Residents urge commissioners not to move pantry funds from Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank to county food bank

Several Washington County food‑pantry leaders and longtime volunteers used the public‑comment period on May 7 to press the Washington County Board of Commissioners to keep funding with the Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank or to allow pantries to choose their partner.

"If you send those funds to Washington County Food Bank, I will have no choice but to go independent," said Cathy Kennedy, who identified herself as representing the Hart Community Food Pantry. She said her pantry serves up to about 200 families and asked that her funding remain with the Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank so she would not lose items and services the larger bank provides.

Tony, a longtime advisory‑board volunteer who said he chaired the county’s food‑insecurity committee for three years, warned the county lacks a clear implementation plan to operate all 34 pantries locally. "They have 1 truck and 1 man," he said of the county food bank, arguing the county should not move forward without a workable distribution plan. He also said he believed it would be a conflict of interest if Vice Chair Electra Janus votes on a change because Janus holds a leadership role with the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank.

"Why fix something that is working and not broken?" asked Maggie Hovalka, co‑director of Madeline's Food Pantry, who said she was troubled by an agenda folder that listed only 15 pantries when she knows 34 operate in the county.

Allison Sparro, speaking for Community Circle Food Pantry, described current demand and the operational capacity that pantries rely on: "In April alone, our pantry served over 900 families. Since the start of 2026, we've served over 5,500 families," she said, and added that Greater Pittsburgh provides trucks and scale that local pantries depend on.

Chairman Sherman responded to individual commenters by asking them to leave contact information and said the board was "at this point, just looking at options and weighing options out." The board did not vote on a change during the meeting.

Why it matters: Several speakers warned that a change in funding and administration could remove sourcing and delivery capacity that pantries rely on, complicate access to special items (highlighted in materials pantries provided to the board), and reduce service to seniors and veterans. Commenters asked commissioners to preserve service continuity or allow pantries to choose which bank they partner with.

What’s next: Commissioners acknowledged the concerns, requested contact information to follow up, and deferred any formal change while they review options and solicit more information from stakeholders.