almost all of the expenditures listed in the sewer fund budget were necessary.

“The only luxury item in here is a sewer cam,” he said.

Sample said that the borough still owes ALCOSAN about $225,000 from 2009, when the borough did not pay the final quarter sewage bill.

Council member Mark Panichella said that the higher surcharge was necessary to compensate for delinquent sewage charges.

“I don’t want my tax dollars subsidizing sewage and water,” he said.

Braunlich argued that the surcharge should be used only for ACO-mandated work, as originally intended.

Council member Mark Helbling said that it would cost Bellevue more to hire outside contractors than rent DPW equipment to itself. He noted that the borough had been warned for years that its sewer fees would have to increase.

“Although it’s hard to swallow, it’s hard to beat,” Helbling said.

Sample said that at $3 per 1,000 gallons of water, Bellevue will be charging a fee that is average among Western Pennsylvania communities.
In a vote on the first reading of the budget ordinance, council voted down the spending plan -- or at least they thought they did.

The motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance failed in a 5-3 vote. Opposed were council members Braunlich, David Gillingham Jr., Susan Viscusi, Jim Viscusi and Linda Woshner. In favor were Lisa Blaney-Stewart, Helbling and Panichella. Council president Kathy Coder was absent.

Gillingham suggested holding another budget meeting.

“What are we going to accomplish that we haven’t already?” asked Sample “What’s going to change?”

Gillingham said that he wanted to surcharge lowered to $2 per 1,000 gallons of water.

“I’m not going to be part of a budget that puts the borough in a bind with the consent order,” Sample said. “I’m not going to be part of that.”

Council members also had problems with a 3 percent salary increase proposed in the budget for DPW supervisor Tony Barbarino. Woshner said that only one noncontract employee should be getting a raise in 2011, and that was because of a change in duties that increased her responsibilities. She pointed out that Barbarino had received an 8 percent salary increase in the current year’s budget, and that Bellevue was not adequately budgeting for street repairs.

“I wish I got that kind of raise,” council member Jim Viscusi said of the two-year, 11 percent proposed hike. His wife agreed.

“In this economy, and with what we’re trying to do, that’s unreasonable,” said Susan Viscusi.

At that point the budget waters became further muddied by procedural issues. In the past, Bellevue Council has conducted substantive votes on all three readings of an ordinance, with a negative vote on any of them resulting in the failure of the ordinance and council starting from the beginning of the adoption process.

Solicitor Tom McDermott, however, said that not only could council vote to reconsider the ordinance at that particular meeting, but that, in fact, no vote on the substance of the ordinance was required on either the first or second readings.

McDermott said that the borough’s administrative code specifically says that the first reading of an ordinance is for informational purposes, and that the ordinance is automatically tabled after the second reading. The code, he says, makes no reference to votes, and that a “fair interpretation” of the language would be that only council’s vote on the third reading affects the adoption of the ordinance.

A motion to reconsider the ordinance was approved in a 7-1 vote with Braunlich opposed, then council voted to table the ordinance until Dec. 14, when a special meeting will be held at 6 p.m., prior to the 7 p.m. work session, to discuss the budget.