Council meetings will be live streamed on the city's website and for guest speakers.

Please do not turn off your microphones.

Our first order of business is rule call.

Will the clerk please take the rule?

Mr.

Schroyland.

Here.

Mr.

Coghill.

Ms.

Gross.

Mr.

Lavelle.

Mr.

Mosley.

Mrs.

Kale Smith.

Mrs.

Warwick.

Here.

Mr.

Wilson.

Mrs.

Strasberger Chair.

Here.

Seven members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is public comment.

I would like to remind all speakers that the rules of council state that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before city council, and profanity will not be permitted.

Please state your name and neighborhood for the record.

You will have three minutes to speak.

Our first registered speaker is Adrian Walnoha.

Good morning.

My name is Adrian Wanahaw.

I am the acting chair of the Housing Opportunity Fund Advisory Board and a resident of the Observatory Hill neighborhood.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to make comments this morning.

I have had the pleasure of serving on the HOF Advisory since its inception.

My work in the housing arena and particularly around housing stability started in 1998 when I found that 80% of the individuals I was serving as a therapist had significant barriers to accessing and maintaining stable and affordable housing.

Since that time in the 27 years since, the need for affordable housing creation, preservation, and housing supports has not resolved.

In fact, it has gotten worse.

Local state national support for affordable housing is shrinking, and inflationary costs have outpaced what we had originally and now put us at a deficit.

The housing opportunity fund advisory has spent the last year deepening our understanding of the housing needs across Pittsburgh and have presented our recommendations for 2026 allocations through the fund.

With these limited resources, we have been able to fund vital city-based housing supports and look to you to not only support our recommendations for 2026, but to continue your commitment to affordable housing across Pittsburgh through the Housing Opportunity Fund programs.

Through these programs and the Housing Opportunity Fund program, sorry, through these programs and the housing opportunity fund funding, we will see city residents secure and maintain affordable housing, positive movement toward closing our affordable housing deficit, and we will fill gaps that no other resources have the flexibility to fill.

Let's consider the demonstration program alone through the housing opportunity fund that's provided safe emergency housing opportunities for hundreds of city residents who would have otherwise been on the street, critical infrastructure improvements at Wood Street Commons, which provides accessible housing for 259 residents, and housing subsidies for dozens of individuals caught in local funding reductions who would have been on the street otherwise.

Again, with funds shrinking and inflation rising, a thousand individuals experiencing homelessness, and 11,000 citizens of Allegheny County experiencing housing vulnerability.

We need to preserve HOF's work.

Hundreds of Pittsburghers will be supported by only one single solitary fund alone.

And the housing opportunity advisory board continues its commitment to working with you to deploy the funds that were previously awarded.

Work through our 2026 allocation, and we need your ongoing support.

Please approve our 2026 allocation plan that has been presented.

And we look forward to working with you in the future and invite you to join the advisory group for any of our meetings and any of our conversations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next registered speaker is Tanika Harris.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, good morning, Council Chair Erica Strasberger, Council President Lavell, and members of City Council.

I am Sonika Harris, a resident of Knoxville, and I also serve on the Housing Opportunity Fund Advisory Board.

And let me begin by saying nothing and no one is above critique.

And that includes the Housing Opportunity Fund and its advisory board.

And these are the members of the advisory board.

So I think it's important that you know that.

James East, Terrell Thomas, Karen Garrett, Ellie Fisher, Councilwoman Deb Gross, Deedra Washington, Rochelle Preston, Rebecca Yago, Alan Sisko, Layla Matthews, Adrian Wadaha, Robert Hellwig, and myself.

And there's also three vacancies that we look forward to filling.

So I recognize there's been conversation about ending the housing opportunity fund and reallocating those dollars.

And I want to offer some perspective from someone who sees first hand what these funds accomplish and how they matter to the people in our communities.

So I'm gonna say Ha to uh and as it which is the acronym.

Uh Hoff did not appear out of thin air.

It was created after the city's affordable housing task force spent a year studying the housing crisis in 2015 through 2016.

The recommendation was that Pittsburgh needed a dedicated long-term strategy to address the growing gap in affordable housing.

The city responded by committing 10 million dollars a year for 12 years.

And that commitment has been a lifeline for people who have spent far too long living in unstable, unsafe, and unaffordable housing.

So the advisory board works closely with the URA staff who ensure that we have the information needed to make responsible decisions.

And as board members, our job is to lift the needs of the communities we serve and to carry accurate information back to them.

We take that seriously.

And because we take that seriously, we also can see the impact.

So when a family moves into a new affordable rental development, because the rental gap program helped the projects get built, that is hot at work.

When a senior gets a roof replaced or a furnace repaired so they can safely age in place in the home that they lived in for decades, that is hoff at work.

When someone faces a temporary crisis and receives emergency housing stabilization to prevent them from losing everything, that is half at work.

But so when a first-time home buyer is finally able to close because they've received a down payment support, that is hoff at work.

Tangled titles are being resolved.

That's half at work.

These are labs, labs in every one of your council districts that have benefited from HOF and Hoff being at work.

So HOP is one of the few tools that we have that actually aligns with the city's responsibility to ensure that its residents can remain in place, they can have stability and access opportunity.

Eliminating this does and to redirect funds would dismantle a proven pathway that families will allow on every day.

And I speak today to affirm that the advisory board is informed, we are engaged, and we are committed, and we believe in accountability.

We believe in transparency.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good morning, Council.

Radar McGrady, uh in Highland Park.

I'm the human rights program manager at the Global Switch Board and uh co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Doses Table, uh, which formed to help create the housing opportunity for uh fund.

So I understand the council is having to take a hard look at the city finances, and um I'm speaking today to urge you to preserve funding for the housing opportunity fund.

Um, as others have said, it plays a really vital role in supporting affordable housing creation across the city and providing direct legal assistance and social support to uh residents experiencing a housing crisis.

I think to retract this funding at this time would be honestly like unimaginably cruel amidst the current economic conditions, and I would say that you know, as our elected officials, it's really your responsibility to protect the policies and programs that help preserve the basic human rights of our residents, including the right to housing.

Um, when our elected officials don't provide social safety note services, uh, no one else does.

I think it's easy to think that people just figure it out.

But the truth is the gap will not be filled, and the outcome of a lack of social safety nuts is simply object suffering.

Um, when you have experienced this kind of crisis or you've worked in social services as I have, you see that people are not able to just figure it out.

Uh the outcome of eviction without support is unemployment, school absenteeism, mental health deterioration, people becoming doubled up and overcrowded, uh, things like domestic violence, uh, sex trafficking and exploitation.

Obviously, some people are forced to sleep outside, and that's a cycle that can continue for years.

Um, so yeah, our coalition formed and fought for the HOF because all of the residents in our city, including seniors, people with disabilities, youth and foster care, family with children, and low-income households deserve basic human rights and to be treated with dignity by their government, including in their worst hour.

It's not acceptable to wash your hands of their predicament and say, oh well, we had to balance the budget.

It's not.

I I hope you can find a way to do what you need to do, but please uh preserve the HOF.

It's really, really, really needed uh now more than ever.

Um, and if I have some time, I'll just say, you know, there were over 4,000 eviction cases filed in the city in 2024.

Uh the lawyer of the day program covered just four of the 12 courts, um, but was able to assist, you know, over 40% of the cases uh of of households that were facing eviction.

Uh support was provided to families in subsidized housing to help them stay in their homes.

Um, and over 700 families were stabilized through landlord tenant mediation before the eviction process even began, meaning they could avoid you know the trap of having that eviction filing on their record.

Thank you very much.

And you may also submit written comments to city council, city clerk, if you wish.

There being no further registered speakers, we will now take comments from those in the audience wishing to speak.

Well, no one, there's quite a few people in the audience, but they're not, they don't want to speak.

Um I came today, and I'm a little sad.

I came Tuesday, but you know, I forget that even though your rules say Tuesday and Wednesday, you will have the meeting, but if it's a holiday, then stay home.

And I didn't, I forgot it was a holiday.

I came Tuesday.

But I was talking to Denise.

That's what Denise told me that Carmen Brown had passed.

Um Carmen Brown had passed.

And it really brought tears to my eyes.

That I felt kind of bad.

You need to understand about Carmen.

Carmen called me one time and said they're having the meeting, the planning committee.

She said, Yvonne, I can't make it, but you must go.

You must go so we can tell the people in Homewood what Burgess was doing.

Now, my understanding is that he was given a million and it might have been two.

And he was taking the money and getting ready to fit to fit to uh put the program in his church building, yet another building.

He's getting ready to do.

And Carmer said Yvonne, you must let the we the community don't know.

So I came down and I did speak to the lady that I can't think of her name, but she was the head of planning.

You would know who she is.

So I told her to please check into that.

The community don't know.

So they he did.

He didn't get that.

Um he did not get it.

But what I wanted to say is that I also know that Carmen fought for the people.

I went to Rick Earl, who is the reporter, and I said, Rick, I wanted to ask you a question about so-and-so.

And he said, Oh, call Carmen Brown, because she will get you through.

And what I want the people to understand that I thought that Karma was a pearl.

You understand a pearl.

See, sued Burgess.

I had the paper, but I don't have it now.

She actually sued Burgess with something that he was going to do.

And so I myself, I had a problem with gents calling him Reverend Burgess.

Because I I'm from the old school, and we were taught the state and the state and the people is supposed to be a uh I don't know.

I'm I'm I I know what I'm trying to say.

But I think what's bothering me is that we won't have Carmen to come down.

Or to even give us some guidance.

Because we can ask you questions, you won't tell us.

But Carmen, I think that I don't think I can say, because I am really kind of moved by her dying, that she was a soldier in the fight for rights.

And well done, Carmen.

Well done, my sister.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, special agent sunshine.

I have to go really fast because it's a lot.

Thank you, Lord, for using me as a vessel to do your will, not mine.

Before Jesus ascended to heaven, he promised his disciples in his love.

They'd have the Holy Spirit to give them the power they need to do his work and spread the gospel.

To live, you need the wisdom of God.

Today's wisdom comes from Proverbs 1923.

It says the fear of the Lord leads to life.

Then one rest content untouched by trouble.

How y'all sleeping?

Y'all.

It's not good.

I know.

It's it's wrong.

No rest for the wicked.

We respect what we respect guides our decisions, our values, and our futures.

Take God seriously enough to live for him every day.

You will learn what it's like to live life to the fullest.

John 10 10 says, I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

Abundant life for me is the peace that surpasses all understanding.

Y'all having peace in y'all life?

Kind of stressful, huh?

I know.

I'll take the peace that surpasses all understanding over money and any materialistic thing that he can buy.

The older you get, the harder it is to have peace in your life.

Because other people will stress you out with their lives.

God remove me from other people.

That's why I don't have a phone.

People like y'all who block my communication from the world.

So he placed me on this platform so the world would still see and hear what he has to say through me.

Today's code word for this advent season is favor.

Four testimonies of grace in the family tree of Jesus come from women.

Isn't that amazing?

These women are Rahab, Matthew 1 and 5.

Please read it.

Ruth, verse 5.

Bet Seba.

And Tamar, I think I'm saying her name right.

Lord, thank you for giving me what I never deserved.

An amazing gift, grace in Jesus' name.

The Advent season again is about when we look forward to celebrating Christ's coming.

A lot of you think we're still waiting for him to come.

No.

When he rose on the third day, that's when he came.

With all power in his hand.

So it doesn't matter how many candles you light, how many voodoo rituals you do, you will never have that power.

So please stop.

Because every time you light a candle, I'm praying that it blows up in somebody's face.

That energy will be returned with death in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers?

Seeing none, we will move on to the standing committee's agenda.

And our first committee is the Finance and Law Committee.

Supplemental New Papers Bill 2572.

Resolution further amending resolution number 886 of 2021.

Effective December 27, 2021, as amended and titled.

And the 2022 through 2027 capital improvement program by decreasing litter can upgrades and monitoring by 150,000 and increasing capital equipment acquisition by 150,000.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2572, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Deferred papers, Bill 2487.

Resolution amending resolution 519 of 2025, which authorized the mayor and the city solicitor to enter into a professional services agreement with Buchanan, Ingersoll, and Rooney PC for legal for legal consulting services in connection with complex real property litigation and related matters by increasing the contract amount by $55,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $130,000 over one year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2487, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2511.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the city solicitor to enter into a professional service agreement or agreements and amendments thereto with whole law office for legal consulting services related to liquor licenses in the city in an amount not to exceed $5,000 over one year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2511, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2512.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of national church residences.

Parkside Manor Senior Housing LP in an amount not to exceed $11,408 over one year in full and final settlement of a claim for damage to the building underpass at 1306 Brookline Boulevard from a city EMS vehicle exceeding the height restriction on February 1st, 2025.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2512, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2513.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Patricia Williams in an amount not to exceed $3,125 over one year in full and final settlement of a claim for damage to her parked vehicle from a city fire vehicle on August 13th, 2025.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2513, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2514.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Brady Patsey and his attorney Chaffen Luhana LLC for a single payment in 2025 in an amount not to exceed 42,500 in full and final settlement of litigation filed in the Allegheny Allegheny County Court of Common Please.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2514, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2515.

Resolution further amending resolution number 857 of 2023.

Effective December 27, 2023 is amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2024 Capital Budget, the proposed 2024 community development program, and the 2024 through 2029 capital improvement program by increasing Kalera Street Bridge by $27,500 and increasing Corley Street Bridge by $27,500 to account for federal highway administration funding being received at no cost to the city of Pittsburgh.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2515, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2516.

Resolution authorizing pursuant to Chapter 166 of the City Code Donation of City Personal Property.

The mayor and the director of the Department of City Planning to donate personal property valued at $15,000 to Lawrenceville Life Links to transfer ownership of the Lawrenceville Life Links Artwork to the original artist.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2516, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2517.

Resolution further amending resolution number 886 of 2021.

Effective December 27, 2021, as amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2022 Capital Budget and the 2022 Community Development Block Grant Program in the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program, so as to decrease Steel City Boxing Association by $5,000 and increased community empowerment association Inc.

Discussion?

Where is this?

Discussion?

Council Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, this is the second time I'm seeing the Steel City Boxing on the agenda.

I realized the first time in that money was coming from District 6.

Where's this?

What are the funds originate from Interrogatory?

I mean, I know where Steel City Boxing is.

I don't know about what the funding.

That's what I had questions about it too.

Is that what you wanted to know where it was?

Yeah, it's in my district, and I give it money to.

Oh, it's in your district?

Steel City Boxing?

I have that AJ Stevens and Michael Knight might be here to speak to this.

Is there someone else?

Oh okay, we have.

Thank you, thank you.

We'll see.

Please introduce yourselves.

Kelly Russell, Assistant Director of Community Development.

AJ Stevens Program Supervisor Community Development.

This money came from the mayor's office, public service grants.

Yeah, thanks for clarifying.

And then I guess we have another point of clarification.

Apparently there's two Steel City Boxing.

Yes.

So what had happened is in 2022 they were awarded funds from different pots of either uh council and the mayor's office.

And this uh this summer they finally came to the conclusion that they were not able to meet the administrative requirements of the grant, so they relinquished the funds, but they have to be reprogrammed according to where the funding originally came from.

But are there two Steel City Boxing organizations that have two different addresses in your we can do this offline?

I just didn't know.

Councilman said he has one.

He has one too, so just want to be aware of that in the future.

Okay, yeah, we will take a note of that.

Just curious.

No, I'll follow we'll follow up.

Thanks.

Gotcha.

We put the addresses in the contract.

So we we are checking it like at contracting time.

Everyone wants to be Steel City.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

Councilman Coghill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So yeah, I just I guess some clarification, right?

Steel City, I have a Steel City Boxing Club on Route 51.

Is that what this is?

No.

I am going to double check.

And are they the same group or two different groups with the same name?

Is that so it it might be a situation where they have um affiliates, but I'm going to see what I can find in their file.

And you said that this was monies that they couldn't find a way to spend.

Is that so?

Correct.

Um that does happen.

That doesn't happen often, does it?

I mean we have groups that can't spend the funds the way they're supposed to be spent.

So we do go through reproach.

So they're like restricted and they can't quite fit them into their so we don't know which steel city this was.

Okay, we're looking at it.

Yes.

Um plus we know Steel City, a lot of organizations like to use Steel City only.

GP.

Uh okay.

So this one is actually they use a mailing address in Monroville.

Because I believe, yes, we we come across this every time they apply.

We're like, are you in Pittsburgh?

And they say our mailing address is in Monroeville.

Is that why they couldn't use the funds?

Or why they couldn't have to do that.

Oh no, even though they have a Monroeville address, you still have to use these funds serving city residents.

So that's not an issue.

Right.

Okay.

So this is like another Steel City boxing that we don't not located at my district or Councilman Wilson's.

Um yes, it looks like it.

Yes, a um but they will uh so obviously with this contract, they didn't expend the full amount, but they have had past contracts, and they are responsible for keeping documentation proving that all of the pe the youth that are benefiting from these funds are city residents.

I'm just like making sure that this is which city still has a lot of people.

If it's not my district, it will it's uh it doesn't even concern me.

I I'm just trying to curious as to you said it has a Monroeville address, but we have two Steel City boxing clubs that we know of in the district.

Um but either way, they couldn't expend the funds.

So this is not they didn't meet the criteria, I guess, or correct.

They just couldn't use the funds, and then the funds are going to a group who can use the well, it's it's not important, I guess, right now.

I just was curious as to whether it was the one in my district or councilman Wilson's or Lane Monroe.

I don't know.

A secret third thing.

Okay.

They could have I'm fine.

Is there another Steel City Boxing Club in the North Side?

I think it's I think there's several different programs or something.

Yeah, sort of like the Pittsburgh Athletically or Police Athletic League.

There's several different locations, but they all have different names, but they're all under one umbrella.

She actually lives in Monroeville, the um widow of Jimmy Stone.

Jimmy Subetic's wife, yeah.

Uh uh.

Right.

Yeah.

Well that explains the Monroeville address.

I'm not saying that they're saying that.

No, I'm I know we I understand what you're saying.

Okay.

It could be.

Okay.

So if I could just somehow get clarification which organization would site that this money was kind of designated to, and it's all I really want to know.

I'm going to look into their scope and see if that mentions a specific location.

Um because otherwise we are mostly just concerned with city residents.

Uh Spring Hill.

That's Mr.

Wilson's winner winner.

Sorry, it's only Anthony though.

Oh, I'm I'm done.

I uh if if it's in Spring Hill, I have no further comments.

Thank you.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2517, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2518.

Resolution amending resolution 174 of 2022, which authorized the mayor and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enter into an agreement or agreements with Commonwealth Press for services relating to this the sale of officially licensed and branded City of Pittsburgh merchandise by extending the term through the end of 2027 at no cost to the city.

Discussion?

Council Member Warwick.

Is there anyone who can speak to this?

I just am curious.

And I do want to thank Chief Cornell for briefing me on this as well beforehand.

Yeah, so can you so at the end of 2021, the city did a full RFP um for officially licensed and branded merchandise.

Uh Commonwealth Press um was the selected awardee.

Um we have had a great experience working with them.

We finally had our initial contract executed in 2022.

Um I've been here once to extend for one year, uh, and this resolution would allow us to extend um through the end of 2027.

That gets us at the end of the typical five-year approach for an RFP.

Um but we have been working with Commonwealth Press to uh offer official city merchandise.

I bought a lot of it.

I'm not wearing any of it today.

I should have, I apologize.

Um but they have stickers, pennants, mugs, t-shirts.

Um, you know, the first iteration and run was really what is the brand of the city, right?

So we used a variant of the merchant flag, so the castle with the stars around it.

Um we have things with the flag on it.

Um we have parks designs uh for city parks.

Um and then we have ideas of you know how could this keep moving into the future.

I will acknowledge that I am not the best project manager uh given my background in budget and finance for merchandise, but it's been fun to learn and carry this one through.

So I am familiar with this, and I remember when we launched it, and we did an online sale, and I thought the idea was that we would actually sell this merchandise in the the lobby of the city county building.

But I will say that and that never materialized.

But I will say, when this launched, I bought a sweatshirt.

It's a black sweatshirt, and I get so many compliments on this thing.

It is so comfortable, it is soft.

I I mean I'm not even joking.

I get s every time I wear it, people are like, ooh, where'd you get that?

This is like Pittsburgh down the arm.

It's gorgeous.

So If we could like actually I feel like this could be really good.

Yeah, right.

So we thought about that, right?

Um logistics can get a little complicated because we would either as a city need to acquire inventory and then purchase enough inventory and then have someone selling it as as their job, right?

Um or commonwealth press would need to provide someone whose job it is is to do that, and that neither of them really fit the bill at the time.

But I've I've thought about that a lot, having it somewhere.

Even if there was a way that I could like direct people, be like, oh, just go here and you can buy it here.

I I I would love to wear this orchard at the table and like never wear a suit again.

But um Commonwealth does offer it um for vendors to buy wholesale.

So Love Pittsburgh does have a few of the options.

We've been trying to work with the zoo.

We have a zoo shirt.

We were trying to get it into their gift shop.

Um so some of it is letting the separate retailers choose whether or not they want to, and we can obviously always do another push.

Um but if not they are always available online at Commonwealth Press's website.

Um one thing that we did over the past few years is um a challenge coin made from the core 10 steel that the steel tower is made of.

Um Sydney Cooper and I and the communications team went out to Johnstown to watch them forge these coins and it it's just a really cool experience.

Uh it's been fun.

Well, so at any rate, that's you know, for the incoming administration.

Um it if it'd be great.

Well, it seems like we could just get it on the city website.

There's there are interesting considerations as to what we can and cannot directly link to is what that conversation comes up, but we can keep talking about it.

Um James Hill, of course, will be back um in January.

He started this process in 21 and will kind of regain ownership of it.

Great.

Because I'm telling you, this sweatshirt, everyone loves it.

It's covered in cat hair, but hopefully other people's will not be.

So okay, thank you.

I see a city channel ad in the future featuring Councilmember Warbeck.

I think I saw Councilmember Charlotte and then Councilwoman Cale Smith.

Uh very quickly, what district is Commonwealth Press located in?

They are in District 3?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilwoman Cale Smith.

Darn it, just outside District 2.

It is off the street.

It is literally just across the street, right?

Very close.

But um I do want to mention that there's also a gift shop.

You mentioned Love Pittsburgh, which was started in the Mount Washington and District 2.

But there's also on um Shiloh Street, Grandview Bakery now has Pittsburgh gear.

They have Pittsburgh books that were about Pittsburgh neighborhoods for kids.

I mean it's amazing.

So it's a little shop, but I just want to make sure that maybe we can work with him as well.

I'm thinking about you know the draft.

I'm thinking about the new shops at the airport.

There's there's plenty of opportunity to keep this going.

Thank you.

Thank you for your work on this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill twenty-five eighteen, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you.

Bill 2519.

Resolution amending resolution eight forty-two of two thousand twenty-four, which authorized an agreement or agreements and lease or leases by and between the city of Pittsburgh and First Vehicle Services, a transdev company to manage and maintain the city's vehicle fleet by increasing the authorized spend by 400,000 for a new amount not to exceed 79 million two hundred forty-nine thousand three hundred forty-three dollars and seventy-five cents over a six-year period.

I I I don't think about that.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

We have discussion.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We had robust discussion about the pain and agony of this arrangement when we first put this resolution 842 2024 in place.

Um so I'm just going to make sure that the public doesn't miss that now it's being increased by 400,000.

To a new total of 79 million 249,000 343 and 75 cents over a six-year period.

And this is not unrelated to the reason that your streets are full of leaves and haven't been swept for most of this year, or that sometimes, even though for decades are we had impeccable environmental services and garbage and recycling pickup that sometimes now you have to call our office because your garbage has been not picked up.

It's not our operations or our workers, it's the vehicles.

So that's it.

I don't really have any questions except for to I just wanted to acknowledge the pain and the agony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

And we do have Furman here to come to the table if necessary.

Yeah, so I guess it was just to clarify.

I mean, we had um but um I don't know if we want to have um if you like to come up or councilwoman or madam chair if you like to explain.

But just that this is money that this is work that was already done.

Correct?

Yeah, go ahead, I'll let you.

Good go ahead.

Yes, this these are repairs that have already taken place.

These units are back in operation or in service.

We need to pay our bill.

Oh, I guess w which vehicle or is this just all general?

Yes.

This is all vehicles that would all repairs that would fall under non-contract spending.

Got it.

And for what time period is the 400,000?

Sorry, Mr.

Maurice, can you speak into the microphone?

Thank you.

Sorry.

And for what time period is the 400,000?

Uh that is funds from 25 fuel that we are reallocating towards uh non contract expenses.

Sorry, no, I meant to say what time period were these repairs like are these repairs are these six months worth of repairs and a year worth of repairs?

These are month worth of repairs.

This is about six months worth of repairs.

Um July.

Um this is to cover from July to current.

Okay, from July.

And then do we know roughly just to sort of have some frame or reference how many vehicles we're you know, we're repaired under this?

Uh no, I don't have that information handy.

Okay.

No.

I mean it's way over four.

They would be closer to four hundred.

Okay.

Okay.

Um be clo okay.

So I mean if you're looking at like a thousand dollars a vehicle.

Depending and these, sorry, correct, these are the non-standard?

These are the non-contract repairs.

So this is like not the oil changes and the rotate tire rotation, whatever.

Vehicles breaking down on the road.

Um all kind of repairs that that were not scheduled.

Got it.

Got it.

I don't I don't think I have any other I don't have any other questions.

Thank you.

Uh first round, councilperson Charlotte.

Yes.

Uh so when we learned about this contract, or not learned, but but dove into this contract, there were really two categories of uh repairs.

There were the routine maintenance repairs and the um more extensive work that we had to have done.

I I forget how we we distinguish this two categories.

What what are the name of the two categories?

Contractually there are target and non-target.

Target and non-target, yes.

Um are these target or non-target expenses?

These are non-targeting.

These are non-target.

So these are these are more extensive repairs that we need to now we were told at that time that um because we never hit we we overpay for non-target services every month.

Correct.

Um but we were able to use that savings towards non-target payments to uh you know cover the cost of of a lot of those.

Is this something that we were not able to cover because of the non-target costs?

Exactly.

So in addition to all the money that we've put in there, and again, they take a cut off of our our non-target the the overages.

Correct.

This is an additional cost on top of that.

Yes.

Man.

This is I I understand that you mean the way that this was explained to us is that this is a bad contract.

This was the best option of the bidders, you know, the people that that did bid on this.

Uh that this is this is tough to look at.

You know, I I and I know you know talking to my foreman yesterday, we're we're down six trucks in the fourth division um after yesterday's snowfall, which ultimately was not, you know, I think they did a very good job with, but this is this is tough to look at here.

I agree.

It's even tougher to manage.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I don't know what else we can do, but we do have to pay our bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockhelm.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh so for a minute.

Let me put this in perspective.

79 million dollars.

For how many vehicles do we have?

What's an entire fleet?

Currently 1,274 vehicles.

1274 vehicles.

And that's only in six months.

Did you say?

These the the cost that we are talking about now, yeah, they were in current six months.

You you're talking about the four hundred thousand, or are you talking about the seventy-nine million?

Oh, no, no, no.

Okay.

Over six years.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I was like, oh my God, this is not one year's No, no, sir.

Okay, thank you.

And that's 400,000 because we don't have the money there.

Um and we still have what that covers up well, like like for instance, Councilman Sharland said I get a call from our fourth division yesterday.

They had sixteen vehicles of only six were working.

That's not included in this, probably, because this was just yesterday, right?

Correct.

So we're gonna have another bill at the end of December of shortage too.

It's four hundred thousand dollars.

That's for how long a period?

Um we will after we well pending the approval of this transfer, we still have a balance of 189,000.

Um along with uh 20 with the December bill, we will have to roll into 26.

Yeah.

You in here are the real mess here.

You know that, right?

You went to New Orleans?

Did you where do you work?

New Orleans.

Did they have anything close to this and um payers?

Or do they what's their fleet look like compared to ours?

I mean, what's it compared?

Tell me.

Uh the city of New Orleans has about 2800 vehicles in the fleet.

Um if we're looking at scale that's basically double what the city of Pittsburgh has.

Um issues.

Um if you know anything about the city of New Orleans, they are currently facing uh pretty big budget issues themselves.

So I'm sure, but they don't have snow piles like we need snow piles.

They don't have you know their climate is much better than the city of Pittsburgh's as far as uh weather maintaining vehicles and you know, so I don't think Hurricane Katrina would uh what I'm asking you, I guess.

And I don't think you obviously you can't have specific numbers, but did they have as much as us in um non-target repairs like this?

Yes.

Did they?

Yes, yes.

Um you you think it's normal this this amount?

Or is it because of our aging fleet?

It's the aging fleet.

So they had an aging fleet.

That's not uh it's not a locale or regional thing by any means.

It is the age and shape of your fleet.

Um that's where we suffer.

That's we we know we're way behind.

Exactly.

But New Orleans was also same boat.

Really?

Yes, sir.

Do you know of any other cities?

Are they uh is everybody in it?

Uh does every city have outdated vehicles, I guess, or a lot of cities are in the same position that we are in.

Uh there are a lot of places a lot closer to Pittsburgh that are certainly fighting the same same issues that we are.

Well, that's a little comforting.

Uh not the same.

We are not the only one.

Right, right, right.

So that's it, Madam Chair.

Uh thank you.

Second round, Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

Um it's really no comfort.

And I we have the um we have the budget here in tomorrow, do we not?

Okay, so we can reserve some of these questions for tomorrow, but I'll give you a kind of like um heads up on one of the questions I'm gonna ask, which is so of these we think it's closer to four hundred vehicles for this like four hundred thousand.

You know, it's not four vehicles at a hundred thousand each that were it not included in the human guest $78 million original contract.

Um because they break down on the road or whatever you said.

And and we often hear in the news and our own controller's office and here at the table that the aging fleet is uh causing most of the breakdowns and the lack of service to constituents and the class here in this maintenance contract.

Um I agree, you know, agree.

But in our rush to allocate funds to buy new vehicles.

What I remember from going in depth on this topic last year and in the briefings, is that there are some new vehicles which are just as difficult to repair and out of service a lot.

So I don't expect you to answer right now, but I think tomorrow and keeping in front of us, you know, let's be not foolish.

And then new vehicles that we add to the fleet.

Um so let's try to learn from the other cities that are buying new vehicles.

And you know, this is um this is something the public might have heard of in terms of like farmers, you know, they're mom addicts on deer and boycotting because they buy these tractors and they can't repair them, and then they're forced into these very expensive contracts like this one, because the new vehicles are so robotic or technical, and they're always out of they always break and you can't repair them yourselves, and there's a whole national issue called the right to repair.

Um and so I'm I'm wondering if there are lessons to learn about vehicles that are just um some of them are out of service and are overly large.

So, right, because this is one of my pet peeves, right?

And so hypothetically, you could have fewer personnel and cover bigger territory, but if it's out of service, you just have more territory not being serviced.

So that it's just that.

It's just like caveat, right?

Like, yes, we all agree we the aging fleet is costing us a lot of money.

Uh the seat that when I say aging, I mean we're talking vehicles that should have been retired a long time ago.

Right?

And we're still running them and it's unsafe for personnel, it's unsafe uh and and unreliable for operations.

But if we can allocate some time, not right here today into keeping our eye on that like let's not spend a whole bunch of money on vehicles, expecting them to now be like perfectly in service and cheaper to maintain because that's just not true.

So just that, just a caveat there.

Not not all of them are gonna eliminate this maintenance issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cale Smith.

Just a brief question.

Does this contract include any electric work on electric vehicles?

Yes.

It does.

Okay.

I just want to make sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Coghill.

I just uh one thing.

So we are spending over $13 million a year in keeping up on our vehicles.

Yes.

It seems incredibly high.

It really does.

I mean, I'm gonna approve this today, but uh yeah, I mean that's total to swallow.

$13 million a year.

That's a lot of money.

Can't imagine.

And you have you have like a list of the receipts for every all the work they've done.

Yes, yes, every every repair receipt.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

That's kind of what I wanted to talk to you about last week, and I'm sorry I had to cancel, but um it's just incredible, incredible amount of money.

Um, yeah.

Um we'll deal with that.

We'll you know, I'm of course on the board, so we'll we'll talk further as to I don't expect you to know all these numbers.

It's just like I'd popping numbers for us because you know, this not only this administration, past administrations not keeping up the only way to bring this cost down is number one renegotiate the contract, maybe.

Um if they're willing to.

Uh the other thing is you have to buy all new vehicles, right?

I mean, if we bought all new vehicles, this would not even be close to this number.

If we could reduce our amount of vehicles that have exceeded their life cycle.

Right.

That number would go down.

That thing would cut in half, right?

Depending on how many we actually replaced.

But yes, if we were to replace them all in one, then yes, that that number would drastically drastically, right?

I mean.

So that's it, madam chair.

One more thing.

Thank you.

And then I have a question.

Uh I just want to make sure for the public there wasn't RFP for this, although it's not a great great contract, it was the best of the ones that respond.

I just want to make sure the public understands that that we did that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I guess my question, well, I I know the answer, but uh there was some back and forth um with council members that council members were copied on around the applied non-c cost, sorry, the the cost savings from 2024 having been applied to rather than actually like getting money back, they were applied the six about six hundred eighty-seven thousand applied to the non-contract expenses for like August and September.

And we still need trans dev to send us that invoice so we can account for that, it sounds like.

So I know we are waiting on that, but we need trans dev to send us that.

So we have a full accounting of where the money that we were owed was applied.

So that's one thing.

But I know that we need to we need to approve this today so that we can have the accounting um and the invoice for the November 4th and 14th invoice.

So it's it is important that we approve this today.

But yes, I agree with council members.

This is just like putting a band-aid on a huge a huge bleed, and we need to we need to upgrade our our our vehicles and stop repairing um uh you know 25-year-old vehicles.

So that's gonna be the only solution here.

But is there anything else that you wanted to clarify with that sort of question, the back and forth question around the three case here?

Accurate, the cost savings.

Um total is 687, 124.

Um we currently owe 589, 548 dollars.

Um transferring this 400,000 from fuel would still leave us with a balance of 189,548 dollars.

But we'll just have to pay next quarter.

Well, yes, we will roll into 26.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate you don't have an easy job right now, but I appreciate you always answering our questions and and being upfront about where our situation is.

So um any further discussion?

Yeah, councilman.

Just clarification.

Is you're waiting for an invoice.

Explain that to me because I'm not sure if I want to vote for it or hold it.

Oh yes, ma'am.

This is an internal trans dev issue that they are working through as far as uh providing the invoices requested.

I believe it's just a time consideration.

So it's my understanding that we get 80% back after the year's end of um cost savings.

And it was voted on by the I don't know if it was the ELA or the committee.

I think at the Transdev cost savings meeting to apply that to future invoices.

So it was applied the savings is $187,000 or so dollars was applied to the invoice that was received in August for it, you know, for this year's non-target costs.

But we don't have we need trans dev to send us that.

Yeah.

That's what we're doing.

So I just wanted to daylight that for everyone.

We need them to be better about t telling us what where this is being applied.

Thank you.

It's not on the city internally.

Yeah, no, I hear that.

That's what I'm thinking.

Why would we give them a fight?

No, it's it's been applied.

We're just waiting for the official credit.

Um but the official statement.

But we also don't wait for that.

The request has been made as early as this week or recently as this week.

So we'll be looking out for that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further anything further?

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill twenty-five nineteen, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

One abstention.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's a uh affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2545.

Resolution authorizing the council president to approve legal service requests made by individual council members subject to limited delegation of authority.

Motion to approve discussion?

Second.

Second with discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

Thanks.

So this relates to Council's interest in in having its own uh solicitor.

And so those services will be dealt with through an RFP.

And this would allow so for instance, you know, this will allow members to uh get approval to seek uh legal advice or legislative advice without having to um do a resolution for each individual request due to the charter saying the council has to uh this promots city council to to retain its own legal counsel but has to uh represent council in I'm sorry.

We're in the wrong one.

Anyway, just that the that the charter requires it to act as a body.

And so we could uh do this resolution, or we could do individual resolutions for every for every time.

You could hire one.

There's a request from a council member.

So the idea is that this would be um it's my question.

This let this this legislation would authorize the answer.

The limited delegation to the council president to then uh allow individual members to do requests without legislation each time.

That's it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, so in interrogatory.

Is that yeah?

So okay, so um because we had talked about this before.

So let's say I want to, you know, whatever I'm writing a piece of legislation and I want some some advice from a municipal law expert.

Oh uh would I have to run that through council leadership, or could I just go directly to well, two questions.

So one is that do would we have a solicitor or would we be like contracting out a law firm?

Or either or or is that not defined?

I guess uh technically a bill like this could um make it so that it would be like through an outside firm with you know through an RFP or internal, but this one this let this piece of legislation does identify um I believe it identifies the RFP that would happen.

But so that would be outside council and then uh you know the uh approval will be uh authorized by the council president.

Okay.

So the so our understanding then is that the charter currently says see, I mean I I would like to have uh an in-house solicitor, right?

I feel like it is a useful role.

I mean, because we're the legislative body, but I would also want that person to help with writing let you know, when if I want to write a piece of legislation, just because oftentimes it is I mean you can go to city law, right?

But I at least in my experience, and this is not an I know they have lots of work that they're doing, right?

But but um what I have found is what's necessary is for my office to write a draft of something and then it goes to law and to sort of get you know examine does this work, what works, what doesn't work, and it would be nice to have a solicitor in-house who we could just go to and say, this is what I want to do.

Can you write this piece of legislation for me?

And then we would be confident that the that the initial draft that you know that I was sending over to city law had already been vetted by a municipal law expert.

Um so the idea then would be that uh that we'd have to go to council pres to the council president each time.

Either way you'd have to.

Either way if it was in-house or outside of the way the charter is set up.

Because our experience and and uh I I'll speak for myself.

The experience that we had prior when we did have a solicitor was um or my my experience was that often the well, I don't know if that was uh a personnel issue or not, but I it didn't feel like that was available when we had an in-house solicitor.

Because of this.

That the solicitor wasn't willing to insist on those things.

I'm sorry.

No, no, yeah, please, yeah.

My understanding was because the solicitor at the time uh continued to reference as part of the charter.

Okay.

And then do we have an idea?

Does leadership have an idea of like what the preferences, whether it's contracting it out or something?

So I'm sort of can I respond?

Yeah, please, yeah.

This this came out of um discussions uh with several members.

And uh I was open to having a conversation with anyone and sent an email I think it was a couple weeks ago with the RFP and and also the this this amendment.

I'm sorry, this resolution.

So we want to continue to discuss this with anyone that wants to talk about it.

But um this came up uh out of discussions, but also the realization that uh council has a council has uh staff.

We we have um councilwide staff and members are hesitant to use some councilwide staff because of several reasons, and so to take this the contractors out may ease some of those hesitations.

And and uh and also the amount that we allocated per year, I believe isn't enough to fully contract I mean, sorry, to fully to hire um a solicitor to be uh qualified.

The qualified person.

And and to contract us out, we could get other experience within that law firm.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm definitely supportive of adjusting so that we can use right so that we are as our offices, I mean, even if it means going through the council president, I mean, hopefully that would just be a quick, you know, like hey, can we be a process we'd set up?

Right, like just a quick email.

Um I know this is maybe uh down the road, but just since since we're talking about it, uh you know, it's it's twofold.

On the one hand, I very much would like to be able it's nice, you know.

I I think of like budget director McDevitt, right?

It's very nice to just have somebody on council staff that you can just shoot a text to and get something done like immediately, right?

That is great.

Um so sort of going through a law, you know what I mean?

Like have like whatever that process is and having to wait and there feels like there would most definitely be some type of you know um more roadblocks there to just kind of getting you know getting someone in the room and figuring out what you want to do.

On the other hand, right?

Um uh right, if you get somebody that isn't, you know, doesn't work well with your office or whatever whatever issues can come up with a uh you know individuals and uh you know sort of personnel issues, I'll say.

Um those are harder to deal with.

Um I don't know.

It's I'm definitely of two minds on that, but I'll be interested for the conversation going forward.

But I'm supportive of this concept.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We have Councilwoman Cale Smith.

So I just think that there's a lot to be said, honestly.

I think I mean I love the idea of having an attorney.

I'm not gonna be here, so I'm trying to understand what it is council wants to accomplish for next year.

And for me, it was having an attorney in-house that could do all the things that we need to have done.

But when I first started, it was the clerk's office that helped write the legislation.

They had somebody in the clerk's office, do you remember?

And they had somebody in the clerk's office.

So I think really what I think is that you need to rethink the budget office for and we keep talking about being the law and finance committee, somehow maybe structuring that so that law and finance is one, and then um when you're hiring people in the clerk's office at the or training people in the clerk's office to accomplish the things that you want to accomplish so you have multiple people able to help you with legislation.

Um but I also think council needs to be open to hearing, you know.

I think sometimes we um want people to tell us how to get around the law instead of just necessarily always following the law.

So I think it would be good to make sure you're really clear about what our expectations are.

Um but I I would if I were all of you, I would hold it until and I don't want to, you know, this councilman's um legislation but my thought would be hold until you can restructure, so don't have a conversation about I think the councilman president Lavelle had mentioned several times that he would like to see like law and finance in or law and our budget office.

So if there's some way you could structure that it would be together.

So things like the P Card incident doesn't occur again and again and again.

It's occurred several times this year, and I keep asking who's in who's responsible for reviewing this, and I keep getting you know different answers or or answers, but no names, and nobody seems to be held accountable for the constant situation the council's put in.

And um I personally think that you need somebody for those things alone just to go over the agenda so that make sure that um they're not putting us in in a bad situation.

So for me, I don't I don't know how I'd vote to date on this because but I think it definitely needs I love the idea of it, I think it needs more structure um and more conversations between what you expect from your budget office and what you expect from your clerk's office in the coming years.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council person Charlotte.

Yes.

Uh and I guess I'm probably asking for interrogatory here.

Um council uh councilman Wilson, is this just for one year or is this indefinite?

Um do we is there a term on this?

And you probably told us that, and unfortunately, I just don't recall.

Doesn't specify an end date in the legislation.

Okay.

Um personally, I think this is a good idea.

I think this is, you know, um I think there might be a world where this doesn't work and we can try something new, but um I think for next year, I think this is a a good idea for us to to give a shot.

Um I I do think the council does need more um legal advice than then we often can have.

Um and I think that I I I actually think this is a a very good solution.

This is usually what I believe most of our authorities are doing, and um a lot of the other units use you know, to have a kind of outside council to be able to weigh in.

Um so I uh do support this today, and if it doesn't work, we can try something different in the future.

Thank you for your work on this.

Thanks.

If I can just add, um uh I just want to clarify something that uh this just doesn't um this would work both ways, whether or not we RFP or not.

Doesn't it doesn't specify the RFP in the in the legislation?

I know you weren't asking that, but I just wanted to thanks for your support.

Any further discussion?

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

I do have the text of the legislation in front of me, and it it does as the councilman said, it doesn't specify how outside council would be determined.

So either, you know, what law firms and with what skill sets, it's completely kind of vague.

Um I'm also asking my staff where the money comes from.

Um it says that the doesn't exceed the annual budget allocation.

But what is the budget allocation?

Um so um I don't see if I have a response to that yet.

Um I I actually think that's the the the I understand like the member putting this on the table, given that we've been told that requests for legal assistance had to only be for counsel as a body.

But I I don't think that's true.

Um and so if you read the Home Road Charter, it's it's double charter.

I think that is a overly strict interpretation of what it says.

Because it literally says like may represent council as a body in legal proceedings, but nowhere does it say shall you know council shall only ever have legal assistance as a body.

It's it just doesn't say that.

So I think that's an over like an imaginatively restrictive interpretation of what the Homeworld Charter says.

So I think council has the powers to retain an attorney uh or consultants.

It says staff or consultants, and I think that part of the sentence applies to attorneys as well.

So I think this is already within our ability to do, and we each of us have a budget in our offices, which kind of zeros out at the end of the year, but then replenishes at the beginning of each year for professional services.

Um, you know, where we use that to do things like subscribe to the Pittsburgh Business Times.

We're used to it's kind of like our per you know, a per diem almost like we have to use that for a lot of things, like oh, you want supplies for your office, you have to use pref that that account line.

Um, but that is available for professional services.

And keep in mind that um municipal attorneys don't just you know represents in legal proceedings, right?

They absolutely advise, they absolutely you know do policy work, there's a wide range of work that municipal attorneys do, interpreting state regulations or interpreting federal regulations, and so helps us craft better policy.

So I'm a big fan of the municipal attorneys I've worked with.

Sometimes we're lucky our community groups get pro bono services from some of the big firms in town.

And I totally understand us wanting to have you know a clear path to be able to contract and have to pay for some services on an hourly basis if that's what's needed.

Um but I think it's kind of already there.

Um and so I don't object to this on its face.

I think it's a totally separate debate whether we want to have as staff or as consulting services, because it's uh the way I read the Humboldt Charter, it's it's something we should have already been doing, either way.

Um but I guess I'd I have to I just have to chew on this a little bit.

Like I don't want to set a different procedure in place for the way we already have checks and balances on our expenditures in our budget lines, and so that's just something I need to kind of like read through and think through.

So I don't I don't think I'm prepared to say yes today.

I we did we did look at that, I have my staff look at it, and I feel like we're still kind of like chewing on like is this weird and different, or is it just the same as we're doing it?

Like I just I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

Think it does all that.

Thank you.

And you for uh council president Lavell.

Thank you.

Um I'm supportive of this today.

I agree with Councilwoman Gross.

We absolutely have the right to retain an attorney, whether that's in-house or whether we retain a firm is il that's a totally different discussion.

We absolutely have that right, and I agree we absolutely should do it.

I've advocated that for councils ever since I've been here.

What this does though is the way the charter reads is that any time you, an individual member wants to get specific legal advice that the whole body has to approve you getting that.

And so therefore in the past, we've had situations where a member wanted specific advice, but the attorney wasn't comfortable giving that, if not also then giving it to all members or not getting the approval.

So what this would do would seek to simply clarify and say you could go to whomever the president of counsel was and say, I'm working on said issue.

Is it okay if I engage our solicitor andor the firm on issue, and they can say yes, but you're working on said issue, go do that.

So this simply clarifies that ability as opposed to having to come to the body as a whole to seek that approval.

So I'm supportive of the moving forward.

But I absolutely do agree that we should absolutely return a firm or someone in-house.

I probably think a firm makes a little more sense right now.

Um, but we can have that's a separate discussion.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockhelm.

Yep, I'm sorry, I had to step out.

Uh the only clarification I need.

I'll be supportive of this today as well.

But the only clarification I need if I want to seek outside counsel, what who pays for it?

Where's the money come from?

Does it come from my councilman Joe's was saying per diem or is it come from the general fund or what?

So we had initially allocated money for a city solicitor.

We would need to, in our budgetary process this year, if we're going to retain a firm, simply change line items so that there would be a line item for a firm to be retained, and then that firm would draw down on that invoice every time they were engaged.

Okay, so it would not come from our office money.

Yeah.

It would come from money that we set aside from having our prior yes attorney, which is how much do we know?

I don't was it one ten.

I don't I don't give you the number.

I don't recall the exact about and and I guess we cross this road if we come to it if I want legal services, but that money is exasperated by Councilman Sharl and used up all that money for you know his legal services, then we would need to add more disability.

We would have to add more then, right?

Okay.

Sort of like our postage.

Got it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good enough.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Second round.

Councilman Gross.

Yeah, again, just to just one.

Just one note.

That like your one of the ways that our current staff struggle, I think, is when it's like we can read statute, we could read county code, we can do city code, we can read federal statute, but then we don't know like court precedent a lot of times, right?

And it's it's the people with l a law background.

Right.

And so that's where a lot of times someone with a full law degree is incredibly helpful.

Um but I would suggest that the way this is written, it appears like in the way council president suggested, um, is just to have it at the whim of whoever's president, you know, could allocate the whole budget to just one member and wonder class at the beginning of a year, since it's not really that much money.

Um and that's not typically the way we've worked, which is why we kind of um and what the public may not know because it's not like this in other bodies of government, like each city council member has exactly the same budget.

Even the president who has more duties or the finance chair.

We have exactly the same expenditures, we have exactly the same payroll as each other, there's no like seniority pay or anything like that.

Um and so maybe it makes sense to do some kind of distribution like that.

So this is like extra professional services or legal services or something like that.

Um, so that we're not disadvantaging some members in their policy research or something like that.

So just another another suggestion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill twenty-five forty-five, please indicate by saying aye.

Abstain.

Abstain to two abstentions.

I just want to talk to Councilman Wilson.

Um recommendation.

That moves us to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

So moved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of invoices, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Invoices are approved.

Intradepartmental transfers.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of interdepartmental transfers, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative ref or transfers are approved.

That moves us to P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

So moved.

Discussion.

Is there anything on this that we should be concerned with?

I have no notes from the budget office.

And who appro who goes through the P cards?

Who's been reviewing this?

We've had three incidents with P cards.

I want to make sure of voting on something.

We are working, Council President and I are working on an answer to your specific questions that you asked by email last week, but um, I can answer this question right now on our and our on our side, uh, both our budget director and assistant budget director review.

Nobody with a law degree looked at it.

So it might help Councilman Wilson.

Not on our side of the hallway.

We're working to clarify that question for you and get an answer to your question.

Thank you.

I'll abstain today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of P cards, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

One abstention.

That moves us to public safety and wellness committee chaired by Councilman Cockhill.

Supplemental new papers, Bill 2557.

Resolution amending resolution number 959 of 2024, which authorized the mayor and director of the Department of Public Safety to enter on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh into an agreement or agreements with Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh for detention, care and or euthanasia of domesticated animals by increasing the approved amount by $90,000 and 94 cents for an amended total cost not to exceed $2,370,000 at $299.94 over three years.

There's second.

Second.

Second with brief discussion, Councilman Coghill.

Is there any discussion?

Did you just tell us why it's one up increase so much?

I can't tell you, but I'm sure one of the directors could tell you.

Um why it's increased so much?

Uh yeah, come on up here.

We should have public safety director.

Um so the new contract has some additional fees for extended stays and for animals, exotic animals higher than the prior prior contract did.

So we knew there would be some increase, but we wanted to kind of flesh it out for the year before we got that sorted.

So that's why this additional is in it there is money in the animal care control budget to cover this additional fee uh the additional ninety thousand dollars.

I'm just wondering.

Yeah, I mean, some of it is just you know, cost post-COVID and then just things that the general uh you know humane animal rescue is the only shelter in the city that is big enough and fully licensed and has veterinarians and RFP or something with this?

There was.

Okay.

They were the only respondent.

I just want to thank you, Director, publicly.

I missed the public safety meeting.

I want to thank you publicly for all that you've been doing for the city of Pittsburgh for several years now, and um making sure that you work across the city of Pittsburgh.

I want to thank you.

You've done a great job.

You're great communicating with us, um, and you've done a lot to to help us on here.

So I want to thank you for that for all you've done for Pittsburgh.

Okay.

That's it, other than I just wanted to know what the increased cost was.

I still don't know that I really understand fully what it is, but I um understand that there's a need for the Councilman Cockhill.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I just wanted to remind members uh I think just a couple years ago we had the option to we were going to fund and maybe build our own, I guess what do we call it?

Detention center, is that what we call it?

I would have been in the animal shelter, yes.

Yeah, animal shelter, which would have I can't remember the price tag on that.

But we're roughly paying around 700 or so thousand dollars to the humane animal control.

Humane animal rescue now, which um they're the only act in town, so it's not like we could shop around and you know put out an RFP because there's only one respondent, right?

Well, well, we did put on an RFP to also animal friends, but they turned us down because they normally maintain at around 94% capacity.

They just couldn't handle the number of animals that we bring to HAR on annual basis.

Yeah.

And the increased cost we said was mainly from um their increased cost of exotic animal, like what snakes.

Well, it's more along the lines of them not having places.

Yeah, it's more along the lines of them not having places to send these animals so they end up having to hang on to them longer, increased costs for uh animals awaiting court court cases.

Sure.

Um they have to hang on to those animals for a much longer time.

Uh overall increase in cost because their costs themselves have also increased.

Right.

And when we were discussing our own facility, we would have had to build it, right?

We weren't we didn't have a what we had put through was a request to do uh a feasibility study to determine exactly what it would cost the city to build their own staff it maintain it.

Right.

Perhaps over the long run, we may have saved a lot of money, but we would have to man that office anyway, so or that facility.

So there's always a possibility too.

We could renovate a current building.

We still would work with humane animal rescue and animal friends.

And then obviously, hopefully over time, actually build up to what we needed to where we did we're relying on them solely for everything that they do for us.

Sure.

Um okay.

That's all for me.

I'm approving, of course, because I don't think we have much of a choice.

But um, if that's the one.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2557, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you both.

Thank you, man.

Thank you.

That moves us to public works and infrastructure committee chaired by Councilmember Warwick.

Supplemental papers, Bill 2574 resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with Caliber Contracting Service Inc.

for costs associated with the construction of the sawmill run salt storage facility and providing for payments not to exceed six million nine hundred nine.

I'm sorry, six million nine hundred seven thousand eight hundred thirteen dollars and thirty-one cents over a period of two years.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Are we building a new salt dome here?

Is that just my question though?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2574, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative rec affirmative recommendation.

That moves us to 2521.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with Allegheny County with respect to salt storage handling and loading for the winter seasons of 2025 through 2026.

2026 through 2027 and 2027 through 2028, November 1st to March 31st of each year.

At no cost to the city.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2521, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2522.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with Tree Pittsburgh to support seasonal tree care in an amount not to exceed $25,000 over a period of one year.

Motion to approve?

Yeah.

Discussion.

Is this the one for Tree Pittsburgh?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Could we have somebody come to the table, please?

It's $25,000.

They also got $8 million.

From the federal government.

What happened?

Chris Hornstein, Director of Public Works.

Sir.

Department of Public Works.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to make sure because look like I just want to talk a little bit about this with Tree Pittsburgh.

And I know they received like was it $8 million for grant funding or something prior to this to do plant a lot of trees in the city of Pittsburgh?

I'm going to be honest with you, I'm fed up with watching all the tree planting and no maintenance in the city of Pittsburgh.

Lisa works on it with a shoestring budget with very few staff, very poor old equipment, and yet I'm watching more and more trees being planted and nobody's maintaining them.

So what we see on Grandview Avenue is the trees coming down, which causes the landslides, which can also contribute to the land slides, I should say.

And plus I also want to know what Tree Pittsburgh's getting the money for.

Is this more tree planting?

And who's doing the maintenance of those trees?

Who maintains them after they plant them?

And are they volunteers that they're getting they're getting paid money, but then they're getting volunteers to come do the plantings with them.

So I'm there's just a lot of questions I have about this whole process.

Because we're um be honest with you.

Everybody complains because we question, you know, stop the violence funding because we question all the kinds of other well, every time Tree Pittsburgh or Pit Parks Conservancy comes up here, everybody wants to say go ahead and give them a green light.

Well, that's great, but this side of town wants to know what's happening with our trees.

So you want to go?

Uh actually.

So just to clarify, the the eight million dollar IRA grant was dot not specifically for the entire city of Pittsburgh, it was for the Pittsburgh region.

So it's there's a lot of funding that goes out to lots of other municipalities, not necessarily the city of Pittsburgh.

And money's come through Tree Pittsburgh, um, and they are funneled out to other agencies like land force and um the trails, the trails programs that we have, Friends of Riverfront, all those different groups.

There's in the Canopy Alliance, there's probably about 20 different partner agencies.

So it's not all specifically to Tree Pittsburgh.

Um and as far as the tree planting, we do get our tree planting funding mostly from the Conservancy, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, and the program does include a lot of volunteers, and Tree Pittsburgh is that entity that helps support that training of the volunteers that go out and do the tree planting.

And specifically, once the trees are put into the ground, the issue that we have at forestry is that the young trees need to be trained.

Basically, they have to have structural training, you have to prune the trees, and this is where this group comes in to help us do that.

The structural training, mulching, weeding, watering to get the trees established.

So usually for the first seven years of life, because we don't normally touch trees that are that much smaller in our regular maintenance that we do across the city.

We deal with trees that are usually 12 inches in diameter and larger.

So for us to do all the training pruning on the younger trees would be a real burden for the forestry division.

So we rely on the support of volunteers through Tree Pittsburgh and then through job training through this um the um land force and through the um the um student conservation association participates in an eight-week program through the summertime in the fall to do the the training pruning under the guise of trained arborists as a workforce development program.

So it's a lot more than just you know um funding the the tree planting.

We we don't do the tree planting typically at our division.

You know, we're planting hundreds and hundreds of trees across the city to replace the trees that we're we're we're losing, and this is just a partner organization that's been helping us do that.

So I'm gonna say this.

I first of all, I'm a certified tree tender, so it's not that I'm opposed to having trees, but I'm also opposed to not maintaining trees.

And I'm also opposed to us using our tax dollars to fund organizations repeatedly.

Year after year, our dollars go to help people, and you can say they're helping us all we want.

We can get our own volunteers.

We don't need uh no, we can I've done it.

So please don't you can't even add anything to it.

We can get our own volunteers to do what we want.

And so uh when it comes time, and I feel like Tree Pittsburgh has been very um this past year, they've done they were doing things and not very communicative with our council office.

So, and I get it, they're playing politics like everybody else.

But if you're gonna play politics, so am I.

And so I'm gonna I'll vote no today on this.

But I think when I have my post agenda about the nonprofits and the city of Pittsburgh, we'll make sure we discuss this in depth.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

Um I'm supportive of this bill, and uh what I've observed is that we know our forestry department is understaffed, undersupplied, you know, and uh under-resourced, right?

And I think this is a core city service that land management is incredibly important.

If we don't manage it well, we do get landslides, we don't manage it well, we do get um you know increased heat and tree loss in certain neighborhoods.

If we don't manage it well, we really lose um our even recreational park land to invasives and you know the areas that were accessible become like inaccessible because we're not managing um trees.

So if we could allocate all those resources and funds, and God knows I it seems like it's not been restored since Act 47, right?

Um the capacities at at Forestry, and that that department in Forest Choppy has worked really hard at creating that network of support um for a long time now.

Um I don't I I am I'm appreciative of Councilman Smith's vigilance.

I have been on the same side with her on many of the bills about nonprofits and certainly forest conservancy and things like that.

I think it's right for us to be really, really vigil vigilant to make sure that it isn't we are getting um added, you know, adding resources and not losing resources that don't benefit our core city services and the and the operations that residents expect.

But uh this one I think we're definitely getting our bang for the buck, so to speak.

So I appreciate the work and I know that they are pulling in, like I've seen my residents like picking up trees.

We know that we've requested trees for city property that they've raised that like they grow the trees, right?

And they get the grant separately.

So it really feels it does feel to me additive that we're we're getting um a nonprofit partner who is bringing us resources.

Um and so I feel like this is this is definitely a very reasonable agreement.

So I appreciate your work.

That's all.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Sacramento Councilwoman Cale Smith.

Thank you.

I just um want to say part of land maintenance is maintaining the trees.

It's great you want to get all the credit for planting trees, but they have to either help you maintain those trees or they have to work with our council offices and and with some of the issues that we're having.

And there's a lot of issues.

And I'm gonna be uh I'm so fed up with seeing Grandview Avenue and the way that looks.

I mean it and when they um I'm sure when the draft comes the trees will be trimmed, the place will look great.

But meanwhile, there are residents that live up there every single day that are waiting for their view to be restored.

They're waiting for some other things to happen there.

So and I know that that you've done some they you know, some of the tree trimming there, but they want that tr that view restored.

And I think we we really need to look at planting trees along that entire area that are more appropriate for a hillside.

I mean, they're pulling down the hillside, and we're gonna be paying for because we didn't maintain the trees, we're gonna be paying for probably some type of land um for the landslide that might occur.

You know, we'll have to be playing for some restoration.

And I just I mean I'm just appalled that we've allowed it to happen for this long.

And Tree Pittsburgh, I'm appalled that there's no it's great you want to plant trees, but tell us how you're gonna help us maintain those trees.

We have a lot of trees on uh sidewalks with elderly people that they can't they're not allowed to cut the trees and they don't have the money to r to replace the trees or to to you know um prune the trees or to do the things that need to be happened there, and yet they're they're stuck with some decisions that were made by the organizations like this, because they run the city of Pittsburgh.

These organizations run the city of Pittsburgh.

And so I'm just for me it's great that you want to help the and you want and we want them to be partners, but it has to be that we think of our residents and our taxpayers first.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

I'll vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cogham.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, you know, it's what Councilwoman Cale Smith is saying.

I remember when they it was guy cost at the time cemented that whole hillside.

It was just crazy looking.

But uh what about like Crown Vetch?

I mean, is shouldn't that be on the hillside like that?

That's an invasive species.

Um I think to kind of some of some of the councilwoman's concerns.

Um, you know, they've done a lot of tree care in 2025.

This resolution in front of council today is specifically for seasonal tree care for a year in the amount.

Um this year they touched over a thousand trees um with pruning, um mulching, weeding, again, um thousands of trees um addressed with with their volunteer activity every year.

So I agree with the accountability measures.

I think that is important.

I think that's important for all the activities that we do, whether they be nonprofit or contractor.

I mean, those are those are just important measures to protect uh taxpayer dollars.

But um, some of the concerns about using things like Crown Vetch, is that's an invasive species is probably not going to provide stability to the hillside.

I think Grandview Avenue is one of the unique cases in the city and requires extra special attention, Councilwoman.

I know you're passionate about it.

I know the residents that are passionate about it.

Um we're gonna continue to support them as best we can.

I'm slow down.

Do you mind if I ask about the salt dome?

No.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Well, you're at it.

District.

I don't trade lightly in your district.

But I have to see it every day.

So the salt dome.

Okay, it's six million dollars.

Correct.

Okay.

We're planning to do that work when next year.

Next year.

Money's already accounted for.

Correct.

Umies came from our capital budget, I guess.

Correct.

Yeah.

All of them.

Correct.

Okay.

I look at that salt dome.

You know I hate it.

And you know, it's just not big eyesore.

This salt dome is going to be a wooden structure.

Yes.

The new one.

Yes.

And the years that it will last is how many approximately do we expect the lifespan of that.

I I mean it's wood, but it's under salt.

I don't expect a 50 year to a hundred year lifespan.

And the current dome.

You know, I always thought to myself, if we just painted it, right?

There's a current dome.

And repairable, uh unrepairable.

Is it leaking?

Uh like what's the thing?

What is the problem with the curve?

The the current dome is leaking.

Um, we've had structural assessments done on it in the past, and all indications are, you know, quickly deteriorating.

We've taken we have it's not the only dome that we have, but it is the largest and the most heavily used supports your in the town, supports district three, district, your district councilperson, councilwoman, your district as well as the other.

Um so it's a it's a significant asset that's quickly deteriorating.

Um we've had one dome that is closed and shuttered that we no longer use because of structural defects.

Um we've done patch and replace on two of the other domes um to keep them in good running condition.

But this is our from a snow perspective, this service is roughly half of the city.

Right.

Um and we can't afford to lose this down at all.

In your opinion, it needs to be replaced.

It needs to be replaced.

Yeah, we can't do it.

Pretty it up.

No, we saved six million dollars.

You can't afford to risk it.

We cannot.

Got it.

Okay, and uh Lisa, I just wanted to thank you.

I know years ago you needed more funding, and I don't know how you get by, especially with that storm that we had last year.

Is it this year?

I don't remember.

But this year.

Was it this year?

So uh you do an incredible job.

I try not to call on you because I know you're so backlogged.

But when I do call on you for emergency situations, you always manage to get it done.

So I just wanted to thank you for for the thing.

Well, I I do want to say, just as clarity that every tree that we plant gets a tree request form.

So we don't just randomly willy-nilly plant trees.

There's a lot of thought that goes into when we plant a tree, where we plant a tree, and we always get the adjacent property owners' permission.

That's the first thing.

And secondly, that's now.

No, that's always been a good thing.

You did that 40 years ago, you weren't even here.

Well, for the past almost since 2008, since we've been here, you know.

I'm saying that there's people that have trees in front of the home.

Understood.

Okay.

And we're making those changes and making sure that the best time to plant trees 20 years ago.

So when we plant trees going forward, we're not gonna have those issues.

And you know, in respect to Mount Washington, the reason why it was cemented was because of your prior forester cleared the hillside.

And we're not engineers, and we've been working together with public works to make sure that we do what we can do.

And it's not up to our nonprofits to maintain these areas.

It's up to the city's forestry department.

And if we didn't have our nonprofits planting trees, helping us maintain trees, doing what they're doing.

We wouldn't be in the situation we are right now where we we have the one of the best urban canopies going.

We have a great plan that you're gonna be seeing a lot more of.

And you know, it's all about partnerships.

So I'm gonna promote as much as I can, you know, to to get those people to continue to help us, because I don't think we would be where we're at without.

Right.

And Lisa, I would say to you, um matter who visits me from out of town, first thing I always say is it's about our canopy.

They love the green, the trees, the hills.

It's always uh You know it's eroded the most, right?

In District 2.

That's right.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Um the other thing was, you know, uh, thanks for the wood chips.

Um, you know, I can get as many as as much as as I want, right?

That's right.

Because I called you on Councilwoman Gross, and I have an orchard.

And you delivered it was a big pile and it was great.

And it's kept the weeds down.

I'm ready for another order, but that's like as much as I need I can get, is that right?

Is that right?

I mean that's what the chippers for.

We chip trees every day, and rather than putting in the landfills, we distribute to whoever we use them or whoever's I was in for about three days, shoveling and careful what you're waiting for, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, but it really worked out well.

And uh so I'll just call you and order another dump load of chips in the spring, right?

Good.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Cal Smith.

Yeah, I'm gonna say first of all, I'm gonna talk about the salt dome.

The other salt dome um in Elliott, that's one that Bessie Miller is constantly asking about.

Um she wanted to put a sp uh sponsorship up on there.

Remember with Dick Sporting Goods or something?

She wanted to paint like a baseball because it's on the baseball field off of the baseball field.

So I'm just wondering, is that in in good condition too, or is that that is the one that is closed for structural defects.

That's the one that's located at um Fifth Division.

The fifth division, yes.

Okay.

Okay.

That's what I wanted to know.

So do is there any plans for that?

Yes, the some of the division locations where we have the salt dome, there that's part of our um consent order agreement with the DEP regarded um how we manage waste.

Um that will create opportunities for us to reconfigure the lots, and so we're keeping those under oh we're keeping them as functional, but we closed the fifth division salt dome, I believe, in twenty twenty eighteen due to structural defects.

I mean, you can literally look up and see daylight through it.

Um so it's a it was a concern there, unsafe for people to be working in it.

Thank you.

And I do want to thank you, Director, for the work that you do.

You do in our distance.

I know you're working around a lot of obstacles, but I think thank you very much for what you have done.

And Lisa, I do appreciate everything you've done, but I'm going to disagree that if they want to plant trees, there has to be some maintenance plan in place.

And if we're it's us maintaining them, then we have to make sure we're planting what we can maintain.

And you don't have a lot of resources, so you don't have a lot of help.

So I do appreciate that you always respond.

But the bottom line is I'm okay with planting trees.

I do it all the time.

I planted them on a trail.

I've done all sorts of things.

And like I said, I'm a tree tender.

But I do think that they have not been a good partner of the past year or so.

And I definitely don't think that they uh are have any concern about what happens once they plant the trees.

The concern it's it seems to me that the concern is mostly maintaining the organization.

And for me, I want to see more than just that.

I want to see that there's also some plan and some communication.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Any for Councilman Cockell?

Just one real other quick question.

The new salt demo fifty-one.

Are we is it just for salt, or do we can we store mulch or is it other compartments in there or is it just for salt?

All salt.

All sold all the time.

Good deal.

Yeah.

Um we're doing it starting at this spring.

Sorry.

Okay.

How long of a process is it before?

Contract specifies that they get done by winter by October 1st.

Yes.

No.

Okay.

So maybe six months or something like that.

Yeah, it's a fast moving train.

Yeah, yeah.

So obviously we're doing it in this spring summer.

That way we don't need salt there, but the dome that's there will be demoed.

Correct.

And it will be built in the same spot or uh it's reorganized.

You can find those online on a GHPG.

But that's already all worked out.

Correct.

Okay.

Good deal.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Council Member Warbeck.

I just want to say thank you for, you know, the work with the snowfall the other day.

I had very few calls.

I don't know if I can't speak about it.

I had very few calls, so I appreciate that.

And uh I had some I had some happy calls from 31st ward, which was nice.

People saying, Oh, we got out there early.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

And to to your team.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All those in favor of Bill 2522, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

One no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill 2523.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary design, final design, and right-of-way phases of the Corley Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed 1,590,000 dollars and increase of $800,000 from the previously executed agreement.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at no cost to the city of Pittsburgh.

Future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2523, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2524.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary design, final design, and right-of-way phases of the Kalera Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $1,384,000.

An increase of $750,000 from the previously executed agreement.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at no cost to the city of Pittsburgh.

Future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of Bill 2524, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2525.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary design, final design, and right-of-way phases of the California Ave Avenue Bridge Project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $3,120,000, an increase of $2,100,000 from the previously executed agreement.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at no cost to the city of Pittsburgh.

Future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of bill 2525, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Madam Clerk, can we please read Bill 2527 along with Bill 2591 on page 14?

Bill just under a different committee.

Bill 2527 resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of City Planning to enter into an agreement or agreements with Kisler Studio LLC for the creation and installation of public art in the Hazelwood neighborhood at a total cost not to exceed $120,000.

And Bill.

So uh motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Second with discussion, Councilmember Warbeck.

Yeah, so um so most folks here are aware, we changed the percent for art program, right?

So the program used to be that a given project, that one percent of the budget of a given project went to art, which resulted in just sort of a small little thing of art being done where art wasn't necessarily needed or appropriate or whatever, right?

And so the change to the program was to instead dedicate one percent, I believe, of the total capital budget to art in general, and then neighborhoods would be chosen over you know periodically for art.

And an RFP would go out for an artist to, you know, then I guess work with the community or whatever, figure out where where that art would go, right?

Where that art budget would go in a given neighborhood.

Um at any rate, so the Hazelwood neighborhood was sort of up for um for this percent for art allocation, and um the allocation being a hundred and twenty thousand dollars.

Um so and and I if if members have questions, um I'm happy to have the city planning team come up, but just to give my and I'll I'll just sort of kind of gently say that um uh an RFP went out for an artist to do art in Hazelwood with what I do not think was enough community input.

Um there was a committee of my understanding of two people, an artist, uh, and and and at the same time in Hazelwood, there is a very big project that has been on the books for a number of years.

It's Lewis Playground, it's a big playground, it's right at the entrance of Hazelwood.

And um part of the reason that the project has been on the books for so long and is so complicated is because there's a very large retaining wall that encircles the playground, and that needs to be repaired.

Um at any rate, after a number of years of kind of gathering various monies together for this week, you know, it is in this upcoming budget.

Um this very large retaining wall, which has painted now but is very dirty and and whatever is a is really an ideal place for public art, right?

This giant retaining wall, it's right at the entrance of the neighborhood.

Um but in in the discussion around the RFP for this artist, um, you know, and again, I don't I'm I'm not familiar with the I don't know the artist or whatever, it's an artist out of Ohio, but looking at their work, it appears from what I can see to be large-scale uh sculptures that would go, you know, like sculptures and like hanging art sort of calder-esque, like hanging pieces that are indoors, uh uh large sculptures that would go like in a public square.

Um I don't know how this committee chose this artist, but we don't have any public squares like that in Hazelwood that sort of seem can do, and there's no indoor spaces that we would be doing this this art.

So at any rate, um but what we do need is you know, we have this large playground project, and it would be very nice to have some nice art in in that along this retaining wall.

So I couldn't get um uh a guarantee from our city planning folks that I could count on this money going toward the Lewis Playground project uh and and the art you know and and and doing some some type of artwork on that wall.

Um so the bill um 2591 is to um reallocate the 120,000 from just general art in Hazelwood overall, specifically to Lewis Playground.

Uh so I would appreciate member support on that one.

And for bill 2527, I am not supportive uh simply because you know, looking at this artist's website, and it's it's very nice, the work is is very nice, but it is it's neither conducive to any public space in Hazelwood that I know of, at least just looking at her portfolio or their portfolio online, um, and is certainly not conducive to um what I you know what could be put on a on a wall on this playground.

And I so I'll leave it at that.

If members have questions for the planning department.

I think that I will say um I think going forward uh with this program, it would I uh city planning would be advised to talk with the council member prior to engaging on uh an RFP certainly of this nature, talking about it art and a community, whatever, because um, you know, not only was the commit, you know, there were three seats on the committee, but only two were filled, there was not much public engagement through the engage page, and I certainly I know that I mean we have some wonderful art in Hazelwood that has lots of public engagement around it, some really not city pieces necessarily, but you know, just on various walls of buildings and things like that.

It is a community that um is very engaged on you know, uh in and around the arts.

And um I feel like we and I I feel like had that had my office been consulted from the j from the get-go, this issue of Lewis Playground being a project that was in the works that was absolutely gonna need something at least then would have been taken into consideration in the choice of um in in that RFP with sort of the understanding that we were you know in the very near future going to be doing a giant retaining wall project at the entrance of the neighborhood.

Um so I I know it's frustrating for the city planning team, um, but I do feel like in terms of cho of choosing the the artist for for these funds that a I'd like those funds to get allocated specifically to Lewis Playground.

So um that's the one bill um 2591, but that um as far as the RFP for the artists themselves, um I think that we need to go back to the drawing board on that and do more public engagement and also do an RFP that keeps that that has that playground in mind.

So I so I'm looking for for for two five so I I I am voting no on two five two seven.

No, I I would just like to vote two five two seven down if my colleagues are amenable, and then two five two sorry, two five nine one vote yes, which that that allocates the the funding for the art specifically to Lewis playgrounds and you know if it ends up being more than is needed for whatever ends up happening on then we can do some other nice art in Hazelwood with it.

So they have been read together.

We will do a roll call vote.

Are there any other comments or questions from members?

Council President Laval.

Just a point of clarity to make sure I understand.

Your 2291 is effectively reallocating the money from to five 2527 to a specific project.

Exactly.

Okay.

Yeah.

Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, just for clarity.

So the ask is to vote down to 527, but to continue with 2591.

Right.

To vote, yeah.

So so no on 2527 and yes on 2591.

And the reason for 2527 is that is so the the artist that was, and again, this is just me like making a uh a judgment call.

I, you know, but but looking at the artist's portfolio and knowing the art that is needed.

It just you know, again it's lovely work, but it is large abstract sculptures, the type of which would go into a public square, and also sort of like hanging sculptures that sort of like I'll say like Calder-esque kind of abstract hanging sculptures, and just not I mean I don't want to put a judgment on an artist that I don't know, but but is not something where I'd be like, oh, this person is you know really experienced with outdoor work on walls.

Okay.

Yeah, I just wonder how the since we did vote for this, and I know we spoke about this.

I just wonder how this um one, like how the decision was made to even where we are spending money in the city, because it's what it accumulates uh the one percent of each project into a bucket, and then uh I don't know how that's distributed, like what like why is it that it's um you know, one neighborhood's like though they just got a neighborhood by neighborhood to put the money, or is there like a committee that decides where that goes?

I'm happy for the I I know that other neighborhoods I think maybe Beachview had one, and so but I'm happy for the Yeah, like how does that mean here and I'd like to know more about it?

Yeah, yeah, sure, of course, the plan teams here.

You know what I'm saying?

Like why are we?

I do, I understand.

Like how how why why Hazelwood, why Beachview?

How does it have a lot of things?

I'm just gonna go.

Right, right, right.

We were special for they understand how much money is in the pot.

Like, right, got it.

That'd be fine.

Good morning.

Can I do that?

Uh so I guess to answer your question, uh when the code was uh changed to uh change the code from project-based, as the council member uh described, to capital budget-based um uh selection of believe six neighborhoods were identified by my predecessors using regions of the city, neighborhoods that um lacked um perhaps art.

Uh those uh initial um outlays were Beachview, um, the Greater Hill District, um uh Hazelwood uh Manchester and Larmer.

Um so that was the initial package.

So um this year's um proposal for the budget is Larmer, the current year for 2025 is Manchester, and then um in 2020 uh 2023, um Beachview, Hazelwood, Upper Hill District, and then as part of that is part of the ARPA funding um the university line as well.

The touched that touches like three neighborhoods along the other.

Yes.

So uh Larm's the last one identified, and that's an opportunity to kind of maybe revisit.

Like Manchester already got public.

Uh Manchester's been um allocated for this year.

Um and we've done our kind of preliminary engagement within the neighborhood, but we haven't issued the call for artists yet.

Okay, good to know.

And then if we vote this uh down, do you just re-up the RFP?

How does that mean that's that's an excellent question?

I haven't been placed in this position before.

Okay.

So I would note that typically the artists that we uh recommend um and support uh you know are excellent creative types that are you know free thinkers and are up to challenges and meet those challenges and you know, explore these opportunities for new opportun for creative expression.

So for example, in Pichu, the artist that was selected, um Randy with an eye for design, um does a lot of asphalt art and murals.

Um the project for Beachview uh currently is proposed to be you know metal ironwork sculpture attached to the side of a building.

Um artists that we've pre selected as art and parks are also kind of you know weren't familiar with like sculptures and in Highland Park at Florida um is you know like an amazing piece of work that the artist has never explored before.

So, you know, I would you know say like we you know typically at city planning we're not necessarily prejudging what the output of that artist will be.

Um that is guided by the community.

Um it's guided by city planning, Domi, and DPW about challenges of different sites, but you know, we don't enter into um you know we don't enter it into like judgments of what the ultimate outcome may be from the the artist's engagement with different sites and community members.

So then the uh with the Davis Avenue Bridge, where did that money come from or for the art for that one?

Uh that's a good question.

I I believe that was like a percent.

Um interish W director, that was a percent for art pro you know under the under the old program.

Uh you know, where that was specifically tied to um, you know, because uh before project budgets for DOME DPW had to have percent for art specifically, you know, in the project that they designed.

And you know, the problems with that approach were part of the reason to update the code and change to this uh this way of moving forward with percent for art projects.

As an example for Davis Avenue Bridge, that was uh that art was just installed uh last week.

Yeah.

Right?

And so another example was Homewood Park.

Um that I think was a is a still ongoing DPW project.

Um those artists were selected, I think in 2022 and 2023, and that art install is still not installed just due to just the complexity of construction projects.

So that was also one of the reasons um our predecessors you know came to council with uh to update the code from project based to um overall budget-based.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockel.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh Kevin, you know, I'm very um conscious as to what we put in art, whatever it be a mural, whether it be iron, where it goes.

Um ideally we want to keep it and put it on public property, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um we're finding spaces, we're looking for spaces in Beachview.

Um I just want to be clear about one something something.

Okay.

I have a mural across from it's an it's on PRT property.

Okay, it was done years ago before I was even in office.

Um there was um some controversy as to not on that specific location, although now that's graffiti covered, I I don't like it.

Nobody really likes it.

Uh I don't even know who d approved this design, to be honest with you.

It's not art to me.

Then there was a case where some artist said, Oh, you can't paint over my art or some something of that neat.

We remain we have all rights as a city of Pittsburgh.

If we choose to eliminate that art, that will be in the contract, correct?

I mean, there is no, oh, this is my artwork and you can't do anything with it, right?

Um correct.

For city sponsored art on city owned property, there's a VERA waiver that is um completed when the work is accepted that for that allows us to obviously I want to have community engagement as to what Randy comes up with.

You know what I mean?

And I want the buy-in to be there.

So we don't have to go through that.

So I don't have to be like it's get this so-called artwork out of here.

Um I haven't had much engagement as of late though.

So where is it with Randy and what's where's the process at?

Uh thank you.

Uh good question.

So uh following up our last um kind of community engagement meeting, I'm forgetting the date.

It was in the summer.

I remember it was nice and warm out.

Yep.

Um the artist went back um has conducted some preliminary reviews and has um sent that to the public art and civic design commission for preliminary review and feedback.

Uh the next steps is the artist then going back to the community um to hold a community meeting ahead of any final.

So he goes to the review before he comes to the neighborhood.

Excuse me?

I mean so he goes to get approval.

Yes.

Oh, yes, yeah.

Before it can even comes to back to the neighborhood.

Uh before I show the community.

Preliminary feedback.

So when it comes to the public art and civic design commission, there's um at least two meetings.

Uh the first one is a preliminary review where they uh the artist submits uh a project and then through email commissioners provide comments.

Um and then we typically would hold a meeting between preliminary review and final review with the community.

Um I'm grateful that Beach V was one of the neighborhoods, I think it was 85,000.

Uh 90.

$90,000.

Is there um a fund or a way to upkeep it?

Whether it I mean, depending on what the project is.

I know the painting, you know, I got graffiti all over this mural on the PRT thing, which just adds.

I don't like it.

No one likes it.

But so I wanted to make sure, number one, that nobody's if we don't like it as a city and we decide to take that artwork off.

That is gonna be in the contract.

When the contract is executed and the city accepts the work, it becomes property of the city and it goes into the city collection.

Uh good enough.

And the idea, of course, is I want this fully vetted.

I want to make sure the neighborhood knows what's going up this way.

You know, uh any unfounded complaints go by the wayside.

And of course, we want it to review something attractive and last a lifetime.

So I don't suspect that will be the case.

I just don't want any artists to hold us hostage over their artwork.

I just don't.

Not on our property.

I guess one reason why this is this particular example of each year with an artist experienced in asphalt art and murals and now doing a more permanent structure is that coming from the capital budget, it's implied that it's not is not permitted to be limited term art, which asphalt art and wall neurals typically understand.

So we'll expect Randy to get back to us in the near future as to it's it's sent off now his design or artwork or whatever you want to call it.

Preliminary so it involves commission comments, there will be community feedback comments and then also DPW and PLI comments.

And you know it to be ironed.

Um just from a note that says shouldn't he just check with us first before he goes getting approval for something that maybe the community doesn't want it or doesn't like it.

There's no approval yet.

Okay.

It's I mean, before he goes getting approval, shouldn't we kind of approve it first?

That seems a little bit backwards, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

So that will come.

We'll we'll get to see.

There's still going to be a community meeting ahead of any final public art and civic design committee.

The community meeting and and uh for us to lay eyes on his yes artwork before it gets sent off for approval.

Yes.

Oh, absolutely.

I just thought that was backwards.

Good enough.

Thanks.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, we will take a roll call vote on bills 2527 and 2591.

Madam Clark, thank you.

Mr.

Charland.

Uh no on 2022.

No on 2527 and yes on 2591.

Mr.

Cockville.

Uh the same.

No on 2527, yes on 2591.

Ms.

Gross.

No on 2527, yes on 2591.

Mr.

Lavell.

Uh no 2527, yes, 2591.

Mr.

Mosley.

Uh no on 2527, yes on 2591.

Mrs.

Kill Smith.

Mrs.

Warwick.

No on 2527.

Yes on 2591.

Mr.

Wilson.

A no and then a yes.

Mrs.

Strasberger Chair.

No on 2527.

Yes on 252 91.

Eight no's on bill.

Register my budget.

No one but um 2527.

And yes.

Yes.

Nine no's on bill twenty-five twenty-seven and nine ayes on bill twenty-five ninety-one.

Thank you very much.

That moves us to human resources committee.

Chair by Councilperson Harland.

Bill 2520 2556.

Resolution amending resolution number 654 of 2024, which authorized the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a professional services agreement and or contracts with Bike Share Pittsburgh Inc.

to provide annual POGO bicycle share memberships to any City of Pittsburgh employee requesting one and providing for the payment of the cost thereof by increasing the authorized spend by $52,500 for an additional year and a half for a new total not to exceed cost of 122,500.

Is there a motion?

Sorry, I don't realize um motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2556, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers.

Bill 2502.

Resolution providing for an agreement or agreements with the Fair Housing Partnership of Pittsburgh for the implementation and administration of fair housing programming and related costs in the amount not to exceed $64,500.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of Bill 2502, please decay please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2503.

Resolution amending resolution 717 up to 2022, which authorized the mayor and the director of the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service to enter into an agreement with day force for services relating to the administration of the City of Pittsburgh's human capital management system, which includes payroll and benefits.

This amendment will extend the agreement by five years and will add funding by increasing the approved amount by $2,403,643 for a new total cost not to exceed five million five hundred forty thousand seven hundred fifty dollars.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

Dr.

Pampetra representing for coming to the table.

Sure.

How many uh employees are able to put their time card into day force?

To log their time.

Like is it 100%?

I know it's not 100%, but is there what is the strategy to get everyone to log their time on day force?

As opposed to the process that currently exists.

I don't have a full rundown of what the current process is.

If you'd like to go through that, that'd be great.

I don't believe I'm prepared to do that.

Um that would be an uh issue that we would need to um engage payroll in as well as the various timekeepers.

And my voice is shot, so excuse me.

I feel like well, yeah.

I can tell you that 100% of the employees as well as council are able to access their benefits online that the system uh which we have implemented since 2023 is going to allow the city benefits team and the office to go paperless by the end of 2026.

Uh um the system also has um capability to processes and streamline processes for additional cost savings to the city.

Um do you have the capacity for every person who is an active employee to actively complete either through mobile device or laptop their time.

So to answer your question, the ability is a hundred percent there.

Not clear on the actual utilization.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, when I came here in 2020, that was a big um since that time.

Sorry, I just want to finish.

Oh, sure.

Sorry.

Big ass to um for myself just to get the city's HR department um on the right track with not using paper to do benefits and you know, to uh be able to log on and and you know click what your options would be and everything.

And then also the other one was um was just the time card.

And so I'll follow up with your director on this, but this is a good reminder for me just to check in on where we're at, because I know the last time I did uh there there was um a big step forward for especially I think DBW orders to log them.

With the ability everyone to use both device um with day force and the direction with their technology, which is stellar.

Um they're only one of four global companies that have the abilities that um it does have, and we're fortunate to have them as a vendor.

Um working things out, the accessibility is there.

Yeah, it's I I remember when I worked for Pitt, it was it was there when I began there, and I worked for for them for close to ten years, so uh it's definitely been out there for a long time, so just want to make sure it continues to transition here.

I feel like it's hopefully we're all on it by the end of the year here, because it doesn't seem like a big left, but I'll follow up.

Thank you.

I hope so.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilperson Charlin.

Yes.

Um just uh as we're talking about this.

I know that we're looking at, you know, putting out the RFQ for our enterprise to possibly replace JD.

Is this something that would possibly create a redundant function?

Absolutely not.

Okay.

Absolutely not.

In fact, can you tell me why?

I'm sorry.

Can you tell me why?

Because the HCM module as it exists within the structure of A force is complementary to an ERP system that is meant to be designed to function with other various systems.

The contract that we're looking at puts us in a position to be able to work to closure on a decision as to the effectiveness of and choice of an ERP system for the entire city.

Um day four is more than likely 98.8% likely will be able to integrate with whatever system is chosen and during that time once the ERP is being evaluated and working on that task team with IMP.

Um we will make the decision as to whether or not we need to continue use uh A4s, or if the um successful uh um RFP candidate would be able to even take over the HCM process as well.

But currently um I guess I should say this is far superior to what we're working with currently.

Okay.

Does that answer the question?

Yeah, no, it does.

And I guess you know that will be something we we'll want to keep in mind.

Not to make a joke.

So but does this day force contract have to be for five years?

Could it be well um we did have a proposal presented to us for three years, which is actually not cost effective.

The additional two years.

Uh uh the difference in cost between the thrive three year and the five-year proposal was some 250,000 dollars or approximately therein.

So it made sense for us to go with the five-year contract, which would then also be cost effective as well as allow IMPE to work through the ERP um integration for the city.

Okay.

Uh, that's helpful to know.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

You're welcome.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of bill 2503, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you.

2504.

Resolution providing for an agreement or agreements with the Pittsburgh Regional Transit to allow the city to participate in the partner pass program for a one-year pilot for calendar year 2026 at a cost not to exceed 275,000.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion?

Oh discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

Um by Council Mr.

Yes, I don't know if there's anyone to come speak to this.

Sure.

So um just as as they're coming up to the table.

So um this is something that uh my team has been working on for quite some time now, together with PRT, with uh Domi and with um the budget office.

Uh so um what is proposed here?

So PRT uh uh launched I want to say a year and a half, close to two years ago, the partner, the PRT partner pass program, right?

So that's when a large employer or group um uh purchases for uh uh a fixed number uh for employees at a fixed location, right?

Uh purchases bus passes for those employees at a greatly discounted rate.

So I believe like $28 or so as compared to the cost of a bus pass is like $98.

So that's when a large employer or group um uh purchases for uh a fixed number uh for employees at a fixed location right uh purchases bus passes for those employees at a greatly discounted rate so I believe like twenty eight dollars or so as compared to the cost of a bus pass is like ninety-eight dollars um so this is um you know this is a way for us as a city to offer this benefit to our employees the pilot program is just downtown um I would love to be able to do it for citywide but I think kicking it off to sort of gauge usage and whatnot downtown and also just where the bus service goes um so that's about 750 employees um so all those employees would get bus passes right would get a uh a free bus pass um one question that I have the I you know it would be that um I I feel that rather than asking for the bus pass it would be good to just mail the but like make sure that everybody just gets their bus pass.

Um but um you know overall this of course you know similar to you know the the POGO benefit it encourages multimodal tran travel right downtown uh reduces congestion the more people we can get out of their cars um and as we know offering free public transit now and you know whether it's to your will boosts transit usage right if it's free then then you're more likely to use it um so that would uh boost ridership to PRT which of course makes PRT more sustainable which is good for the the region overall and um you know this really is something that all employers certainly employers in our downtown and Oakland areas should be should be doing right and for us as the city of Pittsburgh to kind of take this first step I I believe we would be the largest employer in the program I'm not to date I I'm not I'm not I'm I think that that that may be the case at any rate um you know just sort of puts us forward as being like the best practice employer this is something that is good for PRT it would be good for our employees.

And if if if employers around the city and organizations around the city uh were to take advantage of this partner pass program it would be good for everybody.

So that's my pitch Patrick I'll let you sure Patrick Chief Financial officer um council member work is spot on we've been talking about this and working with PRT for over a year at this point.

When PRT was launching this program um we actually weren't eligible right so we've been working with them to figure out a way um that the city government can move into it they've refined and revised some of their uh options because it's not just employers they have uh multi-unit apartment buildings and condos are able to sign up and schools are also able to sign up I believe the universities have their own agreements so you know Pitt as a large employer has its own kind of thing.

The way that the this program works is is it's all or nothing based on a geographic location um which is why we are starting with the pilot right by choosing the city county building and 412 and some of our other smaller units downtown all of those employees um will have access to this it's not an opt-in thing um I believe it is the mobile pass is what PRT currently has um so we'll have to double check on that um but it is an all or nothing thing which is why if we expanded it beyond specific strategic locations the cost would jump up really fast and we're not sure um who would actually be using the the pass to get to work um it's been a pleasure working with the District 5 office with PRT um with Pittsburghers for public transit um and we are hopeful uh that this um allocation of the last thing I'll add here um it is in the mayor's proposed budget um we are hopeful that it remains in a final budget that council passes the authorization of this bill would not deter it you know if that funding is not there this bill would just be on paper but we wouldn't actually act on it.

Um the reason we wanted to move it ahead in December is to try and get things ready to go for the start of the year if we're able to have council was there any further question that you have Councilman Cogill followed by Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you ma'am chair okay so Patrick let me um interrogatory if councilwoman sorry about that so this is going to apply to all city workers who work downtown Pittsburgh correct so we will tell PRT which locations we would like to include in the program.

Meaning buildings buildings it is a physical geographic so it's not downtown all city workers in downtown but we're gonna give them each location that we have city work.

Correct so what we have included in the tentative count that um the council member said the city county building 412 Boulevard of the Allies um 611 second Av right now we employ people.

Correct.

And there's there's also downtown CPRB has their building as you go up Fifth Av and the Pittsburgh Partnership.

The one that we are not going to include right now is the police substation because those officers park in zone two and then come down.

Um so it's it's anywhere where we do have city staff based full-time.

Understood.

If you're a public works employee and you work downtown or depending the ones that are in 412 Boulevard, the Allies as their home base, yes, yes.

Uh and we will work with HR.

You know, we will have to make sure there's an accurate census of where people's physical address is.

Okay.

So who comes up with the amount, the 275?

Is that what it was?

275?

Uh 28 doll is uh per month.

Okay, so it's based on every employee we have.

Four so what we did is we calculated uh estimates of employees at each of the locations downtown times 28 dollars times twelve month, 12 months.

It's a little less than the 275,000, but we would only actually pay each month for the number of employees that are there.

As people come and go, new hires or terminations, you know, they would be entered or removed from the program.

Yeah, but so you identified 750, basically at this point.

That's how you come up with that number.

Yes.

So we're giving PRT a 275,000 payment, and that's in order to get it at a discounted rate.

It doesn't mean it's free to the employees.

They still pay $28.

So what we have proposed as part of it is that it would be free to the employees.

You are able to pass the cost on.

Um, you know, talking with the council member and the mayor, that's not how we wanted to think about it at this time.

Um 275 is free for all 750.

For our employees, yes.

For all 750 employees, yes.

Not discounted rate, it's correct.

And then the employees who are not downtown would still have access to um the separate HR subsidy for bus passes as well.

Right.

And for those who are downtown, they could use it throughout the county.

Correct.

Right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Free.

Yes.

Okay.

I just I'm trying to figure out where that $28, the discounted rate that Councilwoman Warwick is talking about.

So right now, though if I were to buy a bus pass or a T pass, I take the T every day.

Right.

Um, it would be $97.50 a month.

Right.

Um the city right now is covering about $48 of that as part of uh a proposal that Director Kelluman requested and has been in play for a year or two.

Um but I am still contributing to my own bus pass.

Okay.

So this is a discounted rate for currently, but what we're proposing with the 275, it would be free.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

That's it for me.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Councilman McGross.

So I love this as an employee benefit.

I'm glad it's a pilot.

I I think it's going to be enthusiastically embraced.

And um I think we all know people who've been jealous of the Pitt and CMU employees who've been riding around on their free bus passes for decades, I think.

Um and I hope that we that this is successful and that we're able to expand it to all city employees no matter where their base is.

It's curious to me that PRT has worked it out this way, is like we have to name certain locations.

Um I don't know how long Director Kelleman's been in town, but I think she'll recall that when she first came to town, she met with council members, and I was like, why can't we get like discounted or free bus passes for city employees?

So I wait, I think all of us have asked these questions over the years.

So finally, at least we have this pilot program, and it was really PRT working out how they wanted to structure it.

So I'm I'm happy to be supportive today.

I would like to see it to be more robust.

Um to cover more employees in more places.

It certainly is a very minuscule investment, I think, to provide a really important employee benefit.

Um because we all know that we're still struggling to increase pay scale.

We've done we've done a lot of increasing pay scales over the last 12 years, as much as we I think it's been responsible for us in our budgeting.

Um but it's still it's it's still we lose on hiring people because our pay scales are so low in a lot of departments.

So I I think this is a great way to add an employee benefit.

I will point out to the public also, we still do have defined pensions.

Um and we do have good health benefits, and now maybe if you're downtown worker, you can get a bus pass too.

So at least we have those things.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Hi, Patrick.

I did some calculations here.

We were sitting, so it's $28 a month.

Yes.

So then that comes out to $336 for the year.

So it looks like we have $800, you have identified $821 over 800 employees, it sounds like I took a census from September when we were working on the budget.

So of I took a census from September when we were working on the budget.

But it's a you know a rough estimate of what it would be.

And then the current program that uh covers half of the cost.

Yes.

Do you have the number on that?

I do not.

Uh it is a much smaller group who participates.

Um, but I I don't have that number, but I'm sure we can get it.

Do we have a uh rough estimate on or maybe the exact number on how many parking spots are used by employees that work downtown?

Uh HR certainly does.

For our city owned spots or the ones we lease from second half.

There are I mean people could park at one of the private lots on their own without being enrolled in our our city program.

I guess that's true.

More expensive though.

Correct.

And the the other options are for their that we couldn't calculate.

So I'll just try and get a rough estimate on that.

Yeah, if you could get some numbers, thanks.

Councilwoman Kale Smith.

That's a good question, Councilman Wilson.

Um I'm just curious, the there's not a sliding scale according to pay.

Like so a director could use this free benefit as much as a person making 30,000 or a fixed amount as set by PRT.

And it that that rate would be set for the first year, the entire year of the program, you know, at their discretion for future contract use.

I like the idea of helping the the employees.

I just wish our budget was better to do it, to be honest with you.

I don't think this is the perfect timing for this.

But I love the idea that maybe um we're helping, you know, some people that might also be struggling.

But our directors, I don't think they're struggling as much.

And not that I begrudge the directors anything.

I think they do a great job.

But I think they could more easily afford you know parking or driving, or whatever.

But um okay.

That's it.

Thank you.

Any further first round?

Second round, Councilman Wilson.

Thanks.

I just had some other questions that I thought of once I gave my time up.

Usually how it happens for me.

So the uh the POGO is based on a 10% of uh estimate of employees that would use the program.

And I'm not you know well versed on on this program, so I'd have to ask these questions.

So this is just um this one is you know is is uh is a blanket fee, just calculating all the all the employees that are in the building buildings.

And so um is w will PRT uh adjust this the next year if they see that ridership is you know an estimated amount.

So like so for instance, Pogo is available to everyone, but the the numbers are based on the percent of usage.

So is that is that something that they're that's in this program, or is it just a blanket, hey, we're giving you a really big discount, so we're just gonna count.

We we need to count every employee.

So good question.

Um it's definitely the structure of the program for Pogo and for the city's current bus pass subsidy.

It's an opt-in, right?

So um you have to opt in for the POGO membership and then Pogo charges us based on the number that that we have.

Um same with the bus pass.

For this one, PRT has set up the entire program to be it is all or nothing based on this geographic location.

Um I can't speak for them, but my guess is because it is such a heavy discount, that is how they are ensuring that it is still a benefit to them as an organization.

Yeah, well, actually, I think Pogo, well, you're the one that do the doing sorry stuttering.

Doing the contract, but uh for Pogo, but I wanted to clarify what I meant is that my understanding of the contract is that the initial one was to assume 10%.

Of ridership as well.

Based on other as we budget.

And then as time goes on, they said, well, maybe we got to bump up the fifteen percent we find that out for next year.

Like they'll take a loss that year.

You know, or we take a loss.

But each year we come back to the table and they present like who's using the amount of usage and we get a cost based on that.

Yes, in all three cases, we would have to adjust contracts for PRT not to exceed amounts or POGO and not to exceed amount that you know you just discussed, or our own budget line for the other bus pass based on what numbers are.

So yes, uh HR is looking at it.

Okay.

I'd be interested to see if uh you know their PRT is interested in just looking at the numbers year by year and seeing you know if you know the we're taking a loss or they're taking a loss and seeing if if there's if we can agree on like a percentage year, and like I think keep narrowing it down to what you know our losses there again, and I think that's why it's a an interesting program for them.

You know, like we are committing to making payment regardless of whether you know you personally use it as you work in this building.

And I think that's part of the risk we take as a participant, but that's what they factor in as part of the structure.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Yeah, there's just two different ways to whatever, you know, analogy people like to use.

I'm not gonna give some crazy analogy.

But I just wanted to pick through that a little bit.

Thanks for the question.

Thank you.

Councilperson Warbook.

Um I I would uh you know, if members are supportive, I would want us to be looking at the data, right?

Like, you know, and and talk with PRT so that we can see, and and I think it's very important.

This is actually Councilwoman Gross came up with this, but to mail the pat like it's not enough to just send out an email and say, hey everybody, you can get a free bus pass if you come down to HR because most people are just not even gonna see the email, but actually bus pass in hand, like this is my bus pass, and it's in my wallet, and now I know that you know, that that I have a free bus pass and I can use it anywhere, right?

I think that that is important uh to see, and then of course, then we can look at the numbers and you know are we seeing an increase from the folks who are getting their their reduced rate, you know, who are coming down to HR now and getting their you know reduced rate bus pass?

Like that's a bus pass I have, right?

The $50 one.

Um but I have to actively go down and ask for it, right?

And I don't think that we should do that here if we want to maximize our gain, right?

We should make sure that everybody has the card in hand.

I agree with that.

Thanks.

I just have a question.

If we saw um major uptake in this, is there a world in which we could reven uh uh generate additional revenue by leasing out the unused parking spaces that we owe.

That's interesting.

Are there reasons why that wouldn't be possible?

I don't know the answer to that question, but we can dig into it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I mean it's we own those lots, you know, the same way we would enter into lease agreements with employees, you know, perhaps it could be with others as well.

I don't know.

But we we would dig into that.

Lots of hurdles I could see for lots of different reasons, but if it were successful, I could see there being some open spots.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Councilman Cockhouse.

Yeah, just real quick, Patrick.

Um is there data on how many of these 750 employees we have that are signed up with the discounted rate?

When I get the data from HR, I can do the cross-reference.

That's all right now, no, but I can.

I can get that.

Got it, got it.

And as far as like enforcement, I mean uh do you have to show your ID when you enter the bus or T or No, I think it would so I can give it to anybody in my family and they can go wherever they want.

I imagine that HR would establish a written policy that says employees won't do that.

Um that would be my recommendation.

Honor system, then is that what you're implying?

I am not, I can't control someone else's pass, but I think we would want to make sure that there is no.

Yeah, so PRT is not regulating.

They're not asking us to show ID when they don't believe that.

That's what I'm asking.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All those in favor of bill 2504, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

2586.

Resolution further amending resolution number 840 of 2019, effective January 1st, 2020, as amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2020 capital budget and the 2020 community development block grant program, approving the 2020 through 2025 capital improvement program by reducing Troy Hill citizens by six thousand dollars and increasing catapult Greater Pittsburgh by six thousand dollars and authorize a subsequent agreement or agreements.

Motion to approve second second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of bill twenty-five eighty-six, please indicate by saying aye.

Uh-huh.

Affirmative recommendation.

Deferred papers, bill twenty-four sixty-seven.

Ordnance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title IX, Zoning Code, Article 1, Introduction and Establishment.

Chapter 902, zoning districts in general at Section 902.01 establishment of zoning districts by adding a new specially planned district at subsection 902.01 D2 to be identified as SP 13 West End Trolley Trail Accessory Parking District.

At Article 4 Planning Districts, Chapter 909 Plan Development Districts, Section 90901, SP Specially Plan District, by creating a new district to be identified as SP 13 West End Trolley Trail Accessory Parking District, including rules and regulations, and by amending the City of Pittsburgh zoning map by changing accessory parking standards in UI and LNC to SP 13, West End Trail Trolley Trail Accessory Parking District for property consisting of lots between Free Walt Street, the West End Trolley Trail Gateway along McCartney Street, Green Tree Road, and portions of Warden Street, Woodville Avenue, McKnight Street, and Wabash Street as further identified in the attached map and in more detail within the bill below, all located in the 20th ward.

Motion to hold two weeks.

Second?

I can't discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of a two-week hold on bill twenty-four sixty-seven.

Please indicate by saying aye.

New papers.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enter into an agreement or agreements with Paramount Pursuits LLC for technical assistance services to nonprofits awarded neighborhood economic development grants in need of capacity building for a sum not to exceed 41,000 dollars for the payment of the costs thereof.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Discussion.

Yes, uh I'm assuming Kelly, you're here.

She just said you double bulk right now.

I understand going on so y'all just got okay.

We're good with you.

All right, Kelly Russell Assistant Director of Community Development.

Uh so I I do have a question about this contract.

So I had this is for Paramount Pursuits, which helps build capacity for the large net or the the biggest net winner, correct?

I can't talk now, the capacity building groups through the NED program.

Yes, sir.

So I I'm concerned.

So this and I believe was uh a group from the Hill that won it this year, or that was the I shouldn't say one, but no, I know what you mean the the awardee who got the NED group, yes.

Yeah um Hill it wasn't Hill C it was Hill either them or Hill District Consensus Group, but it was one of the groups from the Hill, yes.

And so I know that my uh Belt Hoover went through this previously.

Um they won it last year.

They did not find this paramount uh contract to be useful.

So I'm curious, is this something we're we're putting out to bed?

Oh, yeah, yeah, there is an RFP for this.

Um actually I had a feeling that question would come up.

I thought you would bring it up.

I was not it was RFP last year uh for 2024, and we received five proposals that our department scored and uh reviewed and decided that Paramount Pursuits was the winning bit.

So how do we measure the success of these groups?

Because this is you know, not an inside, but it's not an insignificant amount.

And I understand the value of getting giving these groups you know additional uh training so they can build capacity and they can fundraise for themselves.

Uh but this does not seem to be, you know, from the folks that I've talked to.

This did not seem to be beneficial really in in any way.

All right.

Well, one disappointed to hear that, but to answer your question through their scope of work that Paramount Pursuits has uh that does provide services.

So they assess the capability of the four inner and they assess the capability for the organizations entering the program that includes leadership of staff, board governments, program management, fundraising, financial financial management, community engagement.

They do a facilitate uh an onboarding meeting.

Um to answer to to someone also help you.

I can send you sending you a copy of the scope because this is kind of a detailed scope here.

I'm sure I could keep on reading, but it might take a minute.

But they do have a scope of work that talks about.

Let me just say this.

They facilitate onboard meeting, they facilitate three capacity building workshops.

Um they have reports that they do to the city, and of course, the term for the previous agreement was from January 1st of 2025 through January 31st of 2025.

With this agreement with this bill here, we want to extend the extended the current agreement.

Yeah, I guess my my whole whole thing here is that it it does if it's you know if it's not useful, why are we paying for it?

Um why are we making the you know net awardees go through this?

Um and and what can we do at this point to try to get somebody else in that that could be more effective.

Um like the universe.

Uh I mean I know you said that I remember you saying that last year.

They do, they offer it.

I uh I do remember asking about this last year.

Or I think earlier okay, it was last year.

Um, you know, about the the issues related to to this organization.

I believe they're out of uh Bridgeville or Ambridge um Beaver, I think it's Banbridge because it's part of the county.

Yeah, and and again, they you know, having just had a group from my district go through this, uh that there wasn't a whole lot of value out of it.

So, you know, I mean what you I got you what could we do to terminate this agreement?

We'd have to put it back out for bid again.

And the reason why we wanted to extend this agreement was the previous contractor who provided the service, there was just too much going on with them.

So we ended that agreement and put it out for bid last year, and that's why Paramount Pursuits was the winning bid.

And from what we've heard, we've heard nothing but great things.

So to hear that your Bell Silver group is not happy, that that's a little bit of a surprise.

So both them and then there was an actually another group also out of Bell Super, but uh a much smaller group that went to them before on their own, or or through perhaps the Forbes fund or something, uh you know, I'm I'm not exactly sure how that works through another funding switching.

Not through Ned and they also had a similar experience.

Um that this was you know not helpful not helpful.

So I you know, I think I'm gonna vote no and uh would ask my my colleagues at least to hold this.

I'm not exactly sure what to do with it.

Um but I don't I don't think this is super helpful for the groups that that really need it.

Okay.

I like I said, you say this is news to us.

So I'm I don't know.

I can't I hate to say I don't know.

I can't react to that because everything we've heard has been glaring with things from Paramount Pursuits, and we've enjoyed working with them.

So this is a little bit disappointing.

Okay.

Um I know Brandon know you're telling her.

Thank you, Councilwoman Kale Smith.

Thank you.

Where's Paramount Pursuits?

Where are they located?

Like you said, uh Ambridge, Beaver County.

It doesn't, it doesn't matter.

Uh sorry, let me lower my voice for one.

It doesn't matter where you're located, they can still provide the services to I hear that.

I hear that.

But for me, it matters if you're a Pittsburgh company.

If you they there's a Pittsburgh company that offers it, I'd rather it be a Pittsburgh company contract.

But for me, I the universities offer this kind of stuff for free.

And I say this every every year.

I really wish that we would help our small businesses and our nonprofits to build their capacity in a way that they can do fundraising on their own.

They don't have to rely on public dollars, they can do be self-sustaining.

And I think we used to do it with um CTEC was on the north side, and then um there was um the Bear Center for Nonprofit Management.

But the University of Pittsburgh has you know, I think both of those for both um small businesses and to help nonprofits for free.

And so I just don't understand why we're not looking into those free options.

And so I would be supportive of holding it, but I don't know what the other the council member who's organizations, the recipient might have a different.

I think it's council president Lavells might have a different um thought.

But for me, I I just wish that we would do more of that.

And I maybe I'll try to legislate something that we're looking at if there's something that the universities provide free that we're working with them.

We have such a gem in the our universities, and and you know, we complain all the time about what they don't do, but they do a lot of things that we don't take advantage of.

So I just want to say I remember you saying that last year.

Now I just um normally with our funds we have to RFP them and we had to get a special waiver to do this one, but I understand I I remember your concerns from last year, and I hear council or council person's concerns for me.

Um the Bear Center still offers.

Yeah, remember well, you might not I shouldn't say remember.

Um I think they do exist.

This came up when we brought all our main legislation, and AJ had commented that I belie she believes they do still exist.

I wish I could remember I don't remember my name half the time anymore.

Okay.

But I appreciate the the reminder.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Briefly.

So I was sidebarring with the councilman.

Um and he was reminding me uh so the organization that won this this year is actually in the Hill District, but the Hill Consensus Group.

Okay.

What services how how are they how would they actually help the consensus group?

Oh, that remember the scope I just went through.

Those are some of the services that Paramount Pursuits is going to provide to the different pro uh nonprofit groups.

So that would be Hill Consensus Group to receive these services as well.

So let me just repeat that one more time in case uh you were conversating while I was talking, excuse me.

You don't have to do all that.

No, I got it.

I just have to scroll but please.

Facilitate on board meeting, facilitate three capacity workshops and reporting to the city.

And um, as I also said when I was talking to the council person, Charlotte, uh, I can send you a copy of the scope.

It's a lot more detailed than what I'm reading right here.

I just I don't think y'all want me to read the full scope.

Sure.

And that that'd probably be helpful.

Um if the councilman's organizations have had a bad experience with this, I don't mind holding this to try to think through a better process or look if there are other options um, especially within a city to assist.

I'm very familiar with this consensus group who's been awarded and would actually go through this process.

So and I know there are other ways that I could also assist them in doing this work um until we head on another provider to to assist.

So I'll be supportive if the councilman wants to hold or I'll be supportive in in supporting him in whichever direction he wants to go.

Oh, I'm gonna say it's on you.

Do we have a motion for a hold?

Yeah, I would like to make a motion to hold one week at least.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of a one-week hold for bill twenty-five twenty-six, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Resolution authorizing the director of the Department of City Planning on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into licenses or temporary easements as necessary for the city to perform maintenance and or removal of the Lawrenceville Life Links charm bracelet artwork without cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill twenty-five twenty-eight, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2529.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the city of the Department of City Planning to enter into an agreement and or contract with Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group for the purpose of utilizing an AmeriCorps Vista in the Department of City Planning at a cost not to exceed $21,900 over one year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2529, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2533.

Resolution further amending resolution number 863 of 2018.

Effective January 1st, 2019, as amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2019 capital budget and the 2019 community development block grant program.

Approving the 2017 through 2022 capital improvement program by reducing Kitchen of Grace by 1,000 and a homewood renaissance association by $2,500 and increasing Macedonia Family and Community Enrichment Center by $1,000.

And Naomi's place transitional housing by $2,500.

And authorize a subsequent agreement or agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2533, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2534.

Resolution further amending resolution number 886 of 2021.

Effective December 27, 2021, as amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2022 Capital Budget and the 2022 Community Development Block Grant Program.

And the 2022 through 2027 community improv capital improvement program by reducing Steel City Boxing Association by $638.

North Side Leadership Conference by $5,000.

Pittsburgh National Youth Boxing by $610 and 61 cents.

And Allies for Health and Wellbeing by $5,000.

And increasing YMCA of Greater Pittsburgh, Allegheny by $638.61.

Macedonia Family and Community Enrichment Center by $5,610 and 61 cents.

And Jeremiah's place by $5,000 so as to fund specific City Council Public Service Grant projects and authorize a subsequent agreement or agreements.

Motion to approve the discussion.

Second.

A discussion, Councilman Wilson.

Yes, uh, you all have a yellow paper.

Should be the only yellow paper you have next to you.

And I like to look it looks like there's some grammatical errors here.

Um then some other uh clear some other technical amendments that you can see.

And I'd like to make a I'll make a motion to amend 2534.

Second.

Second.

2534.

Correct.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of amending bill 2534 with the amendment in front of us, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bill is amended.

Is there discussion on the abil as amended?

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2534 as amended, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you very much.

That takes us to Innovation Performance Asset Management and Technology Committee chaired by Councilwoman Gross.

Bill 2562, resolution amending resolution number 155 of 2023, authorizing an amendment or amendment to the existing rooftop license agreement between the City of Pittsburgh and 600 GS Prop LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership in order to extend the term through December 31st, 2030, and allow additional equipment installations by increasing the approved amount by $60,000 for an amended total cost not to exceed $440,387.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2562, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers, Bill 2505.

Resolution amending resolution 862 of 2024, which authorized the mayor and the director of public safety to enter into an amended agreement or agreements with JULATA for software subscription-based client relations management services by increasing the total not to exceed amount by $71,093 for a new total not to exceed of $275,524.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill $2505, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill $2506.

Resolution amending resolution 718 of 2022, authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter an agreement or agreements and amendments thereto with Computronics USA Inc.

for subscribed services to handle day-to-day maintenance and support of one-stop PGH, including the address including to address any defects that may arise with the system and to define service level agreements for resolution time meeting the needs of the city of Pittsburgh by increasing the approved amount by $1,616,281 for an amended total cost not to exceed $2,840,763 over six years.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2506, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2507.

Resolution amending resolution number 878 of 2024.

Effective December 3rd, 2024, which authorized the mayor, the director of public works, and the director of innovation and performance on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh to enter into an amended agreement or agreements and amendments thereto with cardograph now doing business as open gov to meet the continuation of service needs of the city of Pittsburgh by extending the agreement an additional three years and increasing the cost by 7,379 and three cents for a new not to exceed amount of two million five hundred fifty-one thousand one hundred seventy-three dollars and fifty-five cents over thirteen years.

Motion to approve.

Yes.

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Gwendolyn Moore, Assistant Director of Business Technology, the Department of Innovation and Performance.

Thank you.

I um I see that there's a waiver of competitive process, and I wanted to know why that was the case here.

This is a three-year additional extension.

Um this is expenditure of of a decent amount of money, so I just wanted to hear a little bit more about why there was a waiver and um why the three-year extension.

Funding is not available to issue an RFP for a new new system at this time.

Is that the desire is to is uh brand new system?

There is a desire for a new system, however, as you know we are replacing JDE with a new ERP system, and that process is going to take about three years.

We wanted to make sure that we have JDE and then stabilized before we um implemented any other new systems which it would integrate with.

So we do not have the resources currently, the people to work on it, and we don't have the funding.

We estimate it would be about 1.5 million for the first year to replace it, and we expect that we would be able to do that.

Um say issue an RFP in 2026 or 2027 to implement it and then have it in place in 2028.

I see.

So this is a this is until the expected outcome of that.

I guess I'm a little confused.

Is was the initial agreement with cardograph done through an RFP or was that the waiver that was the initial agreement with cartographs?

I'm just trying to figure out if the waiver is because of an extension or if the waiver was for the original.

No, the this this is this is this is for the extent.

The second waiver.

The original I believe we did go out to RFP.

I don't think we bought it off of a cooperative agreement, but I don't remember right now.

I do I was there.

I just don't remember the details right now.

Okay, okay.

I appreciate it.

Um I appreciate it.

I just wanted to make sure for this particular one that you know we had the reasons for aligning with JD Edwards um or replacing JD Edwards makes sense.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

I don't have any further questions.

All right.

All those in favor of bill 2507, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bill 2508.

Resolution amending resolution 338 of 2024, authorizing the mayor, the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance, and the Director of Permits, Licenses and Inspections on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter an agreement or agreements and amendments thereto with CompuTronics USA Inc.

to provide ongoing professional services to continue to develop and upgrade the posse LMS system in support of the one-stop PGH permitting program meeting the needs of the City of Pittsburgh by increasing the approved amount by $300,000 for an amended total cost not to exceed $2,977,278 over six years.

Motion to approve I need a second.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2508, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That moves us to our last committee of the day, intergovernmental and educational affairs committee chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Bill 2564.

Resolution amending resolution 52 of 2021, providing for an intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the City of Pittsburgh and the borough of Wilkinsburg for the collection of a portion of the borough's municipal waste by the city for a term of five years by extending the ending date by six months to June 30th, 2026, and increasing the amount by $139,785 and 75 cents for a new cost not to exceed $5,073,239.51.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2564, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Councilman Conkill.

Introduce yourself first.

Chris Hortstein, Director of Public Works.

Okay, thank you for being here.

I think we covered talked about this week.

I don't I can't remember what meeting or whether it's about it under public works, I guess.

So we are going ahead releasing five street sweepers.

And this will ensure no interrupted service throughout the district throughout the city, is that right?

So that's the answer.

So we don't have to worry about people calling me and saying I moved my car, but the street sweeper didn't show up.

Didn't show up because it was been down for three months.

So we're leasing them now, but do we don't lease them now?

We own them now.

Okay, yeah, we own them now.

Right.

But um the the ones that we're gonna lease, how much are they to lease?

Um I don't have to figure out the top of my head, but well let me ask you this.

I mean this time of year.

100,000 apiece per year, I think.

For a year for all of them.

I mean let me double check the math.

Do we clean the streets throughout winter?

Do we do we not?

They are it's you know, obviously.

Most of the time there's not snow.

Obviously, if it's snowing we don't, right, right.

But uh yeah, we will provide that service um you know, as necessary on request when we can get to it in the winter.

Yes.

And when do we expect them what's the time frame with the um we've been working on it?

Yeah, we've been actively working with the leasing agency.

They'll be here before well advanced of the NFL draft.

I think it's less than 100,000 a year.

Less than 100,000 a year per.

Yeah.

It's not bad.

Um do they have to be what the yeah, I think I think it said they do cover the maintenance.

That's correct.

Yeah, they they cover all the yeah, they could they the vendor, the leasing agency provides all of the maintenance.

Yeah, how do they transport those on flatbed trucks?

Or I mean they don't drive them here, you can't, right?

I mean I believe so, yes.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

It's not our concern, I guess.

They're gonna deliver up.

They're gonna they're gonna perform the they're gonna deliver them and they're gonna perform the maintenance order on their so it's for a year.

Councilwoman Gross thinks it's uh roughly a hundred thousand dollars per vehicle per year.

That tracks a little less than that, I think.

Yeah, it's about ninety thousand.

Do you know what they cost?

They're like half a million dollars, I think we said.

Yeah, a little less than that.

Um is the retail.

So there is um but that package includes that ninety thousand includes the maintenance service.

Well, let's thank God for that because we've been seeing looking at our maintenance on vehicles, and it's not pretty.

So um uh okay, so so once we approve, we will get these pronto, basically.

Essentially, yes.

Okay, good, good.

Okay, that's it.

Thanks.

You councilman gross.

I think I kind of just said everything through Council McCock since I was giving him all the time.

Yeah, I was answering my questions through you.

Your questions through me, I should say.

It says like two, it's like basically two point three million, but it's five of the street sweepers for five years.

So that's about ninety thousand dollars pre per vehicle for each year.

Um but the the critical part was I also said ask ask them if it covers maintenance because it's vehicles that aren't in the 70 what million transdev contract.

Right.

So get have to get away.

Uh you know, typically these days when you factor in the didn't get

These days, when you factor in the didn't get a little bit of a good thing, thank you.

Once we get to the fact sweeping portion stuff.

Okay, well, I go at the manor, and the inter schedule doesn't change, it's not less throughout winter, and it's the same schedule.

Yeah, I mean the post of the post of schedule's the same schedule.

Obviously, for the snows like it did yesterday.

We don't.

Absolutely not.

Yeah.

And then we um we provide that service upon request.

So if residents often go into three one one and ask for that service, um we'll we'll work the schedule and get it done.

And if a day like yesterday happens on your street supposed to be cleaned, you move your car, obviously it snows.

Um we won't be by to clean it.

Do you put them on the next day, or do you put them on a you know, just we work for this cycle?

Obviously, if there's snow in the streets still ice in the street.

Right.

The way it's important to note that the street sweeping calendar that's posted is from like March to November, right?

So we don't actually post we're not going to be able to do that.

Okay, so we don't steady routine through January, February.

Right.

We'll be able to do that.

If it's opened up, we're gonna go and we're gonna address leaves, we're gonna address traditions that you know we've observed.

Good.

Thank you very much.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill Twenty Five oh nine, please indicate by saying aye.

Resolution authorizing the approval of the two thousand twenty-six housing opportunity fund annual allocation plan.

All council districts.

Discussion?

Councilperson Charlie.

Yes, uh, I believe you guys are here to talk to us.

Great to see you all.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Council members and members of the public, Kiana Wassler, Chief Housing Officer at the URA.

Good afternoon.

My name is David Di Bernardo.

I'm the manager of residential lending at the URA.

Uh well, can you maybe walk us through a little bit what changes we're making to the housing opportunity fund allocation plan?

Sure.

So quickly the process for the allocation plan annually for the housing opportunity fund is uh we open a public survey and um provide an I believe 30 to 45 day window for the public to tell us, the city and the URA and the advisory board um what programs they feel should be funded once that survey closes, uh we go to the advisory board with that information and we start to allocate the $10 million of funds.

Um what you see what you have before you today is the draft allocation that has gone through the um housing opportunity fund advisory board uh has passed through the URA's uh board of directors and is now before you for final approval.

And so what's different this year uh than last year, I don't have the exact last year numbers in front of me, unfortunately, but you will see there is um a slight increase in the rental gap program than in previous years.

Um I believe the housing stabilization program has an increase as well as the legal assistance program.

There was um a lot of discussion around how to best and the uh small landlord fund is zeroed again, which it was at zero last year as well.

Um so a lot of discussion around um the best way to utilize these funds.

There was also a lot of public comment feedback from advocates to the advisory board around the legal assistance program, and because of that, those advocates we were able to increase um the allocation from the original 1.5 million that uh originally was was uh allocated in the original draft up to 1.7 million.

Um so hopefully that answers your question.

Unfortunately, I don't have the the um 2025 allocation in front of me to tell you exact changes over year.

Okay, and so um I I want to start off by saying, like unequivocally, I think this is one of the best programs we do in the city.

Um, I know that our partners in our district work through um the HAP program specifically.

It's something, you know, often the person that is in most need calling our office is someone that needs connected with a HAP program, um, often you know, through Hilltop Alliance or Action Housing, or um I believe it's it's all Action Housing now, it's not Hilltop Alliance anymore.

Correct.

Um, which actually is a problem that I would like to discuss with you at a different point.

Okay.

But um, but that being said, this is uh $10 million transfer.

And um, you know, you're you're kind of divvying up how that would happen.

Uh I do understand though that the housing bond was supposed to go supplement these programs.

How's that happened?

Is that how was that going?

Where are we with that?

That's a great question.

Um, yes, the housing bond was issued in December of 2023.

With that issuance, we were required to commit or spend down all 30.6 million of those funds within three years.

Uh so we are approaching the end of year two, and we have committed uh all of those funds except for approximately 500,000 of it into projects uh currently.

Um we have a rental pipeline that could that is somewhere between 15 to 30 million dollars of request uh for different projects that have come to the URA.

And so we will definitely um be able to commit that remaining 500,000 of bond money, and also need any additional funds for rental development that we can find to be able to meet the need to help decrease you know the the amount of units that we don't have in the city for affordable housing.

So, yes, the affordable housing bond has been a great um tool to help spur um development in downtown.

A lot of what you see from the URA happening in downtown and all the projects that we have funded there has come through that affordable housing bond as well as work that we're doing throughout the neighborhood.

So it it is basically almost committed, and now we're back to just other sources that are provided to us from the city, including Hoff.

Yeah, I I think the um the rental rental gap is something that we as council members probably interact with the least.

Not that the projects don't happen in our districts, um, but someone calls the office, they you know, they we're gonna direct them towards HAP.

Someone, you know, or or or happy, um, you know someone uh, you know, we talk to residents all the time who took advantage of the down payment assistance.

Um I think rental gap is probably something that's a little bit more we're we're a little less in touch with on a day-to-day basis.

Um but that being said, you know, we we are there's the reality of where we are in as a a city this year.

Um this is a $10 million transfer.

There is supplemental money from the housing bond that is available there.

I I'm curious from you what would happen if we didn't make the full ten million dollar transfer this year.

Um great question.

And and we've been mulling this over as well as as we heard loud and clear from you and other members last year at our budget hearing that there is this you know tight financial issue that the city is trying to solve.

Um and I and what we we're very concerned that if we we already in the HOF programs are receiving more applications probably in almost every program than we can currently fund with the $10 million transfer.

And so we're concerned that we're not only going to not be able to create and preserve affordable new affordable units, not be able to kind of help support projects that have received other financial awards and we're just that last money in.

We're also not providing um services, we're not uh to our to our constituents, we're not helping people who are experiencing eviction, which could c just kind of further the crisis, right?

And so there's many um negatives that can come about, not only in units, but with people not being served, that I think will just kind of affect all of our all of the districts um in the future.

I i you know, it is my preference that if we can save anything in, you know, that this is something that we save, because I think these programs are that important.

You know, I think I've talked to many of you before about wanting to expand down payment assistance.

I think that's you know, uh a really admirable thing that we can do.

Uh, you know, just there is a there is a reality.

You know, so let's say that we if we did 8 million um instead of the 10 million.

I know you'd be able to do less less programming, but would the allocation plan as it exists, or would you know are you able to scale everything down 20 percent if that's the case?

Um You don't want to.

I don't want to.

I don't even want to advocate for it.

I don't I don't want you to.

Yeah, I don't know if I may we could get you what those numbers would be.

Um we don't have you know what this would look like at 20 percent less right now in front of us, but if that's something that you're curious about with like real like numbers on consumers in particular of how many less people would be served by cutting it by two million dollars, we could get you that.

Um I think that overall um we would have to obviously talk to the advisory board again.

It would have to work its way through the full process again to work through the UA board.

That's all procedural, we get that.

Uh, but we I don't think it would be um without a lot of consideration kind of to how we would be able to serve the most people with less money, which is what we're quite frankly already trying to do with 10 million dollars.

Yeah.

I again I I would my preference is that this is a program that we expand.

Um and if it is if it's at all possible that we can preserve this, I I would like to see us do that.

I just also know the realities of of the other conversations we're having and where where we we are this year.

I respect the position.

Uh you know, so you know, I just I w what I do want to make sure of though is that we're not building half a bridge with any of the this funding.

That it if you know, if if we're at a point where three million dollars works, but if we make it 2.5, the program's not worth it.

I I want to make sure that's something that we're aware of before we we start looking at at cuts here.

So yeah, I I I think my preference probably, and I haven't really discussed this with other members is that this is something we hold on to until we're a little closer on the budget here.

Um, but I I don't know what the will of the body is and um really haven't discussed it with everyone else here.

So uh with that, I think that's all from for me, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman McGross.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Um I agree with Councilman Charlotte on the importance of the the housing assistance program.

It's and I I really evolved in my thinking.

I want to I want to say some 10 years ago when we were debating creating a housing opportunity fund.

I mean it's this goes back a ways um because it took us a couple of years to put it in place, right?

We debated the creation and the organization of it for a full year, and then we spent an additional year trying fighting about where to find $10 million to put in, and we ended up with the the real estate transfer tax.

And I think I I'm probably on the record somewhere at the time saying, like, oh well, we should spend these funds in like constructing new housing.

You know, because we don't want to like this is you know gonna be a big pot of money, and you don't want to just kind of lose it on not on just band-aids not solving the problems, and that is not what I'm thinking of right now, right?

I think that we have done really important work to the credit of the of the advisory council um in putting doing the the rental assistance and the eviction prevention.

Um and and that's in part because the environment has changed.

I mean, I think it's just egregious how many evictions we're seeing, right?

And so we heard public comment earlier today that we saw some four thousand eviction cases last year in the city.

And I was trying to do some quick math as we often do at the table here, and you know, if there's a hundred and thirty thousand households in the city of Pittsburgh, and there's like 53% of those households are renting households, not owning households.

You know, that's like five percent of the renters got filed, you know, landlords filed eviction on them in the city last year.

That's crazy.

Um, and I think that there's you know, there's lots of reasons we've discussed separately about that.

Um, that that is really important to guard and protect.

Because I'll just note again, I've been here now over 10 years.

We know our population, you know, decreased for decades, and even from like 2000 to 2020, I think it went down like another 30,000.

But we know, especially from 2010 to 2020, we gained people.

We gained, we didn't gain total population because we lost poor people, and predominantly black poor people are overrepresented amounts.

And so, you know, you can see it in specific neighborhoods.

We always cite Chris Bream, who's our kind of local economist, who said like just East Liberty gained like 1,600 people, and those were you know, we're like there were brand new homes going for a million dollars in East Liberty, but lost at the same time frame, like 900 black households.

And so I think that by slowing down these evictions, we're actually helping our city population, which has been like this big policy confusion for like decades.

How do we do that?

Well, one of the ways we have to do is by stop displacing our residents out to McKees Rocks and the far reaches of Allegheny County.

I I've shared this story before, but like in in COVID, I did a volunteer delivery box, you know, of like kind of emergency relief.

And it was for restaurant workers, um, like people who have jobs, uh city workers.

I did I don't know.

I I was driving for an hour.

I mean, this person lives on like the bend of the Monongahela, like way upriver.

It took me so far.

And that's because we've pushed out our low-wage workers way outside of the city, almost outside of the county, in order to be able to live.

So finding the evictions is really, really important.

That emergency housing relief is really, really important.

We've talked about it elsewhere where we we have allocated additional funds that we're hoping are um added to this um here at the city at City Council allocated, and and to thank you to my colleagues for allocating those funds.

Um because, you know, I think what we heard was there's 4,000 evictions, and this funding ran out and was only allocated to it was only able to cover because it's it's still at a pilot project funding level only covered 40% of those 4,000 cases.

So and the last numbers I have, I know it's probably not in front of us now because I think some of the demographics were still being updated, but the last time we checked, something like 80% of it were female headed households with children in the home who were getting this legal assistance.

So, you know, we're talking about our kids as well.

And we know from the the teachers union and from our colleagues at PPS that some of the some of the kids in the program in the PPS change schools five times in a year.

Um so if we can help through these kinds of funds to create more stability, we're doing what we're you know, it com helps and supports what we're trying to do with other kinds of our programming, which creating more stability and programming for teens and um trying to support our residents who are struggling.

So I think I think that's great.

I also know that we we have presentations from the RA elsewhere about um the support from the housing bond and um and I know that it's it's a struggle to to do these allocations because they all just get overtapped and run out, right?

And so we're trying to to do a little of both things, and it feels unsatisfying, but you know, we are also spending some of this money to help make sure that projects happen.

Like that that new construction in your district that if not for these funds might never happen or take a couple more years to happen because they can't, it's always like that $500,000 gap.

Like no matter what the project is, there's always like some gap funding that's needed.

So this the there's line items for those here as well.

So I know it's difficult.

I know there was lots of debate, but it's really important that we save households because I really think it's actually not just for the um the benefit to those households, but it's actually helping us achieve policy goals that that we've talked about for a long time.

So that's all, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I didn't ask any questions.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Borwick, Councilman uh Coghill, thank you.

Um I do and obviously very supportive, obviously, of this fund.

Um I do want to say just you know, as just to make the statement that as we move into the budget hearings and we're talking about um potential cuts here and there, right?

Um just as as elected leaders.

It's always very easy to prey on the the funding that supports our most vulnerable residents who are the least likely to get in touch with us when we cut the funding that they desperately need, right?

So to cut funding from low-income folks who are trying to stay in their home, you know, whether that's eviction prevention, whatever it may be, right?

Rent rental assistance, it's a lot harder to say, hey, Pittsburgh residents, we're gonna um pick up your garbage every two weeks instead of every one.

Because we gotta make cuts, right?

Or we're not gonna do recycling.

Or, you know, instead of $19 million for paving, we're gonna cut that down to $8 million for paving.