Despite months of public engagement and open houses explaining the process, residents of Franklin Park voted no on a ballot question on whether to form a commission to study changing the borough to home rule, according to Allegheny County Election results on Nov. 5.
Voters in Franklin Park seemed to be almost split on the issue, with those voting no at 2,925, and yes at 2,681.
Those recommending home rule said it could offer more financial flexibility and help address the borough’s deficit. Even though it did not go through, Franklin Park Council President Uday Palled said council and administration can investigate other avenues to address the finances and functions of the borough.
“The borough can still look for ways to review some of our practices and operations. The study commission would have done many of these activities, but the council can also perform some of these reviews. We have ordinances that have not been reviewed or updated in decades, along with taking a look at the current level of services with right-sized staffing,” he said.
Proponents said a home rule charter could have offered more financial flexibility to help address the borough’s deficit.
The ballot question, set by state law, was as follows:
“Shall a government study commission of seven members be elected to study the existing form of government of the municipality, to consider the advisability of the adoption of a home rule charter; and if advisable, to draft and to recommend a home rule charter?”
In addition to the home rule question, voters were asked to select the seven candidates to form the commission. All of these candidates collected 164 signatures to get on the ballot, which would have determined the fate of the ballot question.
Several open houses in Franklin Park were held to provide information on what a home rule charter meant, most led by council members Laura Czekaj and Thomas Schwartzmier.
At an Aug. 13 open house on the subject, general discussion included that, if home rule did not pass, other income-generating options could be a potential rise in property tax, cutting more expenditures or a combination of both.
There was some effort on social media to dissuade or persuade voters to either side. The Franklin Park Republican Committee had Facebook posts before the election recommending voting no on the ballot question, citing it would “open the door to more taxes and more government.”
Alternatively, the Franklin Park Democratic Committee was recommending a yes vote on its social media, posting home rule is “our one opportunity to explore real, lasting property tax relief.”
Palled had stated home rule offered more flexibility in creating revenue for the municipality, which has been operating on a deficit for at least five of the past seven years. By state law, the borough has to wait five years before putting this question on the ballot.
“The vote was narrow. There was quite a bit of resident interest in studying the issue so I am still happy we at least put it out for a vote. I’m not sure what will happen in five years and if this is something residents may or may not want to go through again,” he said.
