Contractors working in developments funded by Allegheny County may soon be asked to verify that their laborers are cleared to work in the United States.
Allegheny County Council has passed a bill that would require contractors to run their employees’ names through a federal database, to make sure they’re working legally.
Sponsoring Councilman Ed Kress says the legislation is meant to make sure the County’s contractors don’t “cheat” by paying illegal workers less than the federal minimum wage.
The “E-Verify” bill only applies to projects using more than $100,000 in public funds.
Kress says the bill fits in with the county’s history of supporting the labor movement.
“Illegal immigration is diametrically opposed to the labor movement, because the labor movement was about improving the conditions of the workers, improving the wages. Illegal immigration doesn’t do that,” says Kress. “It suppresses the wages. It exploits the workers.”
Kress says while most employees are confirmed by the internet database within a day, anybody who isn’t has time to prove their legal working status.
Showing posts with label Allegheny County Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allegheny County Council. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Naming Rights to County Parks, Bridges Could Be Sold
An Allegheny County Councilman wants to give corporations the opportunity to buy naming rights for some county property, a deal he says could yield millions of dollars.
The legislation from Councilman Ed Kress has two parts: first, to order an evaluation of the assets whose naming rights could be sold; and second, to create a “Department of Alternative Revenue” in the county administration to broker the deals.
Kress says those measures would be similar to actions taken by the City of San Diego when they started selling naming rights in 1999. He says since then, San Diego has generated about $20 million in revenue from naming rights.
The at-large Councilman says for example, Pepsi could be the sponsor of Allegheny County’s nine parks.
“The way the agreement probably would work is that they’d be [able] to direct market in all the parks, so only Pepsi products would be sold at the parks,” says Kress. “It’s a win situation for the county because we’re bringing in revenue from another company, another source, but it’s a win for the company that pays the money because they’re going to generate more profit.”
He says he doesn’t think the county would be inundated with too many corporate names, because companies could opt to sponsor the naming of a park or bridge after an individual. He says they might also name the asset for a phrase associated with their company (for example, he says, McDonalds could name the “Golden Arches Bridge”).
The Councilman recently introduced a similar bill to sell naming rights for county bridges.
Kress says the county has a “revenue problem” that he is trying to fix through a voluntary payment system, rather than through raising property taxes.
The legislation from Councilman Ed Kress has two parts: first, to order an evaluation of the assets whose naming rights could be sold; and second, to create a “Department of Alternative Revenue” in the county administration to broker the deals.
Kress says those measures would be similar to actions taken by the City of San Diego when they started selling naming rights in 1999. He says since then, San Diego has generated about $20 million in revenue from naming rights.
The at-large Councilman says for example, Pepsi could be the sponsor of Allegheny County’s nine parks.
“The way the agreement probably would work is that they’d be [able] to direct market in all the parks, so only Pepsi products would be sold at the parks,” says Kress. “It’s a win situation for the county because we’re bringing in revenue from another company, another source, but it’s a win for the company that pays the money because they’re going to generate more profit.”
He says he doesn’t think the county would be inundated with too many corporate names, because companies could opt to sponsor the naming of a park or bridge after an individual. He says they might also name the asset for a phrase associated with their company (for example, he says, McDonalds could name the “Golden Arches Bridge”).
The Councilman recently introduced a similar bill to sell naming rights for county bridges.
Kress says the county has a “revenue problem” that he is trying to fix through a voluntary payment system, rather than through raising property taxes.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Allegheny Council Expected to Approve Bond Sale
Allegheny County Council is to vote tomorrow evening on a proposal to float up to $48million in new bonds. Council Budget Chairman Bill Robinson says this is part of an original $125 million bond sale that was approved by council.....
"It was a bit ambitious, but the interest rates looked very favorable and it was going to save the taxpayers money but once we got out into the bond market, it was obvious there were not enough buyers at our price."
So, County Executive Dan Onorato waited to sell the rest of the bonds until interest rates were lower and has come back to council now for reauthorization. Robinson says the money will be used for capital budget items including street paving and upgrades to the county parks.
The Onorato Adminsitration projects that the sale of the new bonds will add about $3.5 million to the county's annual debt service.
In addition, Robinson says Council tomorrow is to take up a proposal to refinance a current $40 million dollar bond at a lower rate which could save the county up to $1.3 million.
"It's something we've been doing over the last few years. We go out on the market and look for favorable rates. This is another attempt to make sure we're getting the best deal for our money, and refinancing is one way to make sure you're not passing along a lot of debt to future generations."
Robinson expects both proposals to pass.
"It was a bit ambitious, but the interest rates looked very favorable and it was going to save the taxpayers money but once we got out into the bond market, it was obvious there were not enough buyers at our price."
So, County Executive Dan Onorato waited to sell the rest of the bonds until interest rates were lower and has come back to council now for reauthorization. Robinson says the money will be used for capital budget items including street paving and upgrades to the county parks.
The Onorato Adminsitration projects that the sale of the new bonds will add about $3.5 million to the county's annual debt service.
In addition, Robinson says Council tomorrow is to take up a proposal to refinance a current $40 million dollar bond at a lower rate which could save the county up to $1.3 million.
"It's something we've been doing over the last few years. We go out on the market and look for favorable rates. This is another attempt to make sure we're getting the best deal for our money, and refinancing is one way to make sure you're not passing along a lot of debt to future generations."
Robinson expects both proposals to pass.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
County Bill Would Bar Vendors' Campaign Donations
An Allegheny County Councilman wants to tighten the rules on contractors' campaign contributions for County races.
District 1 Councilman Matt Drozd says when political candidates accept money from vendors that do business with the county, there can be impropriety and unfairness in awarding future contracts.
Drozd says while the current law prohibits candidates from asking contractors for money, the contributions can still be accepted if they're offered. He says that can lead to the candidate awarding the vendor a contract as a favor when he or she is elected.
Drozd says his bill would bar candidates from accepting those campaign donations altogether. He says he's bringing it up for a full vote now because of inaction from his fellow Council Members.
"I'm willing to let this go into committee, but it's been sitting in committee, and it's particularly buried," says Drozd. "And you know what? I'm going to say it was the prior [Council] President's job to bring it out, and guess who got a lot of contributions in this last campaign. I would ask him, 'How many of those were vendors within Allegheny County?'"
Drozd says although campaign contributions can be considered a form of free speech, they are often unethical and unfair to taxpayers. He says when an elected chooses a contractor as a favor rather than by merit, it can result in a higher cost for the county.
District 1 Councilman Matt Drozd says when political candidates accept money from vendors that do business with the county, there can be impropriety and unfairness in awarding future contracts.
Drozd says while the current law prohibits candidates from asking contractors for money, the contributions can still be accepted if they're offered. He says that can lead to the candidate awarding the vendor a contract as a favor when he or she is elected.
Drozd says his bill would bar candidates from accepting those campaign donations altogether. He says he's bringing it up for a full vote now because of inaction from his fellow Council Members.
"I'm willing to let this go into committee, but it's been sitting in committee, and it's particularly buried," says Drozd. "And you know what? I'm going to say it was the prior [Council] President's job to bring it out, and guess who got a lot of contributions in this last campaign. I would ask him, 'How many of those were vendors within Allegheny County?'"
Drozd says although campaign contributions can be considered a form of free speech, they are often unethical and unfair to taxpayers. He says when an elected chooses a contractor as a favor rather than by merit, it can result in a higher cost for the county.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
County Council Hears Both PAT and Local 85
Members of the two sides in disagreement over labor negotiations between Port Authority Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 met in Allegheny County Courthouse’s Gold Room Wednesday evening under a special meeting called for by Allegheny Council President Jim Burn.
Burn and his fellow council members asked each representative if they were willing to go back to the negotiating table after heated but closed talks ended on Saturday afternoon. The following day, the Port Authority went through with a 15 percent service cut. Steve Bland, CEO of PAT and Patrick McMahon, union President for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 both agreed in principle to continuing negotiations.
According to reports from both sides, management and the union were close to reaching an agreement after “historic” concessions were made by the union regarding legacy funds and health care for retirees.
County Manager Jim Flynn said a “cooling off” period was necessary and four days between talks is helpful for each side to reset before negotiating again.
Many councilmen questioned the representatives to help educate themselves on where each side stands and to encourage immediate negotiations. Councilmen explained that the lack of state funding has driven the problems that lead to service cuts and further cuts expected in June of 2012. Councilman Michael Finnerty says the blame game between sides is unnecessary when there is a bigger issue.
“When we look at the situation be realistic about it in saying what the problem is, and the state is one of the problems, it’s not just legacy cuts, it’s not just healthcare, it’s dedicated funding, too.”
Bland agreed with Finnerty’s sentiments saying until there is a source of dedicated funding, these meetings will come up every few months as PAT finds itself in financial trouble again.
“We have to move away from these one-day, one-week, one-month, one-year Band-Aids, limp-alongs, bailouts, you-name-it and get to a point where public transportation in Pittsburgh is sustainable on an ongoing basis and frankly where derivative bodies like this one can move onto issues of other significant public policy interests.”
McMahon says negotiations can and will continue, but constant ultimatums from the Port Authority won’t be the fix.
“As far as we are concerned, Local 85, we have never left the negotiating table but we need someone that we can negotiate with,” McMahon says. “Take it or leave it proposals will not get it done, it will get a mutually agreeable solution.”
Burn and his fellow council members asked each representative if they were willing to go back to the negotiating table after heated but closed talks ended on Saturday afternoon. The following day, the Port Authority went through with a 15 percent service cut. Steve Bland, CEO of PAT and Patrick McMahon, union President for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 both agreed in principle to continuing negotiations.
According to reports from both sides, management and the union were close to reaching an agreement after “historic” concessions were made by the union regarding legacy funds and health care for retirees.
County Manager Jim Flynn said a “cooling off” period was necessary and four days between talks is helpful for each side to reset before negotiating again.
Many councilmen questioned the representatives to help educate themselves on where each side stands and to encourage immediate negotiations. Councilmen explained that the lack of state funding has driven the problems that lead to service cuts and further cuts expected in June of 2012. Councilman Michael Finnerty says the blame game between sides is unnecessary when there is a bigger issue.
“When we look at the situation be realistic about it in saying what the problem is, and the state is one of the problems, it’s not just legacy cuts, it’s not just healthcare, it’s dedicated funding, too.”
Bland agreed with Finnerty’s sentiments saying until there is a source of dedicated funding, these meetings will come up every few months as PAT finds itself in financial trouble again.
“We have to move away from these one-day, one-week, one-month, one-year Band-Aids, limp-alongs, bailouts, you-name-it and get to a point where public transportation in Pittsburgh is sustainable on an ongoing basis and frankly where derivative bodies like this one can move onto issues of other significant public policy interests.”
McMahon says negotiations can and will continue, but constant ultimatums from the Port Authority won’t be the fix.
“As far as we are concerned, Local 85, we have never left the negotiating table but we need someone that we can negotiate with,” McMahon says. “Take it or leave it proposals will not get it done, it will get a mutually agreeable solution.”
Monday, March 14, 2011
Councilman Proposes Reduced Funding to PAT
Allegheny County Council President Jim Burn is trying to pressure the Port Authority to use all of the $45 million in emergency flex funds it received in December from the state rather than spreading it out over 18 months. Riders' groups and the union representing bus drivers want the money used now to avoid a 15% cut in service and the layoffs of hundreds of workers effective March 27. PAT CEO Steve Bland says spreading out the flex funds will give state lawmakers more time to find a permanent funding stream for mass transit.
Burn says the PAT Board said last fall that it faced a $47 million shortfall and the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission agreed to "flex" the $45 million that was originally designated for road projects and send them to PAT because of the emergency nature of the transit agency's deficit.
“The purpose of the ask for the money was to stop any service cuts. By stretching the money over 18 months, they are going to make service cuts,” Burn says.
Burn says PAT has cut more than $50 million from its operating budget at the urging of the state but it now appears state funding for PAT will be $30 million less in 2011-12 than it is in the current fiscal year. The councilman says the state has not lived up to the terms of Act 44 for funding roads, bridges and mass transit. Burn says that means the required county match would also decline by nearly $5.1 million, and he will introduce an amendment calling for a reduction in county funding by that amount because he refuses to over-subsidize the organization (PAT) that he says “refuses to keep its word to the public.”
“Once they got the money, we are concerned that they then began to act in a fashion inconsistent with the initial ask,” Burn says. “We want them to use this money in a fashion consistent with what they had asked for in the first place.”(to eliminate the $47 million deficit for the current year)
Burn says he and his fellow colleagues in agreement with him on the council are willing to rescind this proposal if the PAT Board decides to use the state-allocated money in full this fiscal year.
Burn says the PAT Board said last fall that it faced a $47 million shortfall and the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission agreed to "flex" the $45 million that was originally designated for road projects and send them to PAT because of the emergency nature of the transit agency's deficit.
“The purpose of the ask for the money was to stop any service cuts. By stretching the money over 18 months, they are going to make service cuts,” Burn says.
Burn says PAT has cut more than $50 million from its operating budget at the urging of the state but it now appears state funding for PAT will be $30 million less in 2011-12 than it is in the current fiscal year. The councilman says the state has not lived up to the terms of Act 44 for funding roads, bridges and mass transit. Burn says that means the required county match would also decline by nearly $5.1 million, and he will introduce an amendment calling for a reduction in county funding by that amount because he refuses to over-subsidize the organization (PAT) that he says “refuses to keep its word to the public.”
“Once they got the money, we are concerned that they then began to act in a fashion inconsistent with the initial ask,” Burn says. “We want them to use this money in a fashion consistent with what they had asked for in the first place.”(to eliminate the $47 million deficit for the current year)
Burn says he and his fellow colleagues in agreement with him on the council are willing to rescind this proposal if the PAT Board decides to use the state-allocated money in full this fiscal year.
Friday, February 18, 2011
McCullough Wants Time Out on Reassessment
Allegheny County Councilman Chuck McCullough is calling for a time out on reassessment because of ill communication over the implementation of 2010 reassessment between Council members and County Solicitor and Executive.
McCullough, along with other Council members, Matt Drozd, Vince Gastgeb, and Jan Rea all say that they were unaware or not involved of the court order for the 2012 assessment and do not believe that there was money in the 2010 budget to do the reassessment work.
"I challenge anybody to go through the 2010 budgets, which we already approved three days before, and find anything about property reassessments," McCullough says.
McCullough says that Council should have been consulted.
"We're going to ask the court to call a time out on this. We had a lot of problems eight years ago when we did a reassessment, he had a lot of problems nine years ago when we did a reassessment. We can't afford another round of disaster here."
This afternoon, the four members of Council are going to asked County Pleas Judge Stanton Wettick for a "time out" on reassessments until they can better understand the issue, and McCullough says that if they are denied a time out he might appeal.
McCullough, along with other Council members, Matt Drozd, Vince Gastgeb, and Jan Rea all say that they were unaware or not involved of the court order for the 2012 assessment and do not believe that there was money in the 2010 budget to do the reassessment work.
"I challenge anybody to go through the 2010 budgets, which we already approved three days before, and find anything about property reassessments," McCullough says.
McCullough says that Council should have been consulted.
"We're going to ask the court to call a time out on this. We had a lot of problems eight years ago when we did a reassessment, he had a lot of problems nine years ago when we did a reassessment. We can't afford another round of disaster here."
This afternoon, the four members of Council are going to asked County Pleas Judge Stanton Wettick for a "time out" on reassessments until they can better understand the issue, and McCullough says that if they are denied a time out he might appeal.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Hearing Scheduled Over Marcellus Drilling
Marcellus Shale protest groups gathered at Allegheny County Council’s meeting at the County Courthouse Tuesday evening to voice their concerns to council members and to call for a public hearing. Council agreed to do so and scheduled the hearing for March 10 at 5 p.m. in the Gold Room of the Courthouse.
Elizabeth Schneider of Marcellus Protest requested that all thirteen members be in attendance for the entirety of the hearing.
“This is a very, very important issue and your constituency deserves full attention as elected officials,” Schneider says. “Part time job or not your have three weeks to clear your schedules, 1.2 million people’s future depend on it.”
Not all council members attended the last public hearing on the issue in July.
Many constituents expressed concern about the effect drilling might have on water quality, and the health effects of chemicals that may become present as a result of drilling. The majority of those who spoke last night considered it a lapse in thought by council to consider allowing the Southwestern Pennsylvania region to fall into a similar polluting trend as those that the turn of the century steel mills produced.
Bradley Wilson said it is against Pittsburgh’s “green” standards to move forward with potentially polluting drilling.
“It is amazing to me that in this so called age of the green revolution in which we find ourselves building green arenas and convention centers, how quickly we fall into old industrial habits,” Wilson says. “We found a way to extract gas and generate a lot of money and jobs for the region, but this is a problem. It always is about money and jobs first, and about environment and our health second.”
The residents also spoke of the need to maintain the 2000 foot area between drilling wells and public residences should drilling not be halted altogether. There are proposals for 200 or 500 foot minimum distances from residences.
Elizabeth Schneider of Marcellus Protest requested that all thirteen members be in attendance for the entirety of the hearing.
“This is a very, very important issue and your constituency deserves full attention as elected officials,” Schneider says. “Part time job or not your have three weeks to clear your schedules, 1.2 million people’s future depend on it.”
Not all council members attended the last public hearing on the issue in July.
Many constituents expressed concern about the effect drilling might have on water quality, and the health effects of chemicals that may become present as a result of drilling. The majority of those who spoke last night considered it a lapse in thought by council to consider allowing the Southwestern Pennsylvania region to fall into a similar polluting trend as those that the turn of the century steel mills produced.
Bradley Wilson said it is against Pittsburgh’s “green” standards to move forward with potentially polluting drilling.
“It is amazing to me that in this so called age of the green revolution in which we find ourselves building green arenas and convention centers, how quickly we fall into old industrial habits,” Wilson says. “We found a way to extract gas and generate a lot of money and jobs for the region, but this is a problem. It always is about money and jobs first, and about environment and our health second.”
The residents also spoke of the need to maintain the 2000 foot area between drilling wells and public residences should drilling not be halted altogether. There are proposals for 200 or 500 foot minimum distances from residences.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Fitzgerald Wants Public Hearing for Shale Drilling
Allegheny County Council President Rich Fitzgerald says he wants a public hearing so that legislators can make public policy to ensure residents and the environment are safe when it comes to drilling for Marcellus Shale.
The legislation in question involves a regulation preventing drillers from being within a certain distance of a residential building. Two bills are up for Council's consideration and approval, one calling for a 500 foot regulation and the other 2,000.
Fitzgerald is in favor of having legislation to prevent Marcellus Shale drillers from being within 500 feet of a residential building. Pennsylvania State legislation currently calls for 200 feet, but Fitzgerald says that Allegheny County is different because it is densely populated.
"Two-hundred feet, to me, seems a little bit too close to a residential area. So, we might want to go a little bit further to give people a little more sense of security, and pubic safety."
Fitzgerald based his numbers and ideas on Lycoming County, which has a 500 foot regulation and according to him, has had more drilling activity. Only three wells have been drilled in Allegheny County since October. Instead of calling for a committee vote, Fitzgerald says a public hearing will provide a better perspective.
"I think it's important to hear from the public on what their concerns are and what they would like to see."
Fitzgerald knows that he will hear extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and opinions in between. He says that his goal is to find a medium that balances economic growth with environmental safety.
There is no date for the hearing yet, but Fitzgerald estimates that it will be in the next three weeks.
The legislation in question involves a regulation preventing drillers from being within a certain distance of a residential building. Two bills are up for Council's consideration and approval, one calling for a 500 foot regulation and the other 2,000.
Fitzgerald is in favor of having legislation to prevent Marcellus Shale drillers from being within 500 feet of a residential building. Pennsylvania State legislation currently calls for 200 feet, but Fitzgerald says that Allegheny County is different because it is densely populated.
"Two-hundred feet, to me, seems a little bit too close to a residential area. So, we might want to go a little bit further to give people a little more sense of security, and pubic safety."
Fitzgerald based his numbers and ideas on Lycoming County, which has a 500 foot regulation and according to him, has had more drilling activity. Only three wells have been drilled in Allegheny County since October. Instead of calling for a committee vote, Fitzgerald says a public hearing will provide a better perspective.
"I think it's important to hear from the public on what their concerns are and what they would like to see."
Fitzgerald knows that he will hear extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and opinions in between. He says that his goal is to find a medium that balances economic growth with environmental safety.
There is no date for the hearing yet, but Fitzgerald estimates that it will be in the next three weeks.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Reassessment on Time Despite Controversy
Officials say the Allegheny County property reassessment is on schedule and should be finished by January of 2012.
Despite County Council’s efforts to block the property reassessment, the process itself remains timely. That’s according to County Director of Administration Tim Johnson, who says his group is almost finished collecting data from the county’s 570,000 properties – which is the bulk of the work.
"The next phase, we're looking at more of the modeling of neighborhoods and cost calibration and valuing land and whatnot, and much of that is research-based and moves much more quickly."
The “data collection phase” began early in 2010 and figures to be finished in the next few months. Johnson says the County should be releasing preliminary property values by July. After a review process, final property values are scheduled for release next January.
Members of County Council have asked Governor Tom Corbett and the legislature to stop the reassessment, saying it’s unfair to single out Allegheny County when other counties use old data.
Despite County Council’s efforts to block the property reassessment, the process itself remains timely. That’s according to County Director of Administration Tim Johnson, who says his group is almost finished collecting data from the county’s 570,000 properties – which is the bulk of the work.
"The next phase, we're looking at more of the modeling of neighborhoods and cost calibration and valuing land and whatnot, and much of that is research-based and moves much more quickly."
The “data collection phase” began early in 2010 and figures to be finished in the next few months. Johnson says the County should be releasing preliminary property values by July. After a review process, final property values are scheduled for release next January.
Members of County Council have asked Governor Tom Corbett and the legislature to stop the reassessment, saying it’s unfair to single out Allegheny County when other counties use old data.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Flaherty to Run for County Exec, Fitzgerald Considers a Bid
One soon-to-declare and one possible candidate are praising Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato who announced today he will not seek a third term in that office.
County Controller Mark Patrick Flaherty, who was expected to run for the county's top post whether or not Onorato sought reelection, issued a statement saying that Onorato has served the people of the county with distinction as a member of Pittsburgh Council, then as County Controller and now as Chief Executive.....
"Dan has been a dedicated public servant. He now prepares to move to the next stage of his career and whether it be in the public or private sector, I wish Dan and his family well."
In the next sentence of the statement to the media, Flaherty said he will formally announce he will run for County Executive at an event in the County Courthouse Courtyard January 19th.
In an interview with DUQ News, County Council President Rich Fitzgerald also praised Onorato..."He's done a great job moving this county, this region forward over the last 8 years." Fitzgerald called it "kind of a sad day because it's going to be a loss for this region not having him at the helm."
Fitzgerald says he's talked with Onorato a few times over the last several weeks and he's not surprised but still called it a difficult decision.......
"Because he has done a lot of good things and I'm sure there's a lot more he would like to do...there are always challenges ahead with the reassessments and with Marcellus Shale and some big issues we need to move forward on."
When asked about his interest in the county executive post, Fitzgerald said today "is not the day to say who's running for what, there will be time for that." But neither would Fitzgerald rule out a run for county executive.
He said he would not run if Onorato had decided to seek a third term.
County Controller Mark Patrick Flaherty, who was expected to run for the county's top post whether or not Onorato sought reelection, issued a statement saying that Onorato has served the people of the county with distinction as a member of Pittsburgh Council, then as County Controller and now as Chief Executive.....
"Dan has been a dedicated public servant. He now prepares to move to the next stage of his career and whether it be in the public or private sector, I wish Dan and his family well."
In the next sentence of the statement to the media, Flaherty said he will formally announce he will run for County Executive at an event in the County Courthouse Courtyard January 19th.
In an interview with DUQ News, County Council President Rich Fitzgerald also praised Onorato..."He's done a great job moving this county, this region forward over the last 8 years." Fitzgerald called it "kind of a sad day because it's going to be a loss for this region not having him at the helm."
Fitzgerald says he's talked with Onorato a few times over the last several weeks and he's not surprised but still called it a difficult decision.......
"Because he has done a lot of good things and I'm sure there's a lot more he would like to do...there are always challenges ahead with the reassessments and with Marcellus Shale and some big issues we need to move forward on."
When asked about his interest in the county executive post, Fitzgerald said today "is not the day to say who's running for what, there will be time for that." But neither would Fitzgerald rule out a run for county executive.
He said he would not run if Onorato had decided to seek a third term.
Friday, January 7, 2011
County Council May Investigate PAT Slowdown
Allegheny County Council President Rich Fitzgerald is calling on his fellow council members to investigate reports that some Port Authority of Allegheny County “T” drives have been slowing service as an act of retaliation. The “T” has seen long delays during rush hour this week. It is widely believed that some Port Authority train operators are driving under the speed limit as a way to protest disciplinary action against at least two drivers who were alleged to have been speeding. That move came following a PennDOT report that raised concerns that some trains were moving through areas shared with automobiles and pedestrians to quickly. Fitzgerald says the council will vote at its next meeting on a resolution to launch an investigation.
Fitzgerald says he wants to find out what is going on. The Council President stopped short of saying that drivers would be called to testify but did indicate that if the investigation were to be launched the council would want to hear from PAT management. "We will bring the folks in from the Port Authority, take any public testimony that that might be relevant... and try to get to the bottom of this," says Fitzgerald. He says some of this could be more hype than anything and he sees this as a "fact finding panel." County Council has the ability to issue subpoenas.
It is unclear if council can take any disciplinary steps other than restricting county funds that would normally be sent to the Port Authority. "In light of the crises of transportation funding it is critical that the public has confidence that the mass transit system is going to be reliable, that its going to be efficient, that they are going to be able to get to work on time," says Fitzgerald.
Transit Union Members are to hold a news conference on the situation later today.
Fitzgerald says he wants to find out what is going on. The Council President stopped short of saying that drivers would be called to testify but did indicate that if the investigation were to be launched the council would want to hear from PAT management. "We will bring the folks in from the Port Authority, take any public testimony that that might be relevant... and try to get to the bottom of this," says Fitzgerald. He says some of this could be more hype than anything and he sees this as a "fact finding panel." County Council has the ability to issue subpoenas.
It is unclear if council can take any disciplinary steps other than restricting county funds that would normally be sent to the Port Authority. "In light of the crises of transportation funding it is critical that the public has confidence that the mass transit system is going to be reliable, that its going to be efficient, that they are going to be able to get to work on time," says Fitzgerald.
Transit Union Members are to hold a news conference on the situation later today.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
County Set to Move on City/County Software Deal
Allegheny County Council President Rich Fitzgerald says he thinks Council can get an agreement in place with the City of Pittsburgh to upgrade, share and operate HR and financial management software. Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority approved the City’s budget contingent on the city shifting over from its current ERP software to the software run by Allegheny County. The ICA feels the change is needed to make the Pittsburgh’s operations more transparent and increase the system’s reliability.
Pittsburgh officials hope to save money by piggybacking onto the licenses used by the county. Legislation to set up the deal on the county side was introduced into council this week and was sent to the Committee on Government Reform chaired by Fitzgerald. He says he does not see any hang-ups at the time and he expects it to be finally approved next month. However, some on the city side are already complaining that the city will be paying more than its fair share.
Under the current deal, the city of Pittsburgh would pay for upgrades to the system and then pay the county for training. Fitzgerald says the Mayor, County Executive and the City and County Controllers have been working on the details and he feels any issues can be ironed out quickly. Without a deal, Pittsburgh would have to purchase its own licenses.
Pittsburgh officials hope to save money by piggybacking onto the licenses used by the county. Legislation to set up the deal on the county side was introduced into council this week and was sent to the Committee on Government Reform chaired by Fitzgerald. He says he does not see any hang-ups at the time and he expects it to be finally approved next month. However, some on the city side are already complaining that the city will be paying more than its fair share.
Under the current deal, the city of Pittsburgh would pay for upgrades to the system and then pay the county for training. Fitzgerald says the Mayor, County Executive and the City and County Controllers have been working on the details and he feels any issues can be ironed out quickly. Without a deal, Pittsburgh would have to purchase its own licenses.
Monday, December 6, 2010
County Councilman: Cut Drink Tax
Allegheny County’s tax on alcoholic drinks would be cut from 7% to 6% under a proposal from County Councilman Chuck McCullough.
McCullough says the current tax rate generated about $4 million more than the $27.7 million needed to fund the county’s share of the Port Authority’s budget.
Each year, the car rental tax and the drink tax give Allegheny County the funds it needs to provide a 15% match to state funding for the Port Authority. With $185 million in state aid, the target amount this year was $27.7 million, but McCullough says the two taxes combined for almost $32 million.
“I don’t think any of us want to see people overpay taxes, and that’s really what’s going on here,” says McCullough. “We’ve got more money than is needed for the Port Authority. It’s doing anybody any good just sitting in the county coffers. It can’t be used for general purposes. It’s only fair to give some tax relief to the taxpayers.”
McCullough helped reduce the drink tax from its original 10% rate to 7% for 2009. The at-large County Councilman says he’ll introduce the measure Monday, and he expects it to be resolved over the next few Council meetings.
McCullough says the current tax rate generated about $4 million more than the $27.7 million needed to fund the county’s share of the Port Authority’s budget.
Each year, the car rental tax and the drink tax give Allegheny County the funds it needs to provide a 15% match to state funding for the Port Authority. With $185 million in state aid, the target amount this year was $27.7 million, but McCullough says the two taxes combined for almost $32 million.
“I don’t think any of us want to see people overpay taxes, and that’s really what’s going on here,” says McCullough. “We’ve got more money than is needed for the Port Authority. It’s doing anybody any good just sitting in the county coffers. It can’t be used for general purposes. It’s only fair to give some tax relief to the taxpayers.”
McCullough helped reduce the drink tax from its original 10% rate to 7% for 2009. The at-large County Councilman says he’ll introduce the measure Monday, and he expects it to be resolved over the next few Council meetings.
County Council to Vote on 2011 Budget
Allegheny County Council will meet today at 5 p.m. to discuss and vote upon the county budget for the 2011 fiscal year totaling $768 million.
A plan prepared by Councilman Bill Robinson (D-Hill District) is built off of the budget proposal made by County Executive Dan Onorato. The Onorato budget includes a $4 million contribution from non-profit institutions to defray the cost of county services. The plan proposed by Robinson does not account for that money, because there is no guarantee it will come.
“I’m going to take the Chief Executive at his word which was, he thought he would have something by the end of the December. That’s obviously after we pass the budget,” Robinson said. “The way the budget is structured, the four million dollars is not essential at this moment.”
Assuming Onorato comes through with a contribution from tax-exempt companies like hospitals and universities, Robinson says the money can cleanly be added to the budget.
“If that four million or more appears later in the year it simply will go into our general fund and be reallocated,” he said.
Robinson’s bill does draw around $12 million dollars in the sale of tax liens to a private company, something the county has done before in 2007. Although he says he doesn’t expect one-time boost deals to continue being a possibility for the county.
Robinson says no Republican proposals have been accepted among the council, but he does expect that Republican’s will propose amendments to his own budget bills offered to the council.
Council will also take up a $113 million capital budget which is used for long-term spending projects.
A plan prepared by Councilman Bill Robinson (D-Hill District) is built off of the budget proposal made by County Executive Dan Onorato. The Onorato budget includes a $4 million contribution from non-profit institutions to defray the cost of county services. The plan proposed by Robinson does not account for that money, because there is no guarantee it will come.
“I’m going to take the Chief Executive at his word which was, he thought he would have something by the end of the December. That’s obviously after we pass the budget,” Robinson said. “The way the budget is structured, the four million dollars is not essential at this moment.”
Assuming Onorato comes through with a contribution from tax-exempt companies like hospitals and universities, Robinson says the money can cleanly be added to the budget.
“If that four million or more appears later in the year it simply will go into our general fund and be reallocated,” he said.
Robinson’s bill does draw around $12 million dollars in the sale of tax liens to a private company, something the county has done before in 2007. Although he says he doesn’t expect one-time boost deals to continue being a possibility for the county.
Robinson says no Republican proposals have been accepted among the council, but he does expect that Republican’s will propose amendments to his own budget bills offered to the council.
Council will also take up a $113 million capital budget which is used for long-term spending projects.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
County Council President Calls for Extraction Tax
Rich Fitzgerald, President of the Allegheny County Council, today added his voice to the call for an extraction tax on Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling. Fitzgerald says because the gas companies will be using public roadways and damaging them with heavy loads, a tax could help pay for road maintenance. He also said that since the upkeep of roadways usually comes from property taxes, it would be unfair for the public to pay for any damage caused by natural gas companies.
Fitzgerald says that currently Pennsylvania is the only "gas producing state that does not have an extraction tax," and says that not levying a tax is unacceptable. While he proposed that money be spent on environmental issues that might arise because of drilling, Fitzgerald emphasized that the first priority needs to be on infrastructure maintenance.
This comes after the Pennsylvania House passed a gas severance tax on September 30th. Income from the tax would be split with 40% going to the state and 60% going to communities and maintenance of company used roads. Under the measure, the first $70 million in revenues would go to the state's general fund. After that the 60-40 split would kick in.
Fitzgerald says that currently Pennsylvania is the only "gas producing state that does not have an extraction tax," and says that not levying a tax is unacceptable. While he proposed that money be spent on environmental issues that might arise because of drilling, Fitzgerald emphasized that the first priority needs to be on infrastructure maintenance.
This comes after the Pennsylvania House passed a gas severance tax on September 30th. Income from the tax would be split with 40% going to the state and 60% going to communities and maintenance of company used roads. Under the measure, the first $70 million in revenues would go to the state's general fund. After that the 60-40 split would kick in.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Allegheny County Meeting
When County Executive Dan Onorato submitted his proposed budget for the following year, it was a scaled down budget – and it didn’t take into account his plans for revamping the closed UPMC Braddock Hospital site.
Onorato’s plans for the hospital site are ambitious – the building will be demolished and in its place a mixed-use facility with an expanded urgent care clinic, Community College of Allegheny County facilities and senior housing. The problem – it’s not clear who will pay for the facility.
When he presented his budget last week there was no mention of his plans for Braddock – if anything, the budget was 5.8 million below last years and cuts human services, services at Shuman Detention Center and Juvenile Court Placement.
At an Allegheny County Council meeting on Tuesday, William Russell Robinson, Chairman of The Budget and Finance Committee raised the discussion of the impact of the Braddock Hospital Site Redevelopment on the County Budget. He also posed questions about a memorandum of understanding between the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and The Borough of Braddock that, previous to this week, had not been seen by County members.
The property is deeded to the county. UPMC is paying for the demolition. Asbestos removal has started this week.
Onorato’s plans for the hospital site are ambitious – the building will be demolished and in its place a mixed-use facility with an expanded urgent care clinic, Community College of Allegheny County facilities and senior housing. The problem – it’s not clear who will pay for the facility.
When he presented his budget last week there was no mention of his plans for Braddock – if anything, the budget was 5.8 million below last years and cuts human services, services at Shuman Detention Center and Juvenile Court Placement.
At an Allegheny County Council meeting on Tuesday, William Russell Robinson, Chairman of The Budget and Finance Committee raised the discussion of the impact of the Braddock Hospital Site Redevelopment on the County Budget. He also posed questions about a memorandum of understanding between the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and The Borough of Braddock that, previous to this week, had not been seen by County members.
The property is deeded to the county. UPMC is paying for the demolition. Asbestos removal has started this week.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
County Council Gets Budget
The Allegheny County Council received County Executive Dan Onorato’s 2011 Comprehensive Fiscal Plan last night with very little comment. Onorato’s plan rolls back spending and does not include a tax increase. The proposed 2011 operating budget totals $767.7 million, which is $5.8 million less than the 2010 adopted budget. “We’re in the worst economic recession of our times and our residents are faced with the same challenges at home,” said Onorato. “I’m asking all County departments to live within the 2010 budget for another year.” Many of the cuts come as federal and state pass-through funding tumbles. The Capital Budget will account for $112.7 million of the $767.7 million budget, including $62.5 million for County roads and bridges, and $13.8 million for building improvements. Council will hold hearings in the budget in the coming weeks.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Should County Prisoners Go to Work?
Allegheny County Council is considering a bill that would put non-violent prisoners to work outside the County Jail. Council Vice President Charles Martoni from District 8, a co-sponsor, says it’s a complex issue that could be constructive and positive both for the county and for the prisoners eligible to work, but care must be taken not to encroach on jobs that county employees should be doing and to use only those prisoners who would not be dangerous—people who are in jail for DUI offenses, for example.
He says Council should proceed slowly before voting on the measure. He would like to study other such programs around the country to see how they've been implemented and whether they've been successful.
Martoni says the community and the country need all citizens to be productive, and he believes there are some prisoners who could be.
He says Council should proceed slowly before voting on the measure. He would like to study other such programs around the country to see how they've been implemented and whether they've been successful.
Martoni says the community and the country need all citizens to be productive, and he believes there are some prisoners who could be.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Marcellus Shale Hearing Tomorrow
Allegheny County Council is hosting a public hearing on drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale on Wednesday at 5 p.m. in the Gold Room on the fourth floor of the County Courthouse.
County Council President Rich Fitzgerald expects to hear from drilling companies, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, environmental groups, and labor unions in this comprehensive hearing to explore the pros and cons for the county and the region. Although the DEP is charged with regulating drilling, there are local impacts on roads and, possibly, public health.
Fitzgerald says the county owns 30- to 40,000 acres of land and is always looking for revenues to offset property tax. One future possibility is to lease 20,000 acres at the airport for Marcellus Shale drilling.
Some municipalities, like North Fayette Township, have leased only horizontal access to their gas, allowing no equipment or roads on their land. Fitzgerald says this means less disturbance but also lower revenues.
The documentary movie, "Gasland", that highlights contamination of water supplies where drilling has taken place, has raised many questions about environmental impact, according to Fitzgerald.
Three major drilling companies have their headquarters in Allegheny County and will be at the hearing: EQT, Consol Energy, and Atlas Energy.
Fitzgerald expects environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Penn Future, and GASP to ask tough questions of the DEP and the gas industry.
Job creation will be looked into, says Fitzgerald, and trade unions will be represented: the IBEW, operating engineers, carpenter engineers, and allied trades.
Fitzgerald says one hearing may not be enough to cover all the issues in depth.
County Council President Rich Fitzgerald expects to hear from drilling companies, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, environmental groups, and labor unions in this comprehensive hearing to explore the pros and cons for the county and the region. Although the DEP is charged with regulating drilling, there are local impacts on roads and, possibly, public health.
Fitzgerald says the county owns 30- to 40,000 acres of land and is always looking for revenues to offset property tax. One future possibility is to lease 20,000 acres at the airport for Marcellus Shale drilling.
Some municipalities, like North Fayette Township, have leased only horizontal access to their gas, allowing no equipment or roads on their land. Fitzgerald says this means less disturbance but also lower revenues.
The documentary movie, "Gasland", that highlights contamination of water supplies where drilling has taken place, has raised many questions about environmental impact, according to Fitzgerald.
Three major drilling companies have their headquarters in Allegheny County and will be at the hearing: EQT, Consol Energy, and Atlas Energy.
Fitzgerald expects environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Penn Future, and GASP to ask tough questions of the DEP and the gas industry.
Job creation will be looked into, says Fitzgerald, and trade unions will be represented: the IBEW, operating engineers, carpenter engineers, and allied trades.
Fitzgerald says one hearing may not be enough to cover all the issues in depth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)