Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato yesterday vetoed the sale of the county Health Department building and a bill to impose county fees on nonprofit organizations, rounding out a week marked by episodes of legislative gamesmanship on Grant Street.

Citing violations of the county home rule charter, state law and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Mr. Onorato vetoed two key measures that County Council haggled over all week, even to the point of a shouting match between council members on Thursday.

One was a plan to collect as much as $13 million in fees from as many as 25,000 properties of tax-exempt organizations, excluding churches, schools and government buildings, starting in January.

The other was the was the $4.9 million sale of the county Health Department Building and property at 3333 Forbes Ave., Oakland, which the county wants to offer developers who intend to replace it with a hotel, an office building and a garage.

Both measures were overwhelmingly approved by council on Wednesday, but yesterday Mr. Onorato sought to reclaim control of both measures, which have significant implications for the county's finances.

In two separate veto letters, Mr. Onorato stressed that council had overstepped its bounds with regard to the county's finances saying that council's plan to impose a "tax-exempt certification and essential services fee" for certain properties on which nonprofit organizations currently pay no taxes is not only politically untenable, but also illegal.

"This bill, if enacted, would be successfully challenged by an aggrieved property owner," Mr. Onorato told council, because, "it appears to be an attempt to circumvent commonwealth law and impose real estate taxes on otherwise exempt property in a non-uniform manner."

Council ought to hold its proposal, Mr. Onorato continued, and allow his administration a chance to negotiate with the nonprofit community on voluntary contributions to the county's finances.

Mr. Onorato in September proposed a plan to negotiate $4 million in annual contributions to the county from nonprofit organizations.

But after a 14-0 vote to approve the proposal, Councilman William Robinson, D-Hill District, a co-sponsor of the essential services fee yesterday said he plans to vote to override Mr. Onorato's veto.

"I think it is a very legitimate effort to get the nonprofits to pay their fair share contribution in funding for county services," said Mr. Robinson. He didn't understand, he said, why Mr. Onorato's plan would seek about $4 million annually.

"I think the contributions ought to match the financial needs we have in the county," said Mr. Robinson, who is the chairman of council's Budget and Finance Committee. "Going forward, our budgetary need [from nonprofits] is in the $12 million to $13 million range," he added.

Council President Rich Fitzgerald, D-Squirrel Hill, on the other hand said he was not sure whether council could muster enough votes to override the veto.

"I think the sense on council has been to try to get a contribution from the nonprofits, specifically the big ones like UPMC. But It looks like we're in a position where we may not be able to win a legal challenge," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

To override Mr. Onorato's veto, council would need a simple majority of eight votes on the 15-member panel. On Wednesday, only Councilwoman Amanda Green, D-Stanton Heights didn't approve the essential services fee because she was not present to vote on the proposal.

Meanwhile, Mr. Onorato's other veto is expected to be sustained as council moves to approve the sale of the Health Department Building, afresh.

"I have commitments from all sides of council to approve this again without the amendment [of Councilman Chuck McCullough, R-Upper St. Clair]," said Mr. Fitzgerald.

Approved in a 13-1 vote with only Joan Cleary, D-Brentwood, opposed, the sale of the Health Department building collapsed -- as far as Mr. Onorato was concerned -- when council also approved an amendment proposed by Mr. McCullough.

That amendment established a special fund for the money generated by the sale. The account would be placed in a fund separate from the county's general operating budget and under direct control of the council.

And in an effort to nullify the special fund, Mr. Onorato vetoed the sale on the recommendation of council members who said they didn't quite understand the conditions set forth in Mr. McCullough's amendment -- mostly because they didn't read it before voting on it.

In his veto letter to council, Mr. Onorato said Mr. McCullough's amendment is illegal because it would throw the county's 2009 budget out of balance and the special fund it would create was not mentioned in the title of the sale -- both violations of the home rule charter.

"This legislation, as proposed by council, directs a deposit of funds immediately without a corresponding revenue increase," said Mr. Onorato.

For his part, Mr. McCullough, who introduced both the essential services fee and the amendment on the sale, said it will be "very regrettable" if council cannot override Mr. Onorato's vetoes after passing both measures with overwhelming votes.

"We're going to find out how much control Dan Onorato really has over County Council," Mr. McCullough said. "We're going to find out if we really have a council or one in name only."

Council will take up both vetoes at its next meeting on Nov. 17.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.