Tempers flared and voices rose as Allegheny County Council members yesterday revisited the sale of the county Health Department building in Oakland, with Council President Rich Fitzgerald announcing that he has asked County Executive Dan Onorato to veto the deal the council members had overwhelmingly approved the night before.

The issue isn't the $4.9 million sale of the property at 3333 Forbes Ave., to developers who intend to replace it with a hotel, an office building and a garage.

The problem, according to at least three council members, is an amendment proposed by Councilman Chuck McCullough, R-Upper St. Clair, establishing a special fund for the money generated by the sale. Mr. McCullough said he wanted the money to be separate from the county's general operating budget and under direct control of the council.

Council members, who later admitted that they had not read the two-page amendment, approved the "rainy day fund" in a 13-1 vote, with only Joan Cleary, D-Brentwood, opposed.

Upon examination of the amendment, however, members learned that it provided restrictions on how the fund could be appropriated and raised the number of votes such expenditures would require.

Some council members said they had been lied to and that Mr. McCullough had "pulled a fast one." During the course of the discussion, there was shouting, interruptions, profanity, insults and, at one point, the throwing of a copy of the amendment to the floor.

The amendment stated that no more than $100,000 or 10 percent of the fund could be tapped in any fiscal year, and that a two-thirds vote of the members would be required. The only way more money could be taken from the fund would be by a unanimous vote of council.

"We put this county in a difficult fiscal position by restricting this money," said Mr. Fitzgerald, D-Squirrel Hill. "This bill was misrepresented."

"Please don't say it was sprung on you," Mr. McCullough said. "I gave you my opinion of the amendment and my interpretation and my legislative intent. ... If somebody doesn't understand it, fine. Let's talk it out. But let's not get personal, and say I was trying to slip-sheet somebody."

"My recommendation to the county executive is to veto the bill and re-do it," said Mr. Fitzgerald. "It's going to have to be vetoed, because we can't just strip out the amendment."

Amid the arguing, the members agreed that in the future they would not vote on amendments without reading them and possibly referring them to committees for consideration.

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.