Wilkinsburg merger with Pittsburgh must be approved by voters, court affirms

A state court on Thursday said that if residents of Wilkinsburg want to pursue annexation with Pittsburgh, there must be a referendum approving it by both communities.

The Commonwealth Court issued a 17-page opinion affirming a lower court ruling by Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joe James last year.

A group of Wilkinsburg citizens filed a petition seeking to initiate annexation proceedings on Sept. 29. The petition, which was signed by 1,243 registered voters, had twice as many signatures as necessary. However, the plan was opposed by Wilkinsburg Council. Pittsburgh City Council voted down a similar petition request in February 2022.

James dismissed the petition, writing that the only acceptable procedure for annexation comes from the state constitution, which requires a referendum in which a majority of voters from each municipality approve the merger.

The group seeking annexation appealed, arguing that the 1903 Annexation Law governed the process. That law allowed for annexation if a petition was signed by at least 5% of qualified voters from the community seeking to become annexed to another. It did not require voter approval from the other municipality, but did require consent from city council.

However, the Commonwealth Court agreed with James that the law had been repealed, writing that “any doubt” as to the 1903 law’s status “has been removed.”

“As such, Appellants may not utilize the procedures outlined in the 1903 Annexation Law,” and instead must follow the referendum procedure, unless legislation is enacted offering some other procedure.

Attorney Charles A. Pascal Jr., who represented the group of citizens challenging the annexation process, praised the decision.

“I was really confident we were correct all along that the 1903 law was ineffective and has been since the 70s,” he said.

Pascal said his clients believe any annexation should be something both the people of Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg have the final say on.

Pascal noted that if the annexation had occurred, it would have also meant an automatic merger of school districts, without following the proscribed, detailed process for such a merger under state law.

“That’s inherently unfair,” he said.

Attorney Cliff Levine, who represents the Wilkinsburg residents seeking annexation, said they are disappointed in the decision.

“We believe there are many synergistic benefits in having Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh come together,” he said. “At this time, we are evaluating our options as to how we might allow the citizens of Wilkinsburg to have an opportunity to consider this possibility.”

They have not decided whether to appeal.

Tracey Evans, executive director of Wilkinsburg Community Development Corp. which supported the annexation effort, believes that annexation makes good fiscal sense for the community, noting that about one-third of Wilkinsburg’s services are already shared with the city of Pittsburgh.

“All of the studies have indicated it would be good for the city and the Borough of Wilkinsburg,” Evans said.

She and other supporters are especially frustrated, Evans said, because when they first started to gather signatures in this effort, they were told by attorneys from the city and county that the 1903 law governed the process. They believe that the 2022 legislative repeal of the law was improper.

Evans suggested that an important next step would be getting a group of municipalities in similar circumstances together to discuss potential legislation.

“There needs to be a tool to allow for this to happen,” she said.

But Pascal said they do have a mechanism — a referendum from both communities.