Voters in Allegheny County may get a chance to decide whether to merge the Allegheny County Police with the county sheriff's office and change the sheriff into an appointed position.

But they won't have an opportunity to make a similar decision with the county treasurer.

After a long debate, filled with questions for county Manager Jim Flynn and Tony Mann, the sheriff's deputies' union president, the council voted unanimously to place the measure before the county's voters.

The ballot question, which could be challenged in court, will ask voters if the home rule charter should be amended Jan. 1, 2010, to "merge the functions, duties, employees, and all other and all other aspects of the Sheriff with the Allegheny County Police Department by replacing the elected Sheriff with a Sheriff appointed by the Chief Executive with the consent of County Council."

The measure received the support of the majority of sheriff's deputies and the county police.

Standing in the back of the room during the council meeting, Deputy Mann explained that the sheriff's deputies decided to support the measure after learning that they would make $4,000 more a year once merged with the county police and that instead of having to wait until 55 to retire, they could retire at age 50.

There are 142 members of the sheriff's deputies' union and 210 members of the county police union.

Mr. Mann said one of the concerns of the deputies was that they keep their unique identity. He said he had been assured by the administration that the deputies would be able to keep the cache they have when they travel outside of Pennsylvania to places such as the West and the South, where sheriff's deputies are well known and respected.

"At 4 p.m. I was against this totally," said county Councilman Michael Finnerty, D-Scott, "Since it seems the sheriffs and police are in favor of this, I tend to move that way myself."

The motion to make the sheriff an appointed position was amended as the meeting started to include the merger of the two departments. The amendment delayed implementation of the merger until 2010, rather than Jan. 1, 2008, allaying concerns of some council members.

In the end, council approved it in a 15-0 vote.

It was a different scenario with the treasurer's office.

Councilman Dave Fawcett, R-At Large, was the lone sponsor of the legislation, which was not backed by county Chief Executive Dan Onorato, as the sheriff's consolidation was.

Mr. Fawcett tried to get the support of council, but it was soon apparent that it wasn't going to go far.

Mr. Fawcett rejected a move to send the matter back to committee.

"Let the vote [on the matter] go and see if this is the remaining sacred cow among the row offices," he said.

In the end, the measure failed, with only four votes in favor of putting it before voters.