County Council vetoes Oakland development bill, for now

The county’s chief executive vetoed a bill last Friday that would sell developers to an old… The county’s chief executive vetoed a bill last Friday that would sell developers to an old building on Forbes Avenue and replace it with hotel rooms, offices and parking.

County Executive Dan Onorato overturned Allegheny County Council’s near unanimous 13-1 vote to sell the Allegheny County Health Department building, citing violations of county law and encouragement from the council’s president.

The bill, designed to increase business and jobs in Oakland, was overturned because a last-minute amendment introduced the idea of a special account that could only be tapped by council with a unanimous vote, Council President Rich Fitzgerald said. Fitzgerald voted against the bill and recommended that Onorato veto it.

“Usually council members have the courtesy to present amendments days — or at least hours — in advance,” Fitzgerald said.

He said that Councilman Charles McCullough, who drafted the amendment, presented it in a misleading way and accompanied it with, “25 paragraphs of legalistic, lawyer language.”

Fitzgerald said the council traditionally takes council members on their word, so the dense proposal document was put to the side as the council voted based on McCullough’s presentation.

McCullough did not respond to calls requesting comment.

In his letter of veto, Onorato said the ordinance violated the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter by creating the account that would hold any revenue from the estimated $4.9 million sale.

Kevin Evanto, Onorato’s spokesman, said the Home Rule Charter limits bills created by the council to changing one aspect of county policy at a time. This means the council couldn’t lump the creation of the special account in with the sale of the Health Department building.

The bill would also knock the county’s budget off balance, Evanto said. The amendment required the immediate deposit of the $4.9 million into the special account. In order to achieve this, the council would have to substitute money from the 2009 budget, since the sale of the building hasn’t occurred yet, Evanto said.

“It would leave a $4.9 million hole in the budget,” Evanto said. This hole would be another violation of the Home Rule Charter, according to Onorato’s veto letter.

Fitzgerald said McCullough’s amendment only passed through council because members thought it would help the council gain more control over county finances. Practically speaking, however, giving the council sole access to the funds would hurt the county through inefficient and limited access. The council spends only about $100,000 a year, Fitzgerald said.

But Fitzgerald remained confident that the ordinance — without the amendment — will pass both the council, when it votes again next week, and Onorato’s desk.

Onorato’s office shared Fitzgerald’s expectations. “We’ve been planning to sell this building for a year,” Evanto said.

The anticipated revenues will pay for various county operations.