Members of the two sides in disagreement over labor negotiations between Port Authority Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 met in Allegheny County Courthouse’s Gold Room Wednesday evening under a special meeting called for by Allegheny Council President Jim Burn.
Burn and his fellow council members asked each representative if they were willing to go back to the negotiating table after heated but closed talks ended on Saturday afternoon. The following day, the Port Authority went through with a 15 percent service cut. Steve Bland, CEO of PAT and Patrick McMahon, union President for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 both agreed in principle to continuing negotiations.
According to reports from both sides, management and the union were close to reaching an agreement after “historic” concessions were made by the union regarding legacy funds and health care for retirees.
County Manager Jim Flynn said a “cooling off” period was necessary and four days between talks is helpful for each side to reset before negotiating again.
Many councilmen questioned the representatives to help educate themselves on where each side stands and to encourage immediate negotiations. Councilmen explained that the lack of state funding has driven the problems that lead to service cuts and further cuts expected in June of 2012. Councilman Michael Finnerty says the blame game between sides is unnecessary when there is a bigger issue.
“When we look at the situation be realistic about it in saying what the problem is, and the state is one of the problems, it’s not just legacy cuts, it’s not just healthcare, it’s dedicated funding, too.”
Bland agreed with Finnerty’s sentiments saying until there is a source of dedicated funding, these meetings will come up every few months as PAT finds itself in financial trouble again.
“We have to move away from these one-day, one-week, one-month, one-year Band-Aids, limp-alongs, bailouts, you-name-it and get to a point where public transportation in Pittsburgh is sustainable on an ongoing basis and frankly where derivative bodies like this one can move onto issues of other significant public policy interests.”
McMahon says negotiations can and will continue, but constant ultimatums from the Port Authority won’t be the fix.
“As far as we are concerned, Local 85, we have never left the negotiating table but we need someone that we can negotiate with,” McMahon says. “Take it or leave it proposals will not get it done, it will get a mutually agreeable solution.”
Showing posts with label Allegheny County Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allegheny County Council. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Councilman Proposes Reduced Funding to PAT
Allegheny County Council President Jim Burn is trying to pressure the Port Authority to use all of the $45 million in emergency flex funds it received in December from the state rather than spreading it out over 18 months. Riders' groups and the union representing bus drivers want the money used now to avoid a 15% cut in service and the layoffs of hundreds of workers effective March 27. PAT CEO Steve Bland says spreading out the flex funds will give state lawmakers more time to find a permanent funding stream for mass transit.
Burn says the PAT Board said last fall that it faced a $47 million shortfall and the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission agreed to "flex" the $45 million that was originally designated for road projects and send them to PAT because of the emergency nature of the transit agency's deficit.
“The purpose of the ask for the money was to stop any service cuts. By stretching the money over 18 months, they are going to make service cuts,” Burn says.
Burn says PAT has cut more than $50 million from its operating budget at the urging of the state but it now appears state funding for PAT will be $30 million less in 2011-12 than it is in the current fiscal year. The councilman says the state has not lived up to the terms of Act 44 for funding roads, bridges and mass transit. Burn says that means the required county match would also decline by nearly $5.1 million, and he will introduce an amendment calling for a reduction in county funding by that amount because he refuses to over-subsidize the organization (PAT) that he says “refuses to keep its word to the public.”
“Once they got the money, we are concerned that they then began to act in a fashion inconsistent with the initial ask,” Burn says. “We want them to use this money in a fashion consistent with what they had asked for in the first place.”(to eliminate the $47 million deficit for the current year)
Burn says he and his fellow colleagues in agreement with him on the council are willing to rescind this proposal if the PAT Board decides to use the state-allocated money in full this fiscal year.
Burn says the PAT Board said last fall that it faced a $47 million shortfall and the Southwest Pennsylvania Commission agreed to "flex" the $45 million that was originally designated for road projects and send them to PAT because of the emergency nature of the transit agency's deficit.
“The purpose of the ask for the money was to stop any service cuts. By stretching the money over 18 months, they are going to make service cuts,” Burn says.
Burn says PAT has cut more than $50 million from its operating budget at the urging of the state but it now appears state funding for PAT will be $30 million less in 2011-12 than it is in the current fiscal year. The councilman says the state has not lived up to the terms of Act 44 for funding roads, bridges and mass transit. Burn says that means the required county match would also decline by nearly $5.1 million, and he will introduce an amendment calling for a reduction in county funding by that amount because he refuses to over-subsidize the organization (PAT) that he says “refuses to keep its word to the public.”
“Once they got the money, we are concerned that they then began to act in a fashion inconsistent with the initial ask,” Burn says. “We want them to use this money in a fashion consistent with what they had asked for in the first place.”(to eliminate the $47 million deficit for the current year)
Burn says he and his fellow colleagues in agreement with him on the council are willing to rescind this proposal if the PAT Board decides to use the state-allocated money in full this fiscal year.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Hearing Scheduled Over Marcellus Drilling
Marcellus Shale protest groups gathered at Allegheny County Council’s meeting at the County Courthouse Tuesday evening to voice their concerns to council members and to call for a public hearing. Council agreed to do so and scheduled the hearing for March 10 at 5 p.m. in the Gold Room of the Courthouse.
Elizabeth Schneider of Marcellus Protest requested that all thirteen members be in attendance for the entirety of the hearing.
“This is a very, very important issue and your constituency deserves full attention as elected officials,” Schneider says. “Part time job or not your have three weeks to clear your schedules, 1.2 million people’s future depend on it.”
Not all council members attended the last public hearing on the issue in July.
Many constituents expressed concern about the effect drilling might have on water quality, and the health effects of chemicals that may become present as a result of drilling. The majority of those who spoke last night considered it a lapse in thought by council to consider allowing the Southwestern Pennsylvania region to fall into a similar polluting trend as those that the turn of the century steel mills produced.
Bradley Wilson said it is against Pittsburgh’s “green” standards to move forward with potentially polluting drilling.
“It is amazing to me that in this so called age of the green revolution in which we find ourselves building green arenas and convention centers, how quickly we fall into old industrial habits,” Wilson says. “We found a way to extract gas and generate a lot of money and jobs for the region, but this is a problem. It always is about money and jobs first, and about environment and our health second.”
The residents also spoke of the need to maintain the 2000 foot area between drilling wells and public residences should drilling not be halted altogether. There are proposals for 200 or 500 foot minimum distances from residences.
Elizabeth Schneider of Marcellus Protest requested that all thirteen members be in attendance for the entirety of the hearing.
“This is a very, very important issue and your constituency deserves full attention as elected officials,” Schneider says. “Part time job or not your have three weeks to clear your schedules, 1.2 million people’s future depend on it.”
Not all council members attended the last public hearing on the issue in July.
Many constituents expressed concern about the effect drilling might have on water quality, and the health effects of chemicals that may become present as a result of drilling. The majority of those who spoke last night considered it a lapse in thought by council to consider allowing the Southwestern Pennsylvania region to fall into a similar polluting trend as those that the turn of the century steel mills produced.
Bradley Wilson said it is against Pittsburgh’s “green” standards to move forward with potentially polluting drilling.
“It is amazing to me that in this so called age of the green revolution in which we find ourselves building green arenas and convention centers, how quickly we fall into old industrial habits,” Wilson says. “We found a way to extract gas and generate a lot of money and jobs for the region, but this is a problem. It always is about money and jobs first, and about environment and our health second.”
The residents also spoke of the need to maintain the 2000 foot area between drilling wells and public residences should drilling not be halted altogether. There are proposals for 200 or 500 foot minimum distances from residences.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Fitzgerald Wants Public Hearing for Shale Drilling
Allegheny County Council President Rich Fitzgerald says he wants a public hearing so that legislators can make public policy to ensure residents and the environment are safe when it comes to drilling for Marcellus Shale.
The legislation in question involves a regulation preventing drillers from being within a certain distance of a residential building. Two bills are up for Council's consideration and approval, one calling for a 500 foot regulation and the other 2,000.
Fitzgerald is in favor of having legislation to prevent Marcellus Shale drillers from being within 500 feet of a residential building. Pennsylvania State legislation currently calls for 200 feet, but Fitzgerald says that Allegheny County is different because it is densely populated.
"Two-hundred feet, to me, seems a little bit too close to a residential area. So, we might want to go a little bit further to give people a little more sense of security, and pubic safety."
Fitzgerald based his numbers and ideas on Lycoming County, which has a 500 foot regulation and according to him, has had more drilling activity. Only three wells have been drilled in Allegheny County since October. Instead of calling for a committee vote, Fitzgerald says a public hearing will provide a better perspective.
"I think it's important to hear from the public on what their concerns are and what they would like to see."
Fitzgerald knows that he will hear extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and opinions in between. He says that his goal is to find a medium that balances economic growth with environmental safety.
There is no date for the hearing yet, but Fitzgerald estimates that it will be in the next three weeks.
The legislation in question involves a regulation preventing drillers from being within a certain distance of a residential building. Two bills are up for Council's consideration and approval, one calling for a 500 foot regulation and the other 2,000.
Fitzgerald is in favor of having legislation to prevent Marcellus Shale drillers from being within 500 feet of a residential building. Pennsylvania State legislation currently calls for 200 feet, but Fitzgerald says that Allegheny County is different because it is densely populated.
"Two-hundred feet, to me, seems a little bit too close to a residential area. So, we might want to go a little bit further to give people a little more sense of security, and pubic safety."
Fitzgerald based his numbers and ideas on Lycoming County, which has a 500 foot regulation and according to him, has had more drilling activity. Only three wells have been drilled in Allegheny County since October. Instead of calling for a committee vote, Fitzgerald says a public hearing will provide a better perspective.
"I think it's important to hear from the public on what their concerns are and what they would like to see."
Fitzgerald knows that he will hear extremes on both ends of the spectrum, and opinions in between. He says that his goal is to find a medium that balances economic growth with environmental safety.
There is no date for the hearing yet, but Fitzgerald estimates that it will be in the next three weeks.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Reassessment on Time Despite Controversy
Officials say the Allegheny County property reassessment is on schedule and should be finished by January of 2012.
Despite County Council’s efforts to block the property reassessment, the process itself remains timely. That’s according to County Director of Administration Tim Johnson, who says his group is almost finished collecting data from the county’s 570,000 properties – which is the bulk of the work.
"The next phase, we're looking at more of the modeling of neighborhoods and cost calibration and valuing land and whatnot, and much of that is research-based and moves much more quickly."
The “data collection phase” began early in 2010 and figures to be finished in the next few months. Johnson says the County should be releasing preliminary property values by July. After a review process, final property values are scheduled for release next January.
Members of County Council have asked Governor Tom Corbett and the legislature to stop the reassessment, saying it’s unfair to single out Allegheny County when other counties use old data.
Despite County Council’s efforts to block the property reassessment, the process itself remains timely. That’s according to County Director of Administration Tim Johnson, who says his group is almost finished collecting data from the county’s 570,000 properties – which is the bulk of the work.
"The next phase, we're looking at more of the modeling of neighborhoods and cost calibration and valuing land and whatnot, and much of that is research-based and moves much more quickly."
The “data collection phase” began early in 2010 and figures to be finished in the next few months. Johnson says the County should be releasing preliminary property values by July. After a review process, final property values are scheduled for release next January.
Members of County Council have asked Governor Tom Corbett and the legislature to stop the reassessment, saying it’s unfair to single out Allegheny County when other counties use old data.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
County Council President Calls for Extraction Tax
Rich Fitzgerald, President of the Allegheny County Council, today added his voice to the call for an extraction tax on Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling. Fitzgerald says because the gas companies will be using public roadways and damaging them with heavy loads, a tax could help pay for road maintenance. He also said that since the upkeep of roadways usually comes from property taxes, it would be unfair for the public to pay for any damage caused by natural gas companies.
Fitzgerald says that currently Pennsylvania is the only "gas producing state that does not have an extraction tax," and says that not levying a tax is unacceptable. While he proposed that money be spent on environmental issues that might arise because of drilling, Fitzgerald emphasized that the first priority needs to be on infrastructure maintenance.
This comes after the Pennsylvania House passed a gas severance tax on September 30th. Income from the tax would be split with 40% going to the state and 60% going to communities and maintenance of company used roads. Under the measure, the first $70 million in revenues would go to the state's general fund. After that the 60-40 split would kick in.
Fitzgerald says that currently Pennsylvania is the only "gas producing state that does not have an extraction tax," and says that not levying a tax is unacceptable. While he proposed that money be spent on environmental issues that might arise because of drilling, Fitzgerald emphasized that the first priority needs to be on infrastructure maintenance.
This comes after the Pennsylvania House passed a gas severance tax on September 30th. Income from the tax would be split with 40% going to the state and 60% going to communities and maintenance of company used roads. Under the measure, the first $70 million in revenues would go to the state's general fund. After that the 60-40 split would kick in.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Allegheny County Meeting
When County Executive Dan Onorato submitted his proposed budget for the following year, it was a scaled down budget – and it didn’t take into account his plans for revamping the closed UPMC Braddock Hospital site.
Onorato’s plans for the hospital site are ambitious – the building will be demolished and in its place a mixed-use facility with an expanded urgent care clinic, Community College of Allegheny County facilities and senior housing. The problem – it’s not clear who will pay for the facility.
When he presented his budget last week there was no mention of his plans for Braddock – if anything, the budget was 5.8 million below last years and cuts human services, services at Shuman Detention Center and Juvenile Court Placement.
At an Allegheny County Council meeting on Tuesday, William Russell Robinson, Chairman of The Budget and Finance Committee raised the discussion of the impact of the Braddock Hospital Site Redevelopment on the County Budget. He also posed questions about a memorandum of understanding between the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and The Borough of Braddock that, previous to this week, had not been seen by County members.
The property is deeded to the county. UPMC is paying for the demolition. Asbestos removal has started this week.
Onorato’s plans for the hospital site are ambitious – the building will be demolished and in its place a mixed-use facility with an expanded urgent care clinic, Community College of Allegheny County facilities and senior housing. The problem – it’s not clear who will pay for the facility.
When he presented his budget last week there was no mention of his plans for Braddock – if anything, the budget was 5.8 million below last years and cuts human services, services at Shuman Detention Center and Juvenile Court Placement.
At an Allegheny County Council meeting on Tuesday, William Russell Robinson, Chairman of The Budget and Finance Committee raised the discussion of the impact of the Braddock Hospital Site Redevelopment on the County Budget. He also posed questions about a memorandum of understanding between the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and The Borough of Braddock that, previous to this week, had not been seen by County members.
The property is deeded to the county. UPMC is paying for the demolition. Asbestos removal has started this week.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
County Council Gets Budget
The Allegheny County Council received County Executive Dan Onorato’s 2011 Comprehensive Fiscal Plan last night with very little comment. Onorato’s plan rolls back spending and does not include a tax increase. The proposed 2011 operating budget totals $767.7 million, which is $5.8 million less than the 2010 adopted budget. “We’re in the worst economic recession of our times and our residents are faced with the same challenges at home,” said Onorato. “I’m asking all County departments to live within the 2010 budget for another year.” Many of the cuts come as federal and state pass-through funding tumbles. The Capital Budget will account for $112.7 million of the $767.7 million budget, including $62.5 million for County roads and bridges, and $13.8 million for building improvements. Council will hold hearings in the budget in the coming weeks.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Should County Prisoners Go to Work?
Allegheny County Council is considering a bill that would put non-violent prisoners to work outside the County Jail. Council Vice President Charles Martoni from District 8, a co-sponsor, says it’s a complex issue that could be constructive and positive both for the county and for the prisoners eligible to work, but care must be taken not to encroach on jobs that county employees should be doing and to use only those prisoners who would not be dangerous—people who are in jail for DUI offenses, for example.
He says Council should proceed slowly before voting on the measure. He would like to study other such programs around the country to see how they've been implemented and whether they've been successful.
Martoni says the community and the country need all citizens to be productive, and he believes there are some prisoners who could be.
He says Council should proceed slowly before voting on the measure. He would like to study other such programs around the country to see how they've been implemented and whether they've been successful.
Martoni says the community and the country need all citizens to be productive, and he believes there are some prisoners who could be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)