Zrinski is Asking for More Than She Needs in Her 2027 Budget

On Friday morning, Northampton County Executive was late to her own news conference announcing her first proposed budget for next year. That was no inconvenience for me. Since the budget itself was yet to be posted online (that would only happen later in the day), I decided to skip it and just watch what she had to say during a rather disappointing Facebook Live, in which a jocular attitude, stray tangents and inappropriate laughter betrayed the gravity of the heavy burden she hopes to impose on property owners. She denied she was really late, saying, "Nothing happens without me." She proposed what amounts to a roughly 43.5% increase in property taxes, increasing the millage rate from 10.5 to about 15.6 mills.

A tax hike is more than overdue, if only to make working for the county a little more attractive for employees. Moreover, Zrinski knows that what she seeks will never be approved by County Council. I believe she intentionally inflated her demand so that County Council can claim victory when it trims her proposal to a more realistic tax hike of about 1.5- 2 mills. That may have been a smart play with County Council, but not with the public. I've seen calls to action on social media, calling on people to attend budget hearings and complain. 

Zrinski has attempted to justify what she calls an "honest budget" on her Substack page.  It is far from honest. She first tries to minimize it, noting it's only $24.19 a month for the average taxpayer. For some. already burdened by high school taxes, this could be the final nail. She then plays the woman card for some reason that should be completely irrelevant to this discussion. She also plays the blame game, accusing "past administrations" (former Exec. Lamont McClure) for putting her in this position. This may to some extent be accurate, but she was a willing participant as a member of County Council. She finally admits that it's only a "recommendation," meaning that it's more of a wish list than a truly honest budget.

Shortly after the budget became available, so did a very thorough, but anonymous, online analysis called WhoBuiltThisShit. Some think this came from the Zrinski administration in an attempt to throw McClure under the bus. I think the analysis actually makes both McClure and Zrinski look pretty bad, so I doubt it came from any of her supporters. It is possible that someone in Fiscal Affairs prepared this analysis, and we'll eventually learn who because the shelf life of a secret in NorCo is about 15 minutes. 

Zrinski is proposing a $44.5 million increase in property tax revenue, but more than half of this is to cover items that McClure left out of his final budget. A review of Zrinski’s proposed budget, her public statements, her County of Northampton Facebook Live presentation, her Substack writing, public reactions on social media and the independent analysis published at Who Built This Shit? suggests a more complicated picture. The county faces genuine financial pressures involving pensions, Gracedale, employee costs, overtime and its reliance on reserves. But the minimum amount necessary to address those problems should be far lower than what Zrinski seeks.

SPENDING INCREASES ABOUT 4%, BUT PROPERTY-TAX COLLECTIONS RISE MUCH MORE

The proposed 2027 budget totals approximately $566.9 million, compared with about $546.8 million in the 2026 amended budget. That represents an increase of approximately $20.1 million, or 4%. Property-tax collections, however, would increase by approximately $44.5 million, from roughly $99.5 million to $144 million. The difference is important.

It would be misleading to characterize the proposal as simply a $44.5 million spending increase. Some additional revenue would replace reserves and restore funding for obligations that were underfunded or deferred in the 2026 budget. But it would be just as misleading to focus exclusively on the $20.1 million increase in spending. Taxpayers are being asked to provide approximately $44.5 million in additional recurring property-tax revenue.

ZRINSKI HAS A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE 2026 BUDGET

One of Zrinski’s strongest arguments is that the 2026 budget did not fully reflect several expenses the county would ultimately have to confront. The independent Who Built This Shit? analysis found that the 2026 budget contained approximately $1.3 million for pensions, compared with approximately $8.2 million actually spent in 2025. The proposed 2027 budget contains approximately $12.2 million for pensions. The 2026 budget also contained no budgeted subsidy for Gracedale, even though the nursing home was expected to require approximately $3.9 million. The 2027 proposal includes approximately $12 million for Gracedale.The proposed budget also reduces reliance on fund balance by approximately $19.2 million. These figures support Zrinski’s contention that the county’s financial position cannot be evaluated simply by comparing the proposed 2027 budget with the 2026 budget.

Zrinski made similar arguments before becoming executive. During the debate over the 2026 budget, she criticized the practice of balancing a budget by failing to adequately fund programs and obligations. In that respect, her current proposal is consistent with warnings she made before she assumed office.

BUT THE NUMBERS DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT 15.5 MILLS IS THE ONLY ANSWER

The more difficult question is whether addressing those obligations requires the full proposed 4.7-mill increase. That seems doubtful. The independent analysis found that approximately $302.5 million of roughly $400.6 million in non-payroll expenditures—about 76%—is contained in broad or pooled categories These pooled categories make it difficult for taxpayers and County Council to determine whether savings are available. Tus is why I consider the budget dishonest or at least nontransparent.

Before approving any tax increase, Council should demand greater detail showing what is contained in the largest pooled accounts, who receives the money, whether expenditures are mandated and how much was actually spent in previous years. For major expenditures, the county should disclose vendors, contracts, purposes, prior-year spending, proposed spending and explanations for significant increases.

LIKE IT OR NOT, GRACEDALE REMAINS THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL AND POLICY QUESTION

Gracedale is at the center of the budget debate. In her Substack writing, Zrinski describes the county-owned nursing home as a public asset that provides accountability and a safety net for vulnerable residents. She has argued that the county should improve and preserve the facility rather than treat it simply as another expense. The proposed budget includes approximately $12 million for Gracedale. The independent analysis identifies that subsidy as an area requiring particular scrutiny. There are those who feel the cost of this facility, which is poorly managed, is simply too much.

Both positions can be valid. The fact that Gracedale requires taxpayer support is no justification, by itself, for selling the facility. But there still needs to be financial accountability. Zrinski has vowed to make Gracedale self-sustaining. When? How long will the county taxpayers be forced to support the facility, and at amounts that increase each year? When will the $12 million subsidy begin to decline, and when is it expected to reach zero? The administration should provide a five-year financial plan showing projected resident census, staffing costs, agency nursing costs, overtime, reimbursement rates, Medicare and Medicaid revenue, private-pay revenue and taxpayer subsidies. Without measurable benchmarks, self-sufficiency remains an objective rather than a demonstrated financial plan. I have long argued that the county needs to plan for this, especially as more and more seniors stay away from nursing homes.

OVERTIME DESERVES CLOSER EXAMINATION

The independent analysis found that the proposed countywide overtime budget is approximately $6.2 million, compared with actual overtime spending of approximately $8.3 million in 2025 and projected spending of approximately $8.9 million in 2026. At the county jail, approximately $2 million is budgeted for overtime despite spending of approximately $3.8 million. These figures raise a management question: Would hiring additional full-time employees cost less than continuing to pay large amounts of overtime? That question cannot be answered simply by claiming the county has too many or too few employees. A department like Corrections or Gracedale can have numerous authorized positions but substantial vacancies, forcing existing employees to work overtime. The county should publish authorized positions, filled positions, vacancies and overtime costs by department.

The same issue applies to salaries. The independent analysis found that 2026 salary expenditures were budgeted at approximately $99.9 million, while projected actual spending was approximately $96.4 million. This reflects vacant positions, meaning the county has a recruitment and retention problem.

WHAT THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS GETS RIGHT

The Who Built This Shit? analysis is valuable because it identifies questions the county should answer. Its strongest point is that the budget fails to provide enough detail for taxpayers to determine whether the proposed 15.5-mill rate is the minimum necessary. A $12 million Gracedale appropriation may be justified. A large overtime account may be justified. Major infrastructure projects and professional-services contracts may also be justified. But taxpayers should be able to determine why expenditures are necessary and whether less expensive alternatives exist.

WHAT COUNTY COUNCIL SHOULD DEMAND

Before adopting the budget, Council should require a detailed breakdown of the additional property-tax revenue, including: Pension obligations and required contributions; Gracedale’s operating subsidy and five-year financial outlook; Employee compensation and staffing costs; Jail and corrections expenses, including overtime; Infrastructure and capital projects; Professional-services contracts and other major vendors; transfers between funds and the amount needed to replace reserves; and New initiatives and other discretionary spending; Potential savings from filling vacancies, reducing overtime and renegotiating contracts.

There is definitely room to cut. I particularly dislike the $500,000 grants to New Bethany and Skyline Investments. While New Bethany might be able to justify a grant, Northampton County Council voted 6-3 against giving Skyline a tax break for luxury apartments in Wilson Borough. It appears that Zrinski is seeking to funnel some dough to this for-profit venture through the back door, and at a time when the county needs every penny it can get. 

LV Congressional Candidate Bob Brooks Allegely Lied on COVID Grant Application

Bob Brooks is the Democratic nominee for the Pa. 07 Congressional seat held by Republican Ryan Mackenzie. He likes to portray himself as an Everyman although he's a bit closer to a con man. Although he's finally paid off his mother-in-law's $130,000 judgment, it now appears that he outright lied when he applied for a COVID grant through Northampton County in 2021.

During COVID, Northampton County was given $30 million in American Recovery Plan federal funds to spend on relief efforts. Then Executive Lamont McClure set up a find for small businesses hurt by the pandemic, enabling them to apply for up to $15,000. 

Brooks, who maintained a lawn care business, applied. The application form made clear that "knowingly making a false statement to obtain a grant" would violate federal criminal law and could result in a five-year sentence as well as a fine of up to $250,000.  

According to The Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, Brooks lied on his application. To be specific, he denied having any judgments against him despite that $130,000 judgment. In addition, there were another two open judgments from credit card companies at the time he applied for this grant. 

Not only was Brooks awarded a COVID grant, but it was for the full $15,000.

Since the judgment from his mother-in-law was appealed to the Superior Court, it would be hard for him to plead ignorance.

Over 3,500 people have been prosecuted for COVID fraud nationwide. But Brooks thinks he should be elected to Congress

that matter was very much open when he applied for a COVID grant threough Northampton County

UPDATED: How Did LV Delegation Vote on House Bill Opening Up Primary Elections

The Pa/ State House voted on Tuesday to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in primary elections for candidates for public office. They would still be barred from voting for internal state party offices like committee members. The bill passed 115-88 and goes on to the state senate. 

How did members of the Lehigh Valley delegation vote?

Voting Yes were Bob Freeman (D - Pa. 136), Steve Samuelson (D - Pa. 135), Mike Schlossberg (D - Pa. 132), Pete Schweyer (D. Pa. 134), Ana Tiburcio (D - Pa. 22), and Joe Emrick (R - Pa.137)

Voting No were Ann Flood (R- Pa. 138), Milou Mackenzie (R - Pa. 131) and Zach Mako (R- Pa. 183) and Gary Day (R- Pa. 187)

Opening primaries is one way to assure that everyone has a say. Currently, 44% of voters nationwide consider themselves independents. It will also result in more moderate party nominees. 

Currently, 20 states have open primaries in which members of one party can choose to vote in another party's primary. Pennsylvania's proposed law would only allow unaffiliated voters to choose to vote as a Democrat or Republican. 

UPDATED 11:12 AM - In the original version, I had Gary Day as a Yes and was mistaken. 

Zrinski to Unveil NorCo's 2027 Budget on Friday

According to a news release, Executive Tara Zrinski plans to unveil her 2027 Budget from Northampton County on Friday, 10:30 am, at the Human Services Building, located at 2801 Emrick Blvd in Bethlehem Tp. It will be her first budget as county executive. A tax hike is all but guaranteed. 

Her proposed budget will go into effect even if it is rejected by County Council. They have the power to amend the budget but have no authority to interfere with revenue projections. 

The budget must be balanced.

Will she pay into the county's pension funds this year? Will she begin addressing the wage disparity that exists? Will she fund open space? 

Stay tuned. 

UPDATED: Mackenzie's Comms Director Edited Website With Racist Tropes

I've seen some of Arnaud Armstrong's comments as Communications Director for Congressman Ryan Mackenzie, who is facing a tough battle against blue headwinds that just may blow Democratic challenger Bob Brooks into office. Some have been downright bizarre, like his explanation when Mackenzie was accused of embellishing his career in the private sector. Rather than dismissing this DCCC story as clearly false, which it was, Armstrong gave it weight by saying that these were "passing mentions, mostly from third parties." But now a much uglier story has surfaced. During his days at UPitt, Armstrong was the "editor" of an online conservative leaning website called Polis Media that decided it would be fun 

Members of that website shared memes including jokes about statutory rape, the Holocaust, a young African-American boy looking at a piece of cotton candy and saying, 'You mean I don’t have to pick it and I can eat it?!'"

Armstrong gave the incredible explanation that they "were shared with facetious intent and certainly not reflective of the beliefs of those who shared them.” They were joking, so it's OK, right? He also called it an experiment to see "what the worst of the internet could produce."

He may find out soon when his boss loses a close election because of his (at-best) juvenile antics.

UPDATED 10:15 PM: The original version of this story indicated that Armstrong himself posted these tropes. That is inaccurate. He was part of the group chat and was the editor of this site. 

Zrinski's Campaign Funded in Part by County Employees and Vendors

We all know what happened in Allentown not all that long ago, when former Mayor Edwin "Fed Ed" Pawlowski was charged and eventually convicted of public corruption. For a brief time, it had a chilling effect on campaign contributions. But the Lehigh Valley's pay-to-play culture has gone on far too long to let a few federal bribery prosecutions get in the way. Pay-to-play is back, and with a vengeance. Candidates are spending more now than they ever have. 

Years ago, before I even started this blog, I used to be at nearly every county council meeting, asking them to curb the practice by enacting an ordinance that would bar anyone who contributed to a county elected official or candidate from county employment. I also would complain about county vendors who contribute to county candidates and asked for legislation that would bar them from doing business with that county or municipality for a limited period of time after the donation.

I was a real pain in the ass, unmindful of the simple reality that the more you harp on any topic at a public meeting, the less effective you become. I thought I was dazzling them with my oratory. I was boring them instead. 

Though I've stopped haranguing elected officials on this topic, I do remain concerned about county candidates who accept donations from county employees and vendors. 

Executive Tara Zrinski presents herself as a grass roots candidate and truly is. Over the years, her finance reports demonstrate that she has a solid base of small and local donors. But when she ran for Executive, she began accepting money from county workers whose further employment with the county would be in her hands. She also accepted donations from two county vendors. 

COUNTY EMPLOYEE DONATIONS

Below is a listing of county employees who donated to her 2025 Executive race 

• Lamont McClure — $15,000. McClure was Northampton County Executive and supported Zrinski as his successor. After the election, he was appointed a PT Assistant County Solicitor 

• Susan Wandalowski — at least $1,090. County Human Services Director.

• Melissa Rudas — at least $1,050. County solicitor.

• Michael Corriere — at least $750. Former county council member and assistant county solicitor.

• Michael Emili — at least $815. County Public Works director.

• Tina Smith — at least $550. County DCED director.

• Stephen Baratta — $500. Northampton County district attorney. (Ironically, Zrinski suggests Baratta had political motives for a Grand Jury report critical of Gracedale when he actually supported her campaign).

• Mary Lou Kaboly — $500. Former county human-resources director.

• Mark Aurand — at least $300. former deputy county controller and now, the county administrator.

• Richard Groff — $500. Now a county election commissioner.

A COUNTY ARCHITECT GIVES $2,000

One contribution has a particularly direct connection to county business. Randy Galiotto contributed $2,000 to Zrinski. He is a principal of Alloy5, the Bethlehem architectural firm selected by Northampton County as project architect for replacement of the Government Center parking deck.

County procurement records identify Alloy5 as the project architect. County Council approved approximately $463,000 in architectural services for the project, but it is important to note that Alloy5 was selected on June 18, 2025, six months before Zrinski was ever elected. but six months after Zrinski's election, County Council unanimously approved a $62,400 increase to Alloy5. 

A $10,000 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE FAMILY OF A COUNTY LANDLORD

Another notable contribution came from Nimita Kapoor-Atiyeh, who gave Zrinski $10,000. Kapoor-Atiyeh is the wife of Abe Atiyeh, a local real-estate developer who owns the West Easton work-release facility leased by Northampton County. Thus, a $10,000 personal campaign contribution came from the immediate family of the owner of property being leased by the county.

In addition to the work release center, an Atiyeh company (Ridge Ventures recently agreed to lease a property in Bethlehem Township to the county for a DUI center at a rent of $2,500 a month over a period of 10 years.

These records establish the contribution and the family/property relationship. There is no evidence, aside from the contribution itself, that the contribution was made in exchange for favorable treatment by the county or that the county's lease was affected by it.

These donations are completely legal. I have no reason to believe that Zrinski's decision-making is in any way impacted by those who gave her money, especially because she has a broad base of grass roots support and is actually at odds with a District Attorney who donated to her. But to remove any uncertainty, these types of contributions should be limited or outright banned. 

Why 6thTuesday Pre-Election Campaign Finance Reports Should Be Mandatory For All Elections in Pa.

Under current Pa. law, only statewide candidates must file 6th Tuesday pre-election reports, which cover the period between June 8 and September 22. Other nominees, including state house and senate candidates, can wait to detail their expenses until October 23, 2026, the 2d Friday before the actual election. This system worked when most people voted on election day. People could inform themselves in advance about who is financing electoral hopefuls.  That system no longer works. 

Changes in our election laws now permit Mail-in Ballots and Ballot by Demand well in advance of election day. Candidates have responded by intensifying their fundraising efforts much sooner than in previous campaigns. You can see this in your mailbox on a near daily basis. Those who wait to make their pitches risk losing a critical segment of voters who prefer the convenience and simplicity of MIBs and Ballot-by-Demand over standing in line at the polling place. 

The problem is that many who chose to exercise these voting alternatives have no idea who is funding the campaigns of the politicians they choose. They are unable to follow the money in any meaningful way. 

For that reason, the state legislature should change current campaign finance laws to make 6th Tuesday pre-election reports mandatory in all campaigns.