Top Agenda Items
- EMS providers get a faster path to $1 million in opioid settlement relief
- Council asks to sit in on the court fight over its $1.5 billion-short pension fund
- Door-to-door reassessment could cost $50 million and bring a wave of appeals
Help turn feedback into impact. Subscribe today.
Each week, we share surveys on the biggest issues and take your responses directly to our elected officials. Join for free to make your voice heard.
SUBSCRIBEEMS providers get a faster path to $1 million in opioid settlement relief 🔗
Allegheny County is ready to disburse money from the opioid settlement fund to emergency medical services (EMS) after nearly a year of planning.
The money has been sitting since December of last year when council set aside $1 million to “provide badly needed assistance to the region’s EMS providers, which incurred significant expense in responding to opioid-related emergency calls,” according to legislation approved by council during its Sept. 22 meeting.
Earlier this year, council established an application process including a list of how the money can be used for the 32 members of the Allegheny County Emergency Medical Services Council.
Council Member Suzanne Filiaggi of Franklin Park said during the Sept. 22 meeting that the new legislation gives a wider array of possible expenditures and simplifies the applications.
“The latter change greatly streamlines the award process; it also reduces the county’s time and costs related to administering the program,” she said. She compared the amended disbursement procedure to how the county released pandemic relief funds.
According to the settlement spending database, the county has otherwise disbursed $25,480,604 — almost 50% of the total budget — since it began receiving payments in 2022. Spending categories range from supporting people involved in the criminal justice system to pregnant or parenting women to harm reduction and opioid-misuse prevention.
EMS disbursements can begin as soon as County Executive Sara Innamorato signs the legislation.
Which areas should Allegheny County prioritize with its remaining opioid settlement funds?
Council asks to sit in on the court fight over its $1.5 billion-short pension fund 🔗
The governor and the general assembly are now on deck to potentially intervene to right the county employees’ sinking pension fund.
During the Sept. 22 meeting, council approved filing a request to allow its solicitor, Frederick Frank, to represent council as a neutral third party in Commonwealth v. Retirement Board of Allegheny County and Allegheny County. The case will likely determine the next steps for filling the nearly $1.5 billion hole in the pension fund.
“There is absolutely no doubt that it will require a substantial number of years to bring the retirement fund back to actuarial soundness,” says an opinion issued by the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 3. “It will likely be necessary for the General Assembly and the governor to intervene and give the County additional mechanisms to fund its employees’ retirements.”
Council President Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis of Plum said council’s responsibility for passing the annual budget and issuing bonds necessitates a seat at the table.
“We see no value in putting the council in the position of having to rely upon secondhand information,” she said. “We therefore want to make sure that our solicitor…is able to participate directly in the court’s hearings and is copied on all notices, filings, orders and opinions.”
According to Frank, there will be a hearing for the court to decide on council’s request.
Which approaches should the county consider to close the pension shortfall?
Door-to-door reassessment could cost $50 million and bring a wave of appeals
Council’s assessment practices committee did not come to any conclusions when it met Sept. 14 to continue discussion about the looming county-wide property reassessments.
The last Allegheny County property assessment occurred in 2012 after a court ordered the county to do so.
It is now compelled again after Senior Armstrong County Common Pleas Judge Kenneth Valasek ruled in August that the county must start the reassessment process by July 2027 and conclude it by 2032.
The Government Review Commission additionally issued a recommendation to conduct reassessments on a four-year schedule during the first year of each term for the county executive. It also said the county should expand programs to limit sudden increases for lower-income homeowners.
Council Member Dan Grzybek of Bethel Park introduced legislation in March that would put the county on a three-year reassessment schedule beginning in 2028. Council held seven public hearings on the matter throughout the summer.
According to Grzybek, experts say the process could cost $50 million for door-to-door assessments and $1 million to $5 million for a computer-aided mass appraisal. The county traditionally uses the door-to-door method performed by a contractor. It will be required to do so this time as well in keeping with the court order.
Chief Deputy County Solicitor William White pointed out that the process will come with an onslaught of appeals. “As it is, we already get literally thousands every year,” he said. “We have two attorneys in our office, and that’s all they do.”
Council’s clerk, Jared Barker, added that there are approximately 60,000 property records in the county’s database that already need to be corrected for errors.
The committee opted not to send the proposed legislation to the full council for a vote until additional, ongoing lawsuits conclude.
Which concerns about the coming reassessment matter most to you?