It certainly is one of the more disturbing photos of the year. At least it should be for property owners in Allegheny County:
Shortly after County Council passed a “compromise” 2025 budget that includes a 36 percent increase in property taxes, a Post-Gazette photographer caught Chief Executive (ACE) Sara Innamorato and At Large Councilwoman Bethany Hallam with all smiles and yucking it up.
And why wouldn’t they be? After all, the former proposed, and the latter went to bat for, a nearly 50 percent property tax increase, then could claim they compromised downward in the name “good government” on both sides of the tax-and-spend equation.
Would that it were. But it wasn’t.
County Council mustered enough votes – 10 – to pass the “compromise” deal. But only some modest cost-cutting is involved. Five councilors wisely voted against it.
There was plenty of yada-yada-yada about the “need” to raise taxes to maintain public and human services. But lip service was paid to reality. There are no layoffs in the new budget. And spending rises.
And that’s recklessly remarkable considering the obvious bloat in county government, as an Allegheny Institute benchmark study showed in October:
“On per-capita revenue—which takes into account taxes, fees, intergovernmental revenue and all other sources across all governmental funds—Allegheny County ranked second highest and was 33.2 percent above the peer-group average,” noted Eric Montarti, AI research director (in Policy Brief Vol. 24, No. 36).
“On per-capita expenditure, which measures general government functions, public safety, health and others, Allegheny County ranked highest and was 46.5 percent above the peer-group average,” the think tank researcher found.
“On full-time equivalent employees per 1,000 people, Allegheny County ranked second-highest and was 4.1 percent above the peer-group average,” Montarti concluded.
Call it what you will – excess, bloat, mismanagement – but let’s not leave out irresponsible governance.
So, even though in the end there were five councilors who dissented with their “NO!” vote, the minimum-required majority played Innamorato’s half-baked shell game.
But there remains an important opportunity in the new year to tackle the comparative profligacy of the Innamorato administration and her council acolytes.
As Montarti reminded (in Policy Brief Vol. 24, No. 40), “Next year, the [Home Rule] charter-mandated Government Review Commission will be appointed and … it represents a great opportunity to take another look at what county government should do.”
And that would be to economize, drastically.
But he also notes that it could be a tall order, given what happened to recommendations made in 2015. To wit, to one, the county sheriff and police departments never were combined. Surely savings could be had by taking that step and whittling what Montarti reminds is a combined 2025 budget of $68 million.
And that’s just one example of many potential cost-efficiencies that we suspect can be identified and remedies put into place.
But the bottom line here and now is that the ACE and the council firmly believe in the shibboleth of taxing the county to prosperity instead of doing concrete things that really make cost-efficiency differences.
And not only should that include a top-to-bottom review of all county operations, allowing for no sacred Democrats, er, cows, it must include the ordering of full and regular property reassessments.
County government failed the sound and prudent government test this past week. Thus, it failed taxpayers. And there are no excuses, rationalizations or shell games that can change that.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
