Issue Summary (Updated January 2009)
Merging the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County

The Issue:

Despite a major push from government and civic leaders for a Pittsburgh/Allegheny County merger, the issue appears to be dead.

What We Know:

There are simply too many unanswered questions regarding how a Pittsburgh/Allegheny County merged government would look like and about how the new combined government will operate. And despite seventeen months of research by a task force charged with studying the idea, none of them were answered.

For example, how would the City be treated in a merged government? Proponents argue for an “Urban Services District” that will serve City residents. Since the cost of services in the urban services district are higher than elsewhere in the County, will residents and businesses in the “district” continue to pay the higher wage tax, payroll preparation tax, and realty transfer tax they presently pay? Unfortunately for proponents, the uniformity clause of the State Constitution does not allow differing tax rates on the same class of subjects within territorial limits.

Other questions involve the handling of the City’s debt and unfunded pension liabilities, the reduction in government jobs, and minority representation. Would City workers have to become County employees? What happens to City authorities and jointly appointed City and County authorities?

These basic questions about the City-County government merger went largely unaddressed by proponents.

Bear in mind that cities and counties have very different fundamental functions and, except for a few areas of overlap, provide very different services to citizens and taxpayers. Counties provide the courts, criminal prosecutions, jails, property assessments, property record keeping, elections, voter registration, health and welfare services, medical examiners, marriage licenses, and so on. Cities and municipalities provide public safety, street and road maintenance, garbage collections, other public works, recreation and community services.

Moreover, there is enormous antipathy to the merger in the City and in the County. This opposition will require that proponents put together a detailed plan that has chance of acceptance at the grass roots level. A major campaign to explain how the plan will work will be necessary. Thus, the plan must contain credible explanations of how everyone will benefit from the merger. Anything less will be waste of time.

Recommendations:

The City and County should immediately begin to eliminate duplicated services such as parks and public works, preferably with the City simply entering into a contract with the County to provide the services.

The Institute also recommends that the City begin selling off some of the millions of dollars worth of assets held by the City and its Authorities with the proceeds to be placed in escrow to pay down debt. They can also act immediately to privatize garbage collection.

Furthermore the City should place a referendum on the ballot to amend the Home Rule Charter to include a stringent government spending growth cap, tying the hands of Council and the Mayor and force them to make the hard decisions they seem unwilling to make on their own.

And finally County and City officials should seek reform of Act 111, the law that requires binding arbitration for public safety employees. This act, as written, gives far too much power to the unions in contract settlements.