Allegheny County 2025 Budget Hearing: Row Officers and PRT Presentations (Oct 17, 2024)

This was the first of three public hearings on the county’s 2025 budget. The evening focused on presentations from the Sheriff’s Office, Pittsburgh Regional Transit (PRT), the District Attorney’s Office, the County Controller, and the County Treasurer. Council members questioned each department about potential cuts, spending priorities, and the impact of a proposed 46% (2.2 mill) tax increase. Public comment was received at the end of the hearing.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Benjamin Chazar (single public speaker) criticized the county’s fiscal management, the proposed tax increase, and the lack of proper notice for the hearings. He called for reassessment of all properties (including large polluters and nonprofits like UPMC), a reduction in millage after accurate assessments, and argued that high taxes impede economic growth. He also noted that only six council members remained to hear public comment.

Discussion Items

Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff Krause, Chief Deputy Kearney)

• Requested $26 million for 2025; the recommended budget is $24.23 million.
• Highlighted core functions: court security, civil process, K9 unit (self-funded), community programs (e.g., drug take-back, concealed carry events), and technology upgrades.
• Council questions: Asked about a 10% cut – Sheriff said it would mean a reduction in sworn deputies; asked about diversity (Councilman Walton noted lack of African Americans in leadership); asked about overtime costs and the “expend recovery” line item. No immediate answers were provided.
• Councilman Palmasena noted the difficulty of the budget situation and the need for 10 votes to pass a tax increase.

Pittsburgh Regional Transit (CEO Catherine Kelleman, CFO Dominica Brown)

• Presented a $539 million operating budget – nearly flat from 2024 due to a one-time pension liability adjustment. The county’s contribution is $1.6 million more than last year (a 15% match on state funds).
• Discussed bus line redesign (first draft), ridership data corrections (3% lower due to software updates, but passenger revenue up 5%), and capital needs (e.g., replacing 37-year-old light rail cars).
• Council questions: Asked about a 10% funding cut – Kelleman said it would be “death and destruction,” likely forcing a bus garage closure, weekend T service elimination, and layoffs. Asked about fare capping, credit card tapping, and climate action plans. Councilman Hall noted that the county’s matching formula means every dollar lost from the county removes $19 from PRT’s total budget.
• Councilman Walton praised PRT’s diversity and recruitment efforts.

District Attorney’s Office (First Assistant Becky Spangler)

• Requested 22 additional personnel (including 9 position conversions from attorney 4 to attorney 3) and $33 million total; the recommended budget is $25.5 million – a 5.88% increase but zero new positions.
• Spangler argued the administration is counting 7 positions from 2024 as new, and pointed to a 29.99% increase for the county manager’s office and 15 new positions for the Public Defender’s office as evidence of skewed priorities.
• Discussed attorney burnout (93% enjoy their job, but 57% have considered leaving due to caseload, pay, work-life balance), a cyber intrusion, and the need for technology to handle digital evidence.
• Councilman Walton pressed for diversity numbers, noting no African American attorney supervisors. Spangler acknowledged a problem and committed to improving.
• Councilman Palmasena said it is the council’s job to find money for essential functions.

County Controller (Corey O’Connor)

• Presented an $8.7 million budget for 94 positions (81 filled). Requested 4% above last year, but received $266,000 less than asked.
• Highlighted audit savings (e.g., $450,000 from construction inspections, $1.148 million from hotel audits after bringing work in-house).
• Discussed the structural deficit – first alerted the public earlier this year; the June 2024 snapshot showed a $57 million gap, now likely $80 million.
• Council questions: Asked about a 10% cut – O’Connor said leaving 13 positions unfilled plus cutting training/technology would be difficult but possible. He also suggested auditing county contracts (especially outsourced services) and noted that the pension fund is underfunded.
• Councilman Hall asked about the administration’s failure to plan for the end of ARPA funds. O’Connor agreed that “you can’t tax your way out of a decline.”

County Treasurer (Erica Rookie Brussels)

• Presented an $8.2 million budget (68 employees, down from 78). The request was $500,000 less than what appeared in the fiscal plan, partly due to fringe benefits.
• Focused on modernization: consolidating banking partners, implementing an integrated payments vendor (expected $400,000 annual revenue), reducing postage costs ($150,000 savings), and improving tax collection (especially drink tax delinquencies).
• Council questions: Asked about a 10% cut – Brussels said it would likely come from personnel and services, but they are still “right-sizing.” Asked about cat licensing – Councilman Palmasena suggested it as a revenue source, but state law only requires dog licenses.
• Councilman DeMarco praised the office’s role in collecting owed revenues before raising taxes.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. The hearing is the first of three; further hearings will continue the budget review.
• Council members expressed strong concern about the proposed 46% tax increase and the need to find cuts or alternative revenue.
• Several departments were asked to provide additional information (line-item budgets, overtime data, diversity numbers, and responses to hypothetical 10% cuts) by email within a day or two.
• The District Attorney’s office highlighted a discrepancy over 7 positions that were supposedly funded in 2024 but not actually provided; President Katina asked staff to investigate.
• The Controller suggested a hiring freeze and a county-wide audit of contracted services as potential cost-saving measures.
• Public comment indicated dissatisfaction with the budget process and the tax increase proposal.