Good morning, and welcome to the Standing Committee's meeting for Wednesday, December tenth, twenty twenty-five.

All council meetings will be live streamed on the city's website.

And for guest speakers joining us at the table, please do not turn off your microphones.

Our first order of business is roll call.

Will the clerk please take the role?

Mr.

Charlotte.

Here.

Mr.

Coghill.

Here, Miss Gross, Mr.

Laval.

Here.

Mr.

Mosley.

Here.

Miss Kel Smith.

Miss Warwick.

Here.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

Here.

Six 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.

We will try moving to non-registered speakers and then move back to our registered speakers once they've concl concluded their remarks.

So we will take those from the audience wishing to speak.

If you would wish to speak, you can approach the podium.

I live at 715 Mercer Street.

That's at the high rise at the top of Bedford.

Yesterday when I left City Council, outside on the sidewalk, there was a young man that was calling out with a bullhorn, Carmen Brown, and he was talking about Carmen.

I stopped and talked to him.

He really moved my heart.

But I tried to write something to Carmen.

And it says, Carmen, your encouragement.

You gave your kind you gave me kind words.

A reason of the money that was going to be gone and never returned.

Before the homewood neighborhood had a clue.

If you don't go down, she called me and said, Yvonne, if you don't go down and speak, there will be nothing we can do to keep Burgess and his scheme from coming true.

What Burgess was going to do, he had a church, and um my understanding he was getting a million dollars or a couple million dollars, and it was supposed to be for the community, but what he was getting ready to do was take that money and fix a building that he had for his church.

Now I I keep saying, and you just know I do.

I believe I believe that church and state were supposed to be separate.

But she had called me and said, I can't make it, Yvonne, and I know you go, so go down and speak.

And I did, and it was the lady from the planning committee.

I remember I spoke to her and I pleaded with her, please look into this, because the community doesn't know.

And sure enough, she took the money back, she took it back.

So Carmen, I know some people said that that she was kind of brass, and um that she was kind of brass.

Well, one time somebody was talking about this woman and that she's so loud and brass and stuff.

And I thought they were talking about me, but they were talking about Carmen when she had sued Burgess and she won.

She won.

This woman, and I want to say too, I found out that she has children.

And to the children, your mother, I give her all the praise and the glory because she stood and she fought for what she thought was true.

Now, when I come down, this might not agree with me, but in my heart I know I'm coming for all the people.

With my son, he's dead, there's nothing I can do about it.

But if I can stop another mother from having to go through this, I will.

But through Carmen, thank you for being my friend, and thank you for fighting for all the people in your community and the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Men with men, women with women.

Thank you for stealing from me and thinking that it would break me.

But as you can see, without everything you've taken from me, here I still stand on the promises of God.

And when he gives me the authority to remove all your heads, I promise you I'm gonna use it with all the power, force, and strength that he gives me.

Now, the thousand generations of ancestors I'm connected to.

Promise me they'll do it.

I don't have to.

In Jesus' name.

Keep paying people bribing them to take me out.

I'm right here.

I'm not having from nobody.

Nobody.

Imagine that.

Your prospects are limitless, is what God says to me.

God sees you not for who you are, but who you can become.

When he first saw Peter, he said, You are a small pebble, but will become a great rock.

That comes from John chapter one, verse 42.

Peter believed in it and later became the leader of the early church.

Lord, help me see today what you see.

Incredible potential in me.

In Jesus' name, amen.

Most of my reason for being up here today is to share wisdom with you.

Proverbs 18.5 says, it is not good to be partial to the wicked or to the to deprive the innocent of justice.

LaVale, you always say injustice for all.

Really?

You're the main person that wants me dead.

What kind of justice are you really sitting on?

You're gonna be destroyed with your truth, which is jealousy, envy, and hate for me.

I can't even praise God in this building because of you.

It's very sad.

Proverbs 21:7.

The violence of the wicked will drive them, drag them away, for they refuse to do what is right.

You think you're gonna continue to live off of my billions?

You're gonna die trying.

It's gonna be a domino effect.

It's already started in Jesus' name.

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

Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers in the audience?

We will now return to our registered speakers.

We'll try first David Baer one more time.

David, if you can hear us, and if you can take yourself off mute, you can begin.

Feel free to send written testimony to this city council, city clerk's office.

We'll move to Chief Ekahana Almakina.

And the grand is not a Eroqua Confederacy of Aboriginal American people.

I thank you all for listening continuously to the words that I speak because they are inspired by Carmen Brown and people like her who are willing to put their reputation on the line to defend freedom to defend truth.

Not very popular to do so.

I understand.

Because truth seekers are rarely celebrated.

And magnificent, majestic, and masterful, masterful, meaning powerful and strong.

In the end or noble.

Really not up for public speaking at the moment because I am under the weather.

But I just wanted to say that.

They both the mold when they made that woman.

Because it is very difficult to bear such a cross, if you will, to be unpopular or until I'm just not really feeling good today, however.

The community to which you serve.

I can only hope that her legacy produces more people who are at full and unapologetic about telling the truth as she was.

And with this outcloth, that well behaved women rarely make history.

And Carmen Brown, I'm happy that you decided to not be well behaved.

May your legacy live on in the city.

And you will forever be remembered as a truth teller and truth speaker and expose the vote.

We don't do the same.

Thank you for your time.

Have a wonderful day.

Thank you.

Are there any further speakers wishing to speak?

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

Our first committee of the day is the Finance and Law Committee.

We have deferred paper, Bill 2109.

Ordnance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 1, Administrative Article 9.

Boards, Commissions, and Authorities.

Chapter 178E.

Registered community organizations by updating standards and responsibilities.

Motion.

Sorry.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, so unfortunately, uh Councilman Smith isn't here, but I I just wanted to speak quickly to the meeting that we were on the RCO one, yes.

So to the meeting that we had about oh, Councilman, you're here too.

So um and um so we had a meeting with RCOs from around the city came, it was uh a uh a virtual call.

It was actually I I thought it was actually a really nice meeting.

It it was um uh but you know, through the discussions, at least what I heard through discussions, is that um one that the RCOs really wanted more time to go through the details of what's changing with the dam, like with their own boards, right?

Um, because there's quite a few changes there.

Um also that there were concerns about the timelines of submitting their form, right?

Their their their um opinion form about a particular there were also questions about the dam waiver, uh both I felt from the city planning side and from the sort of like what does that mean?

Like who's the waiver for?

Um there were concerns about virtual versus in-person who organizes that that was also from my end on the topic of uh you know requiring uh a vote by residents for um for RCOs.

That we got a lot of feedback that that was just sort of too complicated, at least right now, like maybe a like let's come back to that, so I'm open to to striking that at whatever point.

Um, there were also I think some sort of differing views, and and what one thing that comes to mind was around um historic the the the dam meetings for historic districts.

So um, and again, these are not my constituents, so I'm only just kind of repeating what, but but you know, there was uh one person talking about I believe the Mexican war streets and saying, oh, yeah, it would be so much easier to not have to have those days, you know what I mean, because we have to have all these names, but then at the same time, there was someone else from uh East Carson Street who was like, yeah, but we really need these dams because you know, businesses or you know, new businesses coming in and just you know, redoing the facade without without consulting, and we're losing the the look of the of the community.

So there was sort of you know, folks were of of two minds uh on that.

At any rate, that is what I heard.

Um I I would recommend holding this.

I am, and this is more a question I have is is what does it mean, like this if this legislation isn't if we don't do this this year.

What is the process if we do want to do it next year?

Does it just get reintroduced?

I'm not sure if anybody can speak to that.

Right, it dies, but then but what like can city planning bring it back or in some other form if if needed?

The the bill could be introduced by anyone, city planning or a council member again next year.

Yes, okay.

Okay.

My understanding it is not rezoning or planning commission related enough to carry over into the next session.

It would need to be reintroduced.

So it would need to be reintroduced.

Um anyway, that was just my takeaway from the meeting is that this needs a little bit more time and the RCOs uh need a little bit more time to weigh in.

And um, I I don't know.

I thought the meeting was good.

Uh I'll just leave it at that.

I I I am I guess I I would like to motion to hold or to I don't know if because we're ending the year.

So if it would motion to table or motion to hold.

I'm not really sure of the procedural.

You have a couple of options.

If the intention is to reintroduce the bill next year, you could motion to hold four weeks.

Okay.

And that would be a good one.

Okay, so I'll motion to hold.

Yeah, I'll motion to hold four weeks, and that will allow.

I think that that and I'll uh but that would allow the planning team to sort of continue work without being like rushed or stressed to try and get something done in two, you know, in two weeks or whatever.

Um to continue to work on this next year.

Uh I I believe so.

I mean, I I I don't know.

I don't want to speak for the councilwoman.

She's not here.

I know it's her bill, so I'll just state one alternative option if you wanted to hold motion to hold for one week, and then um there could be an additional um uh conversation with the councilwoman here potentially next week.

It's it's really up to it's your prerogative.

Okay, I mean that works for me.

Second.

Oh, could we move it later on the agenda?

Is that certainly okay?

Well, let's wait and see, and then if if if um if she's here, we can I uh and if she's not here, I'll motion to hold for one week.

So thank you.

We will come back to 2109.

Thank you.

2482.

Resolution authorizing and directing the mayor, solicitor, director of planning, and director of office of management and budget, pursuant to 204k of the home rule charter to provide appropriate notice and terminate the contract with SASACE and common cause consultants per Article 3.2 termination of the agreement.

Motion to hold brief discussion.

Okay, thank you.

Um Council President and I met with Dr.

Bay and his team last week.

It was somewhat productive meeting, I would say.

Um I haven't had the chance to fill all members in fully as to you know the components of that, but we did agree to try to meet next week and discuss exactly everything we discussed when we met.

Some of that those things may change or not, but um so I'm gonna eventually motion to hold for one week, but I wanted to open it up for conversation in case members had anything they wanted to add.

Any further discussion?

Councilman.

Second.

Discuss further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of a one-week hold on bill 2482, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bill will be held one week and similar bill 2483.

Bill 2483, resolution authorizing and directing the mayor, solicitor, director of planning, and a director of the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to 204K of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter, to provide appropriate notice and terminate the contract with HRNA advisors in urban ACLC for Article 3.2 termination of the contract.

Motion to hold for one week.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of a one-week hold, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Bill will be held one week.

New papers, bill twenty-five sixty-six.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Joya Petty in an amount not to exceed two thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars over one year in full and final settlement of a claim for damage to her vehicle from a city fire vehicle on August 21st, 2025.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2566, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2567.

Resolution authorizing the execution of a quick claim deed and associated agreement conveying all of the city's right title and interests in and to that certain city owned property located at 5472 Broad Street, 11th ward of the city and designated in the deed registry office of Allegheny County as block 50 M302 to Charles McKinney Jr.

and Shirley Simmons McKinney.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2567, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2568.

Bill 2568.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Bloomfield Garfall Corporation Broad Street Remediation Fund for a single payment in 2025 at an amount not to exceed 499,999 in full and final settlement of litigation filed in the Allegheny County.

Common please court.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2568, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2569.

Resolution amending resolution 924 of 2024.

Effective December 18, 2024 entitled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2025 capital budget, the proposed 2025 community development program, and the 2025 through 2030 capital improvement program by decreasing bridge preservation and restoration fund tip by $7,250, increasing the 28th Street Bridge TIP by 145,000, and increasing Charles Anderson Bridge TIP by $5,291,632.

$5,429,382, of which is reimbursable by the Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2567, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2570.

Resolution amending resolution 422 of 2025, which authorized 19 open and professional services agreements with 10 vendors to provide professional services on an on-call basis as required related to special events services as needed by the various departments of the city by adding six professional services agreements with three additional vendors for a total of 25 open and professional services agreements with 13 vendors.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2570, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oh, yes.

I just wanted to point out, because I keep harping on these titles of these bills.

How misleading it is to authorize the 19 open-ended service agreements.

Maybe this isn't the one I was doing the math.

There was one with I might have mixed up which one this is.

But for six agreements.

So it was really about like 1.25 or 1.75.

1.75 million.

But this one is not that.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna just say my apologies.

Um I've been I've been watching and waiting for that other one, but it's not this one.

Thank you.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2571.

Resolution amending resolution 506 of 2023, which authorized an amended cooperation agreement or agreements with the City of Pittsburgh Equipment Leasing Authority for the purchase and leasing of vehicles, equipment and accessories, equipment support infrastructure, and professional services in fiscal year 2022 by increasing the authorized amount by 150,000 for a new not-to-exceed total of 13,262,081 and 36 cent.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2573.

Resolution amending resolution 92 of 2019 to provide for the extension of a professional services agreement by a term of one year with Dickey, McCaymie, and Chilcoat for costs associated with the provision of legal services for the city controller's office and an additional cost of $50,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $80,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2573, please indicate by saying aye.

Iffirmative 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.

Invoices are approved.

That moves us to interdepartmental transfers.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

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

Aye.

Transfers are approved.

That moves us to P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

So moved.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of P cards, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

P cards are approved.

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

Recommitted papers.

Bill 2574.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with the caliber contracting service Inc.

for costs associated with the construction of the sawmill run salt storage facility.

Yeah.

And providing for the payments not to exceed $6,907,813 and 31 cent over a period of two years.

Second director here.

Second discussion.

Can anyone speak to Bill 2574 on sawmill run salt storage?

Let me speak for the rule aided yesterday.

So okay, we'll move this one to the end of the meeting as well.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

We'll move on to supplemental new papers.

Bill 2625.

Resolution authorizing the director of the Department of Finance and the Director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into certain permanent and temporary construction easements in order to advance the trolley trail project at no cost to the city.

Is there a motion?

Sorry, motion to approve.

Discussion.

Yeah, discussion.

Second discussion.

Council.

Councilwoman uh Cale Smith.

Thank you.

So just a little background about the trolley trail.

I started this trolley trail with just uh one of the put two other people, Carl Suter and Pastor Carver, uh Dave Carver.

And um before I was ever elected.

So almost I think it's 20, 22 years ago.

And every time a new mayor came in, they told it up because they didn't like me.

So I did the first part of the trail with all recycled material was a great project.

Um could you talk a little bit about this?

We are now because it's been a long time.

I think it's finally moving.

It is, it has been a long time.

That is correct.

Um we are um finally we're at the the very end of of the design phase here um for for the the trail portion.

Um this is really the last piece to bill that's before uh the committee right now.

Um there will be you know the trail will be asphalt with gravel um shoulders and as part of that is part of dealing with the runoff from the trail, you know the stormwater management.

Um there will be kind of open gravel underneath to kind of take the water and hopefully infiltrate most of it back in the ground so it's not causing additional you know flow issues, but there is provision for some of you know excess water to be collected and and put into the storm sewer.

Um so just so people know the trolley trail starts at the Crafton Borough line and goes all the way into the west end and it connects with other trails.

Um so just I want people to understand it's it it's a it's an important piece for the trail for the trails in district too and with Mount Washington and now the north side, so absolutely the north side trails too.

Yes, yes.

I just want to make sure people understand the connections, yeah.

It it doesn't connect them onto it, right?

Does it?

Well, they're trying to do that one piece, right?

That would be on the probably the other end, and then I'm not terribly familiar with what's out there, but I know I mean you know, it comes to back behind the um old stone tavern.

And so then and they're trying to put the trestle as part of the tra uh at the trail right above Johnny's diner.

They're trying to make that part of it.

It's a it's a whole complicated, but they all connect, and it will be great.

And somehow the sawmill run, too.

I don't know how.

You don't want to come over my way.

I don't want to come over your way, but I'm there every week anyway, because I've got family there, remember.

Right.

But um but anyway, so it's it's a it's a project that's you know really important to a lot of people on the west end and and southwest Pittsburgh who like to travel um by with bikes or walking or whatever.

So I just I'm happy that this part's moving.

So is there anything else you want you think about?

No, this just um this is just to do an easement.

So this the stormwater plays have to tie into the PWSA main, which is under property owned by I believe it's Lamar outdoor advertising.

Um they're willing to give us a new actually we own that property.

We allow Melamore to stay use the property.

Okay, the properties that we are looking at are actually listed as their ownership, so maybe there's a couple different ones.

But anyway, um they've indicated their agreement with it, so this will allow us to enter into an easement, and um it's really the last piece of the puzzle to put the project out to bid.

Thank you.

So I'm happy, excited to see.

I said Kim will be happy she'll be able to cut the ribbons for everything I worked 17 years for.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so Eric, um, it's gonna be Kim.

The right.

I said I just want to add, I'm glad it's gonna be Kim.

Uh you know, there is an abandoned rail line that goes over the parkway right outside of the Fort Pitt tunnels.

There is okay.

Um does that trail that councilwoman is producing or in in the in the works, does that come close to that on on that side?

Is it the same rail?

Is it the same rail line?

It's not the same rail line.

So this was an old an old trolley line that's been abandoned for decades.

Um but as the councilwoman alluded to, you know, this will get you into the West End and could tie into that if that trail can come to fruition.

So how complicated is it to get permission from the railroad or the government, I guess.

Um as to like making that coming into my greenway, which would connect her district and my district over the parkway, which would be huge.

I mean, I mean we would welcome and love that.

You know, my greenway is it's the biggest greenway in the city outside of Hayes Woods, I think.

So is that like a complicated is that worth pursuing?

Is it not?

Um there are some efforts out there to pursue that.

Um, you mean this actual Yeah?

So interestingly, the alignment that you're talking about, that abandoned rail corridor um is actually owned by Pennot.

Um I think that came about as part of the West End Circle Project from uh a number of years ago.

Um I've been involved in some conversations.

They are open to selling that alignment to another entity.

Um I think you know uh certainly some of the the trail partners around are interested in making that happen.

Um but I think it's a matter of uh finding the right entity, either government or nonprofit who has the resources to dig it on, build it.

When you say buy, would they is there actually a sales price, or will we be looking to get that donated?

I mean it can't be an asset for them, right?

I can't speak for certainty on that.

But Pend dot owns it.

Pendot owns it.

That seems like an easier path than the federal government.

No, and Penn Dot has indicated that they are happy to they don't want to own it.

Right.

They're they're happy to give it or you know, transfer it uh to someone who's able to take it.

Got it.

So there's conversation going around that.

There are some conversations.

I would love to if I can help in any which way chime in with Pendot or whatever, just let me know because that would really be um unique, really nice thing to get over that parkway and to be joining District 2 and District 4 would be in a beautiful trail, beautiful set of woods, you know.

So okay, I'm I'm glad to hear that.

I'm glad to hear it's in Pendot's hands and not the federal government.

I just feel like it's an easier path.

And uh I'm glad to hear there's conversations around it.

So thanks.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any further discussion uh councilwoman Cal Smith, I want to just congratulate you for getting to this point.

I know this has been a long time coming.

So we're getting you're getting there.

When the next time when you come for the Easter account, you can have your son run the trail.

Running sprints.

You and your son.

Seeing no further discussion, we will um all those in favor of Bill.

Just want to make sure.

Where are we?

25 uh excuse me, 2625, please indicate by saying.

I thank you for your work on this.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you.

New papers, Bill 2575.

Resolution authorizing the taking, appropriating and condemning by the city of Pittsburgh of certain easements, excuse me, necessary for the completion of temporary construction work for sidewalk construction and associated miscellaneous work for public transportation purposes through eminent domain and further authorizing the payment of just compensation and necessary and incidental acquisition costs related thereto for the Liberty Avenue HSIP project at an amount not to exceed 180,000 reimbursable at 80%.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2575, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 2576.

Resolution providing for a supplemental agreement or agreements with KCI Technologies Inc.

for costs associated with the final design phase of the 28th Street Bridge project and providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $2,258,523.

An increase of $1,241,59099 from the previously executed agreement to approve.

Second discussion.

Councilman Gross.

Thank you.

Mr.

Setler, do you want to again just kind of give us a high-level overview of why we're doing this?

Sure.

Um this is the 28th Street Bridge connecting the strip district to Polish Hill.

Um this project will uh complete a complete uh rehabilitation of the bridge.

Um the trust will remain.

Uh will be a new deck placed.

Um there's some approach spans on the strip district side that will be replaced.

Um the sidewalks will be widened.

Um and uh the approach ramp coming down to Liberty Avenue.

Um the walls will remain, but the the roadway will be reconstructed.

Yes, very good.

Um good, because it's looking a little rough up on top when you're on the surface levels.

I appreciate that.

And we also we this is another bridge project, so we appreciate all of the work that's being done to secure and make our bridges safe.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

You further discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 2577.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary engineering, final design, and right-of-way phases of the Larmor Avenue Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof, not to exceed $3,700,000, an increase of $2,100,000 from the previously executed agreement, reimbursable at 95%.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at a total cost of $4,500, an increase of $3,000 from the previously executed agreement 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 2577, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2578.

Resolution amending resolution 554 of 2024, providing for a 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 28th Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof and not to exceed $2,975,000, an increase of $145,000 from the previously executed agreement for costs associated with the final design phase of the project, reimbursable at 95%, and a municipal share of common well incur costs not to exceed $5,500, an increase of zero dollars from the previously executed agreement.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2578, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

2579.

Resolution amending resolution 420 of 2024, which provided for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way, and construction phases of the Charles Anderson Bridge project providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $63,681,632, an increase of $5,291,632 for costs associated with the construction phase of the project from the previously executed agreement.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at a cost not to exceed $7,100, an increase of zero dollars from the previously executed agreement for costs associated with the preliminary design, final design, and right-of-way phases of the project.

Future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill 2579, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2580.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary engineering, final design, and right-of-way phases of the West Carson Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $2,150,000, an increase of $1,250,000 from the previously executed agreement.

This resolution serves to authorize only the amended reimbursement agreement or agreements at a cost of $3,250, an increase of $1,750 from the previously executed agreement to the City of Pittsburgh.

Future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second second, a discussion.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say that this project is something there's a guy in Esplan that has been waiting for this for years.

And he actually, you might see him on Twitter.

Sometimes he tags all of us.

Well, X now is handles Orrison Squirrel.

And he had a photo up of me on a billboard saying Councilman Smith invites you to Eskwin to sell your drugs and right across the broken bridge and whatever.

It was, I mean, he was his way of getting attention, but he is so excited that this is finally happening.

So thank you so much.

I'd love to see Esquim getting some investment because it's a part of town that a lot of people don't know about and they receive very little.

So thank I just want to make sure that people know that this is that's where this is located.

And esquina connects to McKees Rocks.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thanks.

Any further discussion?

I'm leaving now so I can talk about all these things that people tag me on.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2580, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2581.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary engineering, final design, and right-of-way phases of the Elizabeth Street Bridge rehabilitation project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $1,400,000, an increase of $750,000 from the previously executed agreement.

Federally reimbursable at 100%.

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

The future resolutions will authorize the project specific service agreements.

Motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

For discussion?

Yes, so just a quick question.

Um just on the on the timeline.

If you could just remind me again.

Yeah, so the Elizabeth Street Bridge, um, we are wrapping up the uh the preliminary engineering phase.

Um, which is why we have this reimbursement agreement amendment coming through to add costs for final design.

Okay, um and currently the project has a June 2028 led day for construction.

So we got a little ways to go still.

Okay, sounds good.

I just I know that there are um you know the the neighbors around.

I I I sort of get a lot of questions periodically just about the impact that the that it'll have on the neighbors directly, um, just whenever the time feels right to have Yan come in and just talk to maybe a Hazelwood Initiative meeting or Greater Hair Greater Hazelwood Community Collaborative Meeting.

Yeah, we could definitely do that.

Yeah, just sort of so people know what to expect.

Absolutely.

Yeah, because there's the mural on the one side, and you know what I mean.

Just all those right, right.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2581, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 2582.

Resolution granting unto nine 903 Liberty Avenue LLC, their successors and assigns the privilege and license to construct, maintain, and use at their own cost and expense and no cost to the city, two electrical vaults, a concrete entry stoop with a railing and an existing foundation wall at 901 Liberty Avenue, second ward, first council district.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

All those in favor of Bill 2582, please indicate by saying all right.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2583.

Resolution granting a vacation of 8th Street from Penn Avenue to Fort Duquesne Boulevard, the northern portion of Maddox Place in an unnamed way from 9th Street to its terminus, no cost to the city.

Second ward, first council district.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilwoman Gross?

Yeah, could is this downtown?

Yeah.

Yes.

Interrogatory.

Thank you.

I think we asked Mr.

Seth Sler.

Thank you.

Yes, this is downtown between Penn Avenue and Fort Duquesne Boulevard in the Cultural District.

This is the site of the Arts Landing Park that is under construction right now by the Cultural Trust.

And why are we vacating it?

And they want to incorporate the whole thing into the site to make the park a little more seamless.

Well, I mean the zoo's on a 35-year lease.

But um I hate vacating streets.

Absolutely see no reason at all to give up public property, as I always say, especially riverfront public property because somebody always wants streets that are near the rivers.

There is, yes, and part of the approval um does require there to be easements granted for the utilities.

The city and Peter Bus A went under like tremendous expense to move the water and sewer infrastructure because all of a sudden the property owner didn't want it under there anymore, and it was kind of a big debacle.

Cost a lot of millions.

So I just I've given I it's great that we're getting the investment downtown.

It's really great that we're getting, I think, more rubber riverfront public pro public recreation space, the new park.

Um, but really I don't see the point of vacating it.

And and I have seen downsides.

Um again, they don't they're not, you know, immediate, but it runs into significant public expense decades later.

So I don't know how much it was considered.

Who's who's kind of worked out this deal?

Um I mean the the cultural trust.

Just asked for it and Domi said yes.

And we went through the process, yes, and then approved it based on following all the time.

I honestly think we're way past the time of just letting this is why this has to come to a public vote, because it is public property, and city council has the authority, not city departments.

Um and there was a there was a time, you know, 30 years ago when half the city was being abandoned, and you know, streets were um definitely more of a uh uh you know, uh a burden than an asset.

Um but this is a downtown um this is downtown property, and it seems like it wouldn't be a barrier to the project to just put it on a 35-year lease, like again, the zoo and like lots of other assets.

Uh I don't really understand the point of just having it fill out the form on the Delmy website, like it's some forgotten alley um in a part of abandoned part of the city.

So um I'm I've I've got concerns.

I'll I'll leave it there, madam chair.

Thank you.

Um sorry, I was thinking of my own questions to ask.

Um, Councilman Wilson.

And then I see other questions.

Yeah.

So working with uh the team at the Cultural Trust, uh just becoming aware of you know the full project.

This was the option that was considered.

So I appreciate you bringing up the 35-year lease option.

Is it okay to continue on and we can discuss this?

You know, go into final vote and seeing if if that's the better option.

Yeah, I'm just saying I'm not against what you're talking about.

I would like to learn more about it.

Um but then also the the process that you have employees, could you explain that?

Like do you do some sort of study to understand what's the other thing?

Yeah, we we look at a variety of things.

Um the utilities is one.

So if someone is is requesting uh a street vacation, they need to get sign off from any from all the utilities, either saying the utilities are not impacted or or saying you know, whatever, as I said, in uh in there are some I think water and sewer lines at least somewhere here and and Pittsburgh Water, I think is um getting an access easement for those.

Um in this case, you know, the adjacent property owners um have to uh sign off, if you will, uh on this.

The Cultural Trust owns a lot of the land around the areas that are being vacated, both on A Street and Maddox Place.

Um however, there are a couple other property owners um adjacent to A Street closer to Penn Avenue, and in the application package, they did provide um letters of of support from those adjacent property owners.

Um and and then I think from Domi's standpoint as far as uh you know a transportation need, we do evaluate it that way.

And um certainly sensitive um I am to um the idea that that that Councilman Gross said, but um I guess since you know the transportation network is not terribly impacted by vacating the street since there are alternate streets, it only goes one block and those kinds of things.

So from that aspect, um you know, kind of from an administrative side, that's why we have have approved it.

So I I do see some front door access uh on at least one property, if I remember correctly, and that property owner signed off as well.

I can't remember the address, but it was right behind the track the um truck development, the one as a restaurant.

Yeah.

They did sign off.

Um if there's you know some more specific details, we could go back and get you some more information.

I think it's the laborer's property.

What'd you say?

The Lyuna, the laborer's property.

That's one I'm referring to.

Yeah.

Um so they must have signed off as well.

They did, and I don't have those letters in front of me here, but I think that they are in in the packets that's attached to the legislation.

Um, certainly if if you want to um check that out.

And as I said, if you have any more questions.

Um just one other thought as we're discussing here.

Um I don't think that procedurally we can lease right of way as we could like a private parcel.

Um certainly we do issue encroachments on the right of way, is maybe the procedure that we would use for to allow someone to access a right of way.

Uh thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

I'll I'll follow up after after this um with some of these other concerns.

So thank you.

Okay.

Councilmember Warwick and then I have a question and second round.

I just said so uh just with regard to councilwoman gross's question, I'm just looking at the map.

So I mean, is there something so if there are sewer line, I mean if there are utility lines underneath, is there like a prohibition in the street vacation to build anything above those that would make it hard to access?

So the street vacation itself does not have any future prohibition.

Just basically the city saying we are giving up our right of way.

And once once that happens, you know, we're we're out of it.

Now Pittsburgh Water, I believe, has said they need an easement for their line.

Um there could be terms in that easement saying that you can or can't build within that easement area.

But the actual the actual vacation itself um you know it doesn't have any like additional future terms because we're basically releasing our rights to the property.

And so we're releasing our so and as far I mean I'm assuming I'm so apologize.

I'm not super familiar with the arts landing, but I mean, is the idea that it would be public publicly accessible?

It will be incorporated into the park, which is owned by the cultural trust.

Okay.

Is there anything in the park that that requires them to let the public use it?

I mean, I'm just thinking some of the comment on that.

I'm I'm just not sure.

Okay.

Anyway, I well it's not my district, but I I it it would be a shame if somehow this is I mean, currently it's public right-of-way that allows people to access a park, and it would be a shame if that were ever taken away from the public.

Thank you.

My question is um I'm seeing the text of the bill, and I see all these easements.

Clearly, like you do all this work, so require, you know, Pittsburgh Water Reserves the right for utility easement, people's gas, Duquesne Light, Verizon, they all have utilities under there.

Um I guess this question could be for any utility, but now in this new world of asset tra post-asset transfer.

Yes, there's an easement for Pittsburgh Water to be able to access water line, the 12-inch water line and a 12-inch storm sewer and a 42-inch combination sewer.

But I'm wondering in our process, should we amend our process so that we are with any of these, but I guess I'm focusing on Pittsburgh Water, so that we are ensuring that the asset that we're going to be inheriting the property over sound before we inherit that street over it.

So a demonstration that the sewer and the water lines are have been tele televised and are had been repaired recently or have been replaced recently, or that they're not that we're not inheriting that in a in poor condition.

You don't have to do that.

We're not inheriting it in this in this particular case.

We're not inheriting it, but we're inheriting the street on top of it, the land on top of it, right?

No, we're giving that by vacating it, that land will transfer ownership to the it is currently ours, and we're giving it to culture trust.

I thought it was the opposite.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it is a public right-of-way.

By vacating the public right-of-way, the ownership will revert to will go to the cultural trust.

So they will own the land.

And they're not requiring that in theirs.

They will have the easements will be between the cultural trust and the utilities.

Um I can't speak to anything as far as if they're requiring anything like that.

Yeah, clearly I had the the actual transfer mixed up in my mind.

But okay, that's interesting though that they are um.

I think I have no I have no more questions for this.

Um Sacramento Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Um again, I'm asking my staff if they've got better notes, but this was in the strip district, and very similarly.

You know, it had been private property for a long time, decades.

And um, but there was water and sewer under it.

So this will become private property.

And then, you know, a few decades later, they're like, you know what?

Actually, now we're we we're gonna build.

And, you know, so Peter Bruce and the city were like, but wait, you know, we have to c to connect near the river, our from sewer from one street to the other, everybody else is building two, where you have to rebuild the sewers, and it costs millions to move those sewers.

So I think you are A, I don't know, everybody seemed to have to pony up all of a sudden.

And if it hadn't been sold, then we wouldn't have faced those costs.

Um and then secondly, some of our districts have had massive urban renewal projects where streets were vacated.

And then, you know, it's kind of fine when nobody lives nearby, maybe for decades.

Not that urban rural is every decade, but nobody complained that there were no streets.

But then, you know, so where I live um, or where I represent New Friendship and the whole kind of East Liberty corridor, and I represent bomb and then half of center, and Councilman Strasberger represents the other half of Center Avenue near the bottom of East Liberty, the southern part of East Liberty.

You know, if you're on foot, you're walking three or four blocks to get around the block.

Um and those streets originally had kind of three or four intersections, but they're all cut off and stop from friendship on bomb.

And now there's giant projects built.

So if you want to get from bomb over to center, you know, you're walking many streets.

And so I don't I don't think this should be, even if council supports it being vacated.

I think we put the easement on it for public access.

God knows in in bigger cities that do this more.

You know, you can walk through city streets right through New York City buildings, and it's still city street because that foyer or hallway, they didn't vacate it so that you wouldn't have that problem of having to walk all the way around to like I don't know, it's 53rd and a half street or something crazy like that.

It's literally like public access.

We also did it at the produce terminal where they were like, oh, we want to kind of have this building, but we want to cut it off, and we made sure that there was public access through it, so people could not have to walk six blocks to get around the building, right?

That they're in the transfer, we made sure that there was access.

Um and so similarly here, I mean, if this is gonna be an entirely private park, not that we don't today love the cultural trust and are grateful for the downtown projects.

We are.

We're grateful that there's gonna be a new park where we love that there's um you know that they're undertaking the majority of the project, but future cultural trust or fuse future private property owner, because now they can it's theirs, they can sell it, can wall it in, can build on it, can do lots of things.

So if the spirit of the project is that this is supposed to have pedestrian access, let us ensure it before we sell it, because vacating is selling, and then it's not ours anymore.

And so I don't think we should have assumptions.

I think if that is what the is the intent, it shall not be walled in, it shall not be, you know, it shall retain its public access.

We do this all the time.

This is what this table did in negotiating the 35 miles of riverfront.

This is exactly what we did.

We required of the private property owners that there be public access along the river's edge so that we could create you know five miles of trails, for example, on the Allegheny River.

So uh those those should be in place here.

So there are there are big public policy issues, which wise again, I don't think this is just like a perfunctory administrative issue.

So with all due respect.

Thank you.

I'm gonna vote no.

And I do hope that we work on this.

Um I would support a hold for a week so we can put make sure that we know what's being put in place here.

Again, this is it's not my district, it's not other people's districts, but it is downtown.

Um, and I think this is an important, important decision to take.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, I'm gonna go to the case.

Councilman Wilson and then Councilmember Warwick.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm good with holding it for a week.

Uh I just want to get some just want to clarify and make sure we're all on the same page, but at the same time, we'll have some engagement throughout the week hold.

Thanks.

But you know, the the plan uh at least for the A Street portion is to um is to have it built to street grade and then it would allow emergency access.

But the what's that street called?

The Mannock place.

I'm not sure that the northern part of Mattock place.

I think that one might understand looking at the design, that one would be incorporated into like a full part of the park.

So motion will hold one week.

Second.

Thank you, Council.

Can we can we reserve that while we had one more comment?

Sure.

And then make the motion.

Okay, so Councilmember Warbeck.

I I just have one, this is sort of anecdotal.

And I and I don't know the history of this space, right?

I'm not sure.

So it's the PPG paints um square, right?

With the the popping fountain.

Right.

So downtown, yeah.

And I don't and I don't know the history of of that space.

So but just to say that I have seen personally since I moved to Pittsburgh, when we very first moved to Pittsburgh, and our kids were just little, right?

We used to go to that square in the summertime, we do a bike ride down the river bike downtown, and that was you know, and there were all these stops.

There was the the water steps on the north shore, right?

And that was one of our stops.

That was the first stop on this, like and the kids had so much fun playing in that fountain, right?

That popping fountain.

It was great.

There would just be kids all the time.

And then slowly over the, and I remember because I remember at the time, and this is years ago, right?

Thinking, uh, we should have an action.

So the the security guard would come out, and it was very slowly.

First it started that the kids had to have shoes.

And then it was like the kids couldn't be wearing like a swimsuit.

They had to have a shirt and shorts.

And it was just like more and more and more, and now it you cannot do it at all, right?

And it's like so nobody can play in the fountain.

And there was always a security guard.

And just as a, you know, as a parent, I just remember over the years just being like, this is crazy.

Like this is a public, I mean, I don't care who owns it, but this is a public space.

And this was so much fun, and there were so many kids that used to play in it.

But you know, it's PPG's right, I guess, to, you know, and and it just was such a shame.

And it was like, I just remember years ago thinking, ah, we should have an action of parents and just storm the place.

Just like have all the kids play in the fountain and like, you know what I mean?

Like let the you know, let the poor security guard call his manager or something, you know what I mean?

At any rate, so I just that scenario, it you know, reminds me of that like so is and and it does, and regardless of who owns it, the city owns it, they own it, like it feels like a public space, and it feels like you know, and uh and it and in that particular in the PPG square, right?

I mean, I fairly certain then they can tell people that they can't sit there if they want to, right?

If someone wants so it that doesn't feel right again, I don't know the history of that that area, but it would be it would be good to ensure that something like that doesn't happen here.

That's all thanks.

Uh we were gonna have a motion, but we have council present labell as well.

Just a quick question.

You may have answered it and I may have missed it.

Did the neighboring property owners sign off on this?

They did.

There is the cultural trust owns most of the adjacent property, but not all of it.

And there are um sign-offs from the other adjacent property owners in the application.

Okay, thank you.

Big moment.

Um motion will hold in a week, please.

Second, thank you.

Discussion?

All those in favor of a one-week hold, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you.

That moves us to actually we will go back up to the first on this portion of the agenda of the public works committee.

The bill 2574, the salt storage facility.

So we had a motion and a second.

Oh, and uh we're at discussion.

Thank you for coming to the table.

Uh I think we're still on first round discussion.

Which council, we wanted to wait for you, Council um woman Cale Smith to discuss this.

No, I mean I've already I I um No, I'll I I we've already sort of talked about the details, and and yesterday I expressed what I learned from Director Hornstein, so I'll let members.

Could you talk a little to us a little bit about the whole project and what what the breakdown of the cost is and this the scope of the building, the measurements, all that stuff.

Oh, absolutely.

So first on director of public works.

Uh Chip Goss Public Works facilities.

Um, Chip, do you want to just break down the overall cost?

Can I just say first, I just took so the public knows.

This is for the salt dome on Route 51.

There was we have a cost for six million dollars to um demolish and reconstruct a facility there, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And so I just want the public to know.

So when the reason I asked for a hold yesterday or to recommit the bill, yes, it was because I talked with the county and they have a facility that they built that's comparable, somewhat comparable, and it was a million point six for the entire project.

So I just want to make sure that we're in the same ballpark, at least with and if that we're doing the the proper process.

Okay.

Sure.

The the added costs are mostly to do with the site work necessary as well as uh stormwater requirements given its proximity to saw mill, uh sawmill run the creek, um, as well as the capacity that we need to add to that facility.

Um that's that's the the short answer to it, um, as well as making sure that we have safe access to and from the property given its its proximity to be honest with you.

I mean, with we're struggling with this budget this year, and six million dollars is a good chunk of money that we really need to really scrutinize, to be honest with you.

And so I'm I'm wondering why this is so important to rebuild, not you know, renovate or do whatever repairs um and what the cost of the repairs would be.

Have you looked into that?

I just want to I want to know what our options are to maybe reduce this price because it's it's costly.

And I think we should try to get it down as much as we can.

So the the building is uh really all of our salt domes, but especially this one is showing signs of delamination.

Uh there's holes you know, showing that the concrete is deteriorating.

Um the reinforced steel is corroding and failing.

Um also the electrical components, the emergency ventilation system in the dome is failed and is not working.

Um so it is uh it's not just about the safety of all Pittsburghers in terms of you know streets and snow operations, but the building itself is uh a safety hazard, so it does need to be.

It's the safety hazard, I I understand.

It's the current concern, but I do want also know that you have stored salt in places without being in a dome.

Um especially in uh councilman Call Kill can talk to that a little bit.

But so I know that having a dome is not the absolute necessary thing right now when we're in a very tight budget.

Um so for me, I'm I'm having an issue.

It's in my district.

I want to see it happen, but I don't want to see it happen if if there's you know a better priority for these dollars right now.

Well, and we also two comments, and sorry, Director Let's away in two.

So that's we're getting away from the salt dome for that reason, so we don't have this problem again in you know 15, 20, 30 years, because uh instead of replacing it with concrete and reinforced steel, we're replacing it with glue lamb wood beams that will be more reduced.

I'm not familiar with that project, so I'd have to, I don't know if you are familiar with the.

I think the scope's almost the same size, everything from what I understand.

But but the design is intended to prevent this from recurring.

Um we're we're just constructing a different kind of structure for that reason.

I know other members have questions.

I'm gonna let them go and answer have their questions, and I'll I'll probably come back for a second round.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Council.

Councilman Coghew.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh yeah, the councilwoman decided to recommit this yesterday.

I agreed with her.

Um nobody wants to see this dome replaced more than me.

I've been a big advocate of it, you know, and I'm glad that you know we finally got to this stage.

I was thrilled.

The price tag does seem a little heavy.

Um so Chip, let me ask you this.

The vilation, um the steel that's kind of showing through now.

Did we ever price it to repair?

Uh what would that look like?

I'm not aware of uh of a cost estimate to repair now.

Um just that the damage is extensive and it would I mean we we have to rebuild from like we have to rebuild entirely.

It's not like doing masonry pointing work, for example.

You don't think it could be repaired.

I don't.

And the director said last week as well.

I I know we asked, and you know, he thought it was irreparable.

Um we are in a tight situation with the budget, as you know.

Um what is the cost as to the environmental aspect of this?

You like you said about the sawmill round boulevard.

What are they requiring us to do that we wouldn't have to do on say a site with a new public works division is being built?

Well, let's let's go through that.

So and kind of to answer some of uh councilwoman Kill Smith's original questions.

So we did go through an internal process to identify like is this the ideal site?

Um it is.

Um all other suitable sites would be on that side of town that would be accessible to our drivers to solve.

They're all located in city parks.

Um so we would have to give up parkland and recreational assets in order to perform this function.

Um that at the time, considering the deterioration of the structure pathway to go through that kind of public process seemed non-viable in my professional estimation.

So this is the ideal location.

Second question, sir, you're asking like what are the incurred costs, right?

So um, you know, in order to meet the stormwater requirements of the EP on this site in this location, um, we not only have to demo the existing structure, build a new structure, but we also have to demolish all the existing concrete, regrade, pour new concrete.

Those total costs are about four million dollars.

So that is just simply related to where this exists in the world and the things that we have to do in order to make this um safe both operationally and environmentally.

Is it the same company that's gonna demo it as to build the new one?

That's correct.

Okay.

Okay, so four million dollars is that is in the demolition and the standards that the EPA is holding us to, is that right?

Yeah.

If we had another site, so it would cost a couple million dollars.

Uh I mean it's depends on the conditions of that site, right?

I can't really speculate on what another site's cost might be.

Say we had an ideal site, yeah.

So it's building the structure itself we know is gonna be about two.

If we had a green grass ideal site that was perfectly flat, sir, I mean your your site work costs would be significantly a million, not four million, right?

Um so so two-thirds of this cost is in.

Yeah, obviously we had to remove the dome that we have there because that's where we're gonna build a new one.

Same footprint, right?

Um okay.

But what about like Moore Park?

You know, I know we store salt there, and you know I I want to get rid of that too.

And but that's outside without a lid or without anything overhead.

Yeah, what's the difference?

The difference here is is this is the one this is the largest location that we have, and this is where we store salt in the summer months.

So um, you know, without a large depot that can hold the large volume of salt, what that puts us at risk of is just relying on delivery to get to store and have salt and be actionable.

Um and so deliveries would be constant.

It would be a huge operational risk for us to uh incur, especially on that side of town.

Um we would not be able to um you know if we had the slate of storms that we had like last year, we would not be able to absorb that.

We would not be able to get salt in fast enough to respond to the winter weather events.

Right.

And and the reason why we can't just store it like we have a more park in a bin is because it hardens and we it's not usable after a certain amount of time.

That's that it's just temporary at Moore Park, right?

It's kind of like that's what we do that's seasonally.

We don't have we have salt there now, probably.

Yes, we do a salt there now.

We do that seasonally just to make it a little bit more convenient for our operators.

It is convenient at Moore Park.

I mean I mean your residents can feel the convenience, right?

Um and we try to do that.

There are a couple other locations that are like that what we call small little storage sites that we do those things towards.

Um they're just seasonal activities, it's not where we we store those long term.

When this dome, if this dome is built and finished, will we then eliminate the Moore Park site?

Um I believe we can safely eliminate that, yes.

I mean, I like the convenience of that.

But you as you know, we just paved everything down there.

It's beautiful, and you know, to have it.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think the trucks up and down there, that's the same.

I think with the the new fourth division coming online, which has an option to store like a comparable amount of salt undercover.

Uh undercover there, or we're they have uh they have a bin similar to other divisions.

Yeah, that's good.

That's good.

Well, that's that settles the that settles the question on that issue.

So certainly we could remove the salt from Moore Park as a as a loading location.

I think that um to the other council woman's question regarding the counties facility, I'll note that our structural costs are um you know comparable.

They're comparable.

So the the building itself is I think our estimate is 1.7 million, and if it's comparable size to the counties, then we are we are aligned.

I don't know what this county's site costs were, um, but if they were building on a vacant flat piece of property, their site costs would likely be very low.

Yeah, so if we were to find another location, say for instance a new public works division up on you know, Matthews, we still would have to demo that.

Right?

I mean, or we could just the whatever would be stored at the fourth division is not gonna be significant to store all the city's salt for the summer months.

So I mean if we were to build the same structure up at the fourth division.

Well, I mean the fourth division is currently under construction, so we can't that's not even plausible.

Uh well, I mean not yet, but if we had a space up there to build it next year or whatever.

The site would be insignificant to build a facility of that size.

Oh, it would be?

Yeah, we're we're we're maxed out on space and forth, yeah.

Okay.

Part of that is also because that's gonna have you know fueling operations as well.

Uh right.

That's what you know, just it's just not a good idea.

Yeah, I don't necessarily want to entertain that.

I'm just I'm just using it as an example.

Like is if if we found the perfect spot elsewhere, would we still be required to knock that down?

I mean I would recommend it.

It would be a safety hazard.

Yeah, it would be a safety for safety reasons.

I would recommend it.

And we'd want to repurpose that property.

I didn't realize there was electric and ventilation in there.

I thought it was just a big company.

Well that yeah, and there hasn't been for a while for a while.

Because of the because of the corrosion, it's also electrical.

Yes, yeah.

It's a dangerous to not have ventilation to the operator.

You know, we our guys, I think don't stay in there long, but uh but you know, it's it's an enclosed space, uh less the holes, and so it's it's uh it is an unsafe condition that that's why we're doing this project and prioritizing it.

Right.

Okay, well, at least we figured out where the big cost difference was between county facility that the councilwoman was talking about and this facility.

I mean, I'll take your lead on this, Councilwoman, you know.

So uh thanks for being here.

I appreciate the just make one other comment about the the budget, just to clarify that this is being funded with bond and capital funds and not not the operating budget.

Um I think if there was any indirect effect on the operating budget, it would be the cost of the the cost of you know, the the risk that I think director was about to get into that if if we don't have the storage capacity, our salt operations are gonna be at the mercy of uh deliveries from our you know from our carriers, and that's that carries its own risk, but potentially cost risks as well.

Um it's hard to give a detailed breakdown of what that hit would be to the operating budget, but just want to highlight the distinction there.

The entirety of this is bond money.

I would have to check with the specific sources, but they're all cap it's capital funded.

All capital funded.

Yeah.

Well, I I believe it is all bond, I don't know, P if trust me.

That's right, yeah, we we do have a special revenue fund that's paying for some of it, but for the most part, it is bond.

It's not not out of the operating budget.

Right.

So um interrogatory for anybody that can answer this.

I I I really don't know.

So that would if for some reason we were not to build this thing, it would go back into the capital budget.

These are correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh that's it for me.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Further discussion?

Councilman Gross.

I appreciate the detailed questions about like kind of how it affects operations, because I think that's important consideration.

We definitely don't want to damage um operations.

But um, so where when if you were to demolish, right?

Maybe you covered this and I just wasn't quite following.

Where does the salt go during the project?

Um in this particular instance, our operational protocol is we will draw down salt at the dome to the greatest extent possible, and we will temporarily store at our other locations.

Which is um the first division, second division, uh fourth division um construction division.

Then we will we will deplete our stores to the greatest extent possible in the months of uh February and March.

So we'll be mindful of the weather, but we will we will deplete the store as much as possible.

We'll store in those other locations.

Okay.

Um and just adding to the just to add some context to the we bid this project um with the express intention and requirement to complete construction in the warm months.

Um so there is a tight timeline associated with this, so we won't uh you know, ideally we won't be down.

Was this project considered in the million dollar I can't remember the consultants that we paid a million dollars to ten years ago to do our facilities plan?

Remember that?

And I objected at the time because everyone the scope for the consultants excluded the city owned strip district facilities.

And then they refused to give us the completed plan.

So I'm not sure if we ever got the completed plan or not.

So is this project in so when when we are asked to vote for a million dollars to consult and to do facilities plan, it was like, well, we don't even know where all our facilities are.

There's like 300 city facilities, and we need we should inventory them, which is smart, right?

And it was said here at the table, like, well, we might have a warehouse that's like half full.

Now we have you know another warehouse that's over full, and we need to look and see kind of how we're managing each of our facilities.

So is this project called for in that million dollar consultant facility plan?

I would have to check.

You're referring to the 2016 report.

I believe I am.

I would have to double check, however, um we have a actually more recent from 2019 structural assessment of um of all the domes.

Um that is just salt domes.

Separate separate from like baseball dugouts and correct city county building.

Yeah, so so we have a more recent structural assessment that's guiding that's guiding this project in the scope.

Can you just send my office links to both of those so we can kind of compare and contrast?

I mean, I don't need them immediately, but yeah, that would be helpful.

I appreciate that.

Sure.

Um again, I'm open to the colleagues who represent this area and are impacted by most directly impractic by the project.

But again, um I will throw in one more anecdote, right?

That it's just kind of like how do we make how do we make these decisions?

I've I've had this conversation not with DPW but with Delmy before when um some of you may have noticed it was made the news we waited seven years for a set of steps to be replaced in my district.

Because it was concrete pre-cast.

And it kept the price kept going up.

So it was like a 250,000 dollar set of steps.

And then it was a 500,000 set of steps.

And then like, well, you're not in the show scope, and we have to add to the budget, and now you have to wait.

And it so they're open now, thank you.

Thank God.

But I think we should really ask ourselves, and I'm not sure which way you know, engineers or capital budget considerations would have come down, but by contrast, I had a much smaller set of steps that fell down, and we got them replaced in a week.

One week.

Because they were wooded.

And our carpentry department said, oh yeah, we'll go out tomorrow, and it took them one day to build it.

And it was just completely mind altering.

And so, you know, sometimes we should ask ourselves, right?

And I I think I even did ask the department, like, well, why not do the steps that have been closed now for two years or three years, whatever it was at the time?

You know, why can't we just build them out of wood?

And well, because wood doesn't last very long.

And concrete's supposed to last like whatever, sixty, seventy years.

But should we really spend a million dollars for a set of steps that lasts 70 years?

Like every should that just be assumed?

Or maybe sometimes should we say, like, or do we build the cheaper thing that lasts 20 years?

Which will be perfectly serviceable, and you're you'll have steps for that whole seven years you didn't have them because we can build them quickly.

So I just that's a lesson that was hard to learn that so I think sometimes we should question kind of the assumptions of of these projects when they have big price tags.

So that's that's part of that's part of our job here.

So I'll just leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Council person Charlotte.

Yes.

Thank you guys for being here.

I I just wanna make sure I'm urging this right.

So what is the cost of doing repairs on this facility instead of do we have can we ballpark what a cost would be there?

I mean, I haven't I haven't seen an assessment for estimating what that would be, but given the degree of like a comparable.

Um just one.

Like I've asked this before like this, right?

Like and we go out to bid, do we I and I feel like the answer is yes.

Do we put caps on like you know this is the most that we are open to paying for project X and then go out to bid with that sort of cap, and then if we get no bids, you know, if if we if people come back and are like, nah, it's gonna cost you, you know, three times more than that, then we make a decision about whether or not to do it.

Yeah, I mean it's it's uh it is to some extent it's a case by case, it's by each project.

We certainly at the outside of a project, once we've determined that uh you know, there's a need that has merit, there's a scope that has merit, we try to distill that scope down to what is critical and absolutely necessary for this project and come up with a rough order of magnitude of what we think it will cost.

Um obviously market conditions are one thing we can't control.

Um we control the design process as best we can, but there are other influences that might affect scope or change scope uh that will affect the overall price tag too.

So we can I I guess you know, I don't have a maybe the most satisfying answer other than we we certainly try to identify a rough order of magnitude of costs as early as possible with that distilled you know critical scope in mind and stick to that scope as best we can control.

I wonder though, if if it's just so that we don't end up in the situation where we are now where you all have done all this work, right?

You you've gone out to be like you know, lots of people have put lots of effort into this at this point.

So this is like a bad point to sort of say, oh, you know, let's not do it.

It um I don't know, is there a I mean, and this would obviously be a question for DOME and you know, and and other, you know, any other departments doing sort of large scale projects, is would it be worth having like a pr I mean not it's not it wouldn't be a vote necessarily, but just kind of like uh uh some way to kind of give council members a heads up that like we we are thinking about embarking on project X and it is likely to cost this amount you know what I mean?

Because then maybe at that point in time, then people can be like, whoa, a six million dollar salt dome, let's you know, we don't that's concerning, and then and then sort of make the decision there about whether or not to move forward.

Is that something that could happen in the process?

I mean, it in I mean I'm certainly I mean like through the committee process through the you see what I'm saying?

I mean, we I I guess what I would offer back is you know, we certainly have major milestones through design um as well as permitting uh where we're getting closer and closer to you know to bidding a construction project and we have a as we move through that process, you know, it's essentially a funnel where we're getting uh more clarity on the details of a project and therefore more clarity on what we think the cost will be.

And so at those mayor major milestones, um I'm always happy to share with council, um, you know, with with uh director McDevitt, um, you know, where we stand with any given project.

Um but I think those are the appropriate yeah what when we get it happens in steps, so you know, when we get a significant update on a project, that's the that's the time to have a discussion if it's sought.

And I think I will add to that that you know the current capital budget process allows for that discourse to happen, right?

I mean, we have to request funds to do design work, professional services just to entertain it.

So we have to come to the table there with our kind of quote unquote best guess of what we think this cost is and what the scope is, even though there's a lot of uncertainty there and that costs are gonna change as we go through the design process.

Um so certainly there's an opportunity there in the question in terms of what you fund for um design or contemplate.

I mean, I think there's other ways to do that work um that could be more substantial, but I think they would require changes to the current capital budget process.

Um happy to discuss those offline with anyone that would be interested in what my thoughts are on that, but um I just think the current process is a little overburdened at one particular point in time when it could be more thoughtful too when council members get requests from the public to do something with their facility that might not necessarily align with the capital budget process.

So and the last thing I'll add to to Chris's point, you know, we're and this is more of an offline discussion as well that kind of goes hand in hand with that, but we are we are trying to align our internal processes with what we think that the capital budget process should be so that um to allow for these discussions at the appropriate time and not put as much pressure on a narrow timeline throughout the year.

Yeah, I mean I'm just uh I I g uh uh just as sort of a comparison um for example with the Lewis Playground, which is of course a project that I'm very focused, right?

That I've been thinking a lot about, right?

But throughout the you know, I was able at you know at the very beginning to be like, okay, how much is this gonna cost?

You know, and it's so I had an idea so that you know when it comes here, uh there are it's a known, right?

And it's not like what that's that's so expensive.

Like why is it so at least I at least me as the as the council member can explain.

Well, I understand this is why it's so expensive, this is why.

Um I think that would be helpful just because I mean, and again, it is just like that that kind of gut reaction, you're like salt down for six million dollars, and that initial reaction if that could have happened before all of this work was done, and then you know, all these questions about location and all of that, which are now of course very difficult now that you know everything's sort of teed up to start.

I don't know, maybe that's a conversation for the incoming administration or down the road.

Um I am gonna support today just because uh you know this is I I am not an engineer and I'm not an expert in these things, and I don't I don't want to sort of supersede that, but um at any rate I'll I'll I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I just wanted to piggyback off of that, and then I know Councilman Coggell has another comment um or question.

Uh just a question though, I know that you hold the capital program facilities um meetings regularly.

Well we don't hold those OMB holds those.

OMB holds them, but you often present very like significantly.

You take a big piece of that.

And I'm just thinking out loud as if that if it would be worthwhile to have a similar presentation for council members.

Either we attend that or I know one council member is always invited, but if we if we attend that, or there's a separate separate one, so council members are getting the exact same information as what your but you especially public works and and others who have um items to present at that meeting.

But let me ask, would that get to the question we're asking today?

Would that is that only the updates to existing fund like already funded projects and it's de demonstrating what work has happened or where we are in the process, or does it or do projects like prior to um funding allocations in the budget are they presented on as well?

We uh so when I've been attending those meetings, I typically present on what has recently been completed and then what the next projects that are hitting major milestones will be.

Um I haven't presented in those meetings on uh potential projects that have yet to receive funding.

Got it.

So it's not exactly solving for this.

I still think it's probably a good idea to hold quarterly meetings similar to that for council members, so we're all kept in the loop, even if majority of projects happening are other council members' districts.

At that point we can have that discussion to see how they're going and meet you know it's not just when it's hitting the table, it's it's there too.

Okay.

Um just wanted to ask.

I know Councilman Coghill had a question first and then um Council President.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so just from a layman's point of view, I drive by there, I think, oh, it's mixed up a couple bags of mortar, you know, have to throw it in a cracks, put a quick paint job on this and be done.

But I want to let you know that I do trust your judgment.

I do trust your judgment that it's failing, whether it's unsafe or not right now, you know, but eventually we've gotta get a new salt dome.

I I understand that.

So I wanted to ask you, so the new structure is designed, designs are already made.

Is it four sides?

Is it is it a dome or is it square or what it's a it's square, it looks like a bar, and I would call it a bar.

Right.

Yeah, I've seen those uh I think similar ones um built.

Is there going to be office space in there?

Someone there will be a break room for drivers and have equipment operators.

We don't have right now because you see sitting in their vehicles in the dead of winter and just waiting for the you know dump trucks that come to fill up.

So they will have a space.

Yeah, and they'll have a restroom, restroom.

Yes.

They don't even have a restroom right now.

Yeah, they have a Porter John.

So when they have a 12-hour shift, they get to go.

Well that's good to know that you know, for this facility, at least we're gonna have it's gonna be, you know, more human.

Yeah.

Exactly, right, right.

Because I know I know they sit in the trucks because there's nowhere to go.

They don't want to go inside the salt down.

Um I just want to make clear and I understand this is gonna be one hundred percent union builders.

Um I know we have prevailing wage requirements in our in all of our capital projects.

Um whether there's a specific requirement for unions that have to be.

That's okay.

There's prevailing wage here.

And I did speak to the union, so I know that they're scheduled or at least to do you know, most of the job, if not all of it.

So um I just wanted to verify that.

So uh so again, I'll I'll follow the councilwoman's lead on this.

Um I my hope is that we we build it.

It is uh you know, hefty price tag, but I'm glad that you're here today to let us know exactly four million of that was really coming in the demo and the uh and the actual EPA regulations or whatever else is goes along with that.

So at least I leave here today not feeling that we're being gouged for the actual structure itself.

So and I'm glad to hear that we have a space there for whoever's the operator is there waiting for the trucks to come in and fill up that they can go and you know have a warm spot with uh indoor plumbing and facilities.

So that's it for me.

Thank you, Most.

Thank you, Council President Lavelle.

Sure, just a clarity question.

I'll I'll be willing to support it today.

We've actually been putting money aside for this since 2020, I believe, every year within our capital budget.

Um represents except for one year was the parks trust fund, but every other year I believe since then we've been slowly putting money aside for this.

The design is completed.

Has it been bid yet?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

The cost that you were saying.

This is all this responsible with this is all in.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Yeah.

Councilman Kale Smith.

Thank you.

You know, I mean, the more the conversation went on, the more frustrated I actually am.

The fact that other council members know the projects that were happening in my district, and yet I did not.

I guess because you all sit on a capital budget, you know, the the the um task force or committee that you know those projects.

But it would have been nice had you know we had some conversations about this.

And the fact that it's union uh work, that's great, but that's not what's that's not what's gonna make my determination.

What's gonna make my determination is whether or not we can afford this right now.

And the fact of the matter is the fact that you're saying that salt or snow removal will be affected southwest Pittsburgh if we don't do it, you could really store salt under a tarp.

So I mean it's almost misleading to the public to say that that that without this we won't have the you know, snow removal.

I remember back when they used to take salt right off the truck and just shovel it onto the road.

So I think you when you're talking about that, I think that there's ways that they could really do this if you really wanted to.

And so it doesn't make me want to move this, it doesn't make me want to move this.

It makes me say this is why we are where we are with this budget, because we spend money without having all the information, without having clear clear um ideas of what it really does cost and what we really in the questions that we get here, we don't question it.

We just say, okay, you're an expert, we know.

But you have a job to do, and I understand that.

And and you know, the administration might want this project to go through.

I understand that too.

And I understand that there might be a need for it.

I don't understand that six million dollars were in a budget crunch is so important for salt that we can't say that we're gonna say that we can't even address.

I don't even know that this location is the best location for this.

If we're going to do something like this, we should probably have done some assessment and evaluation of whether or not this is even the proper location.

Because if you put it on West Carson Street, you'd have much quicker access for three different divisions, not just you know, one or two.

But you could get other divisions there.

So I'm just saying I just think that there's a lot of things that should have been looked into and had it been part of the conversations, I might have been able to to address some of that and to bring some of this up.

But I I understand that that there's a big issue.

I'd like to hold it for one more week, is what I'd like to do, just until we get some.

What I'd like to from you is the scope of the work.

I'd like some itemized breakdown of the cost.

I'd like to know if you'd looked into other facilities or other locations, and um where else you would store the salt in the meantime, in the in in the interim if this doesn't go through.

Because you have a lot of places where you could store salt, um, other than just these facilities that are intended right now, especially because you can just store them with tarp over them.

So and you have done that in the past in other places in I believe in Councilman Call Hill's district.

So I mean it's not that I don't want to see this project go through, but I I it's the cost.

It's and it's a time that we are in such a budget crunch that we need to be critical and and really looking at every dime here.

We owe that much to the public.

And so I I for me I'd like to at least hold it for one week.

Motion to hold one week.

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of a one week hold, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bill 2574 will be held for one week.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That moves us back down to land use and economic development committee chaired by Councilman Wilson.

The fire paper, Bill 2526.

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 some not to exceed 41,000 for the payment of the cost thereof.

Motion to hold one week.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2526 being held for a week.

Please indicate by saying aye.

All right.

Our bill be held one week.

Bill 2296.

Bill 2296 resolution providing for the designation as a historic site under Title 11 of the Code of Ordinances.

That's certain site known as Westinghouse Park, located at 320 North Mertlin Street in the Point Breeze neighborhood, 14th Ward City of Pittsburgh, the owner of the property supports the nomination, and there is no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Discussion, Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, I just want to thank the uh Westinghouse legacy project.

I know Mr.

David Baer uh tried to testify like there was some um technical issues, but they've done you know a fantastic job um educating the community.

I live a block from the site um about all of the amazing things that George Westinghouse did and um his role as an entrepreneur as well as a as a scientific innovator and and really highlighting all of the amazing things you know that happened at the site that was known as Solitude, which was his estate.

Um and now what is now is known as as North Point Breeze, and also um the period of time that Nicolai Tesla spent there basically you know creating modern electricity uh with uh with Mr.

George Westinghouse.

So uh, you know, I'm I'm really excited that um the work that they've done over the years is is finally coming to fruition and and um and people you know for generations will be reminded of uh the amazing work of George Westinghouse as well as the innovative things that he did with you know legends like Nicola Tesla.

So I'm excited.

Thank you.

Thank you for their discussion, Councilman Gross.

Super cool.

Thank you for telling us all that.

I literally was taking notes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

I can't tell who's council person Charlotte.

Yes, um, I guess I'm probably asking for interrogatory here, but so we are the owner of of this property and we're making it historic.

Why are we doing that?

Is there is there a tax credit that's available to us or something?

Is there a benefit for us, or are we just locking this park in in kind of amber in the the way that it is?

As we should um that's actually a great question.

Um, my my my understanding is you know, um, you know, I mean I think for several reasons.

One um, you know, it the site you know hadn't been you know protected as a as a historic site, but also um to create the platform, you know, to educate the the public about the historic significance, you know, of the site that you know most people just know it as Westinghouse Park and not as this the site formerly known as Solitude and not only that George Wessinghouse lived there, but uh his laboratory was there and the work that he did with folks like Nicola Tesla and the work that they did around the 1896 World's Fair, which you know introduced you know modern electricity to the world, um you know, in that work.

So I am fully supportive of of the um uh making sure the people are aware of of the significance of the park.

But the park is already protected by nature of being park and the zoning code when we make things that we own historic, we now can't have them uh updated and and modernized with the needs of of a city as we we grow.

This is kind of the same problem that we ran into um I believe in the north side with you know wanting to to update a basketball court.

Um I just curious like what what are we trying to accomplish by making this historic?

I'm I'm always kind of uh skeptical of of historic designations uh you know, without kind of a reason why we want to do that.

Councilperson, there is also Katie Reed from Department of City Planning.

If you would wish to bring it up, yes, yeah, I'd be happy to count.

I again I don't want to criticize a project in the councilman's district, but I'm hi read um from Department of City Planning.

So uh a couple things.

First of all, uh Westinghouse Park is noteworthy for a variety of reasons.

One of them is its archaeological potential.

So we already um there was a phase one study done there where they looked at sort of what details were left from Solitude because you know there's no extant structures um and decided to go on and try to do a further study, um, which I believe is uh not happening yet, but is is out there and close to happening.

Um I can't speak to the details of that, but um so that's one thing.

So uh uh Westing House Park is is is a little different than some of our other parks.

To reference the um idea of parks becoming historic landmarks, um we do have a variety of parks that are historic landmarks, and there is some concern um about what is contributing and what isn't contributing in a park, and just because the park is designated doesn't mean that every single thing has to stay there forever and ever.

And it doesn't even mean that the things that are listed as contributing have to stay there forever.

It just means that those things need to be considered and they need to go to the historic review commission.

So for instance, the Allegheny Commons park has its own design guidelines, which basically go through and talk about what is contributing and what's not.

So something like an a a very small um change to the aviary wouldn't be reviewed by the historic review commission because it's um it's a minor change to something that's not deemed contributing.

So uh if that's something that you're interested in pursuing for other parks, that's definitely something we can do that can be produced pretty easily.

Design guidelines, the ones for Allegheny Commons are like a page long, um, and then adopted by the historic review commission.

Um and that's a good way to control what is and what isn't being protected, especially in these resources that are very substantial.

Yeah, I mean I I just know that like in Allegheny Commons there was a disagreement about the orientation of a basketball court.

And I just don't like the idea of us you know, again, freezing our our parks in Amber and saying this is this is how they they have to be.

You know, would we now we design our parks with with ADA guidelines and we didn't used to do that?

And you know, what what is the next thing that we want to design our parks with that you know if we freeze it in amber here that we cannot you know keep up with um what 2050 looks like or whatever, you know, whatever we're doing in the future here.

I believe this park also didn't used to have a uh subway or uh a train station underneath the Westinghouse state.

Am I wrong about that?

There are tunnels, excuse me, tunnels that I believe are leading over to the and and I I think just from cursory review of the archaeological report, there are remains of those and that's part of the that's super that's super cool.

Uh but you know, just just dismiss the historic value of the park.

I just don't see the value in making something historic that is already protected by by virtue of being a park, which is pretty protected in our our zoning code.

Sure, as long as it wasn't rezoned, I guess.

Um I suppose could happen.

I think that you know, we're uh preservation is is sort of progressing in the world, and I think um everyone, including us is trying to take a more broad look at it, right?

Um ADA accessibility is something that needs to happen.

Sure.

We we I don't think the goal of the of uh the historic review commission or staff or anyone really is to freeze these things in in time.

And I I can't speak specifically to the basketball court because I wasn't involved in that process, but um, but uh you know, things that are um less historically vital or things that are really important like access are are going to be prioritized, I think, um in a way that they maybe haven't been like nationally before, just because preservation is is sort of changing its ethos.

We're not we're not we're not trying to protect things in amber, I don't think.

Yeah, I I guess uh I I'm using ADA as just an example of like this was not something that this was not a requirement that we necessarily built all of our parks with in a time in in the past.

And if we would have made those requirements, if we would make something historic that would not allow us to build ADA, then you know we'd be in trouble.

I don't want us to do that now for whatever the new thing might be, you know, um the the new uh equity, you know, accessibility kind of whatever whatever might be in 2075, and we said no, this is historic now because we think it's historically significant.

It is historically significant.

Uh no disagreement there.

It's just you know, I I do worry that we lock ourselves in, you know, again, with uh this historic designation.

So if there's uh I I'm not really hearing like a major benefit or you know, and I don't think there's a a major concern here.

I I don't I'm willing to be convinced, but I don't think I'm gonna vote for this today.

Okay.

Yeah, there are uh just to point out there are a number of parks that are already historically designated within this city.

Shenley Park was just recently designated.

Mallon Park is designated um as are others.

So yeah, I I yeah, I understand that.

I I don't uh I don't quite understand why they are either.

So we we can talk about that.

Um give you some information uh offline at some point if that's helpful.

Sure.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um for their first round, I think Councilwoman Gross, and then we'll got Councilman Mosley second and Councilman Wilson.

Maybe I already had first runs a member saying how excited it was.

So I'm excited again.

So I just want to affirm that I'm fully supportive of um historically preserving even city-owned assets.

I don't think that without it they are protected.

We've certainly seen things demolished in parks, like the you know, the golf club and Shelling Park, just because like some you know private golf club wanted a different facility, and you know, this council voted to approve that.

Um so I think this does add a layer that will allow for public input if those questions of change come up, and if we don't put the historic protections in place, then there is no guarantee for public input on things that are important to the public.

And because I think there should be public input on things that are important to the public, and this is a super cool one that is important to the public.

I'm I'm fully supported today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have we'll go down the line.

Councilman Wilson, down to Councilwoman Kelsman.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I did just want to recognize um that you know, I I have um I have one historic um, maybe there's more, but I'm you know, fully aware of one that is historic because uh anytime we want to change a playground or like the basketball court was brought up, uh but the playground sticks out to me because I know that process did take a year and a half longer than um you know if it wasn't historic designated.

So I mean I think just the public and and um you know and the communities have to be ready for that.

So I don't I don't see it as a extreme downside.

I think it's just you know, I think it's more of a conversation of like maybe it could be maybe there could be an expedited process to when we're in that situation because or better coordination with like DPW with this certain things, because I don't think DBW is um here, but they do a great job, but I'm saying I'm not sure they're used to that.

Like uh there would I have the first historically designated I'm sorry, I have the first uh playground that was uh changed over in a historically designated park.

Uh that's what they told me.

So they were kind of unaware of that process.

Um so that there were some um points in the pro there was some points in you know trying to get to construction that were difficult.

So I think people just have to be ready for it.

And uh I definitely understand why the park is historically designated.

And I do think it's important, but you know, there's always barriers to uh everything, and for this, there are definitely more rules that come with it.

So can I say one thing?

Am I allowed to speak or is that not a thing?

Okay, sorry.

Um the public art and civic design commission does review anything located on city property.

So if this went to if if things went to the historic review commission, they wouldn't go to the public art and civic design commission, but it's just worth noting that on city property they'll have to go to a border commission anyways, just would be the historic review commission instead of the public art and civic design, even if a park is in historic changes go to the public art and civic design commission.

You're saying that the even if it wasn't historically designated, the DBW will go.

It would have to go through the public art and civic design commission process, which is another commission um through city planning that we're all publicly owned, and so all uh parks projects all go through PACDs.

So I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble here, but I think that's a process that maybe DPW isn't used to, regardless.

They do bring their the projects to us.

Um I think it's always a learning process, and we're all trying to get better.

Yeah, just coming here in 2020, there were um definitely a lot of things I learned, and I think the process, I think there has been some more engagement recently.

I'm just saying historically, I think there have been the lack of um you know engaging in that process.

So I'm not sure um what your experience has been, but I'm just talking about my experience.

So thanks.

Thank you, Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, um, yeah, I appreciate uh the point that that was raised um around the potential challenges that the designation um you know can create.

I do know that there is a simultaneously a process to um actually make some improvements um to Westinghouse Park.

So I'll look into you know how the designation may impact uh that but the folks who um have really pushed for the designation are also the folks who have been actively involved um in the efforts to make improvements um you know at the site and do some updates um at at Westinghouse Park.

And and I did also just wanted to mention um you know for the record that the only remaining part of Solitude are the underground tunnels that went from the house um to his laboratories and and the train station is a little bit um further down on Jonathan Street and that kind of platform actually still remains.

Um but it's not actually part of the park.

Um so I I just wanted uh I just wanted to um to clarify that as well.

Um and um yeah and I'm I'm happy to look into you know how um the two efforts, the efforts to make improvements that uh the folks who've been um adamantly in support of the historic designation and how those two efforts um you know can work in concert with each other and not in conflict with one another Councilman Conkham.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so I know you're a fan of history, American history, especially when it relates to to Pittsburgh, so am I.

And another fun fact about George Washington, I mean uh George Westinghouse is um invented the airbreaks, which uh over a hundred years ago, well over a hundred years ago.

Technology has not changed, still remains the same.

It stops locomotives and trains.

So um, you know, he's yeah, right.

And I know your father actually worked for Westinghouse and my Lisa worked for Westinghouse.

So we all have some sort of connection to Westinghouse.

So I I I love the idea that we're preserving or you know, um designating this area.

So um I just wanted to add that.

But Katie, what I really want to talk to you about is I think I grabbed you last time we were here.

Who is my contact with the Historic Review Commission right now?

Oh, with the historic review commission?

I I think you asked me about Preservation Pittsburgh, and I sent you the contact for Preservation Pittsburgh, who's now leading things up there.

Well, here's let me explain to you why I'm asking, right?

I think I we went over this, but it was a while ago, and I know and I think you gave me your number and I lost it, so I apologize for that.

I gave some very important documents of my own home to Matthew Falcone.

Who is Matthew Falcone with?

Matthew Falcon is with Preservation Pittsburgh.

Preservation Pittsburgh.

And so he's with them, but the leadership role has been passed from him to someone else, but he's still readily available.

Oh, Matthew Falcon's still readily available.

Okay.

We can I can put you in touch with him.

I I have two numbers on them.

I'll track down for you.

I'd really have been trying to get a hold of him.

And I was looking forward to today because I was hoping you were gonna be here because you're the one my only link I feel to that.

And uh yeah, very important documents for me.

So I need to know who I can contact.

I still have your number and I will get you.

Can we do it today?

Can you can you give me a number today?

I mean, uh, because I've given him this, you know, it's funny because when there's a project and historic designation might get in the way of a project, which happens, okay, becomes a political football, believe it or not.

And you know, it seems like a look at the split, you know, where the things designated.

I've given Matthew these papers of my very important documents of my own home over a year ago.

Well over a year ago, you know.

And I thought he told me he moved on, or I thought he moved on, or somebody told me Yeah, he did.

He's no longer the um the sort of the head of the organization, but he's still involved in I think you and Okay, I'd like to follow through with what I originally asked.

Again, it's been a year and a half, and when I get frustrated when I see historic designations get the rush on for because it's a political football sometimes.

And you know, here I am with these documents out there.

It's been over a year.

I haven't heard from Matthew.

I've got other questions for him.

So I need to contact, I need somebody to call today.

Can we do that?

I will find you the correct number.

I appreciate that, Katie.

Thank you so much.

That's it, madam chair.

Thank you.

Was there an additional com comment from Councilperson Charland?

No, it's Councilwoman Cale Smith.

Can I make it first?

I just want to say this okay.

I know it's difficult you know, doing the meetings.

Um I just want to say I I actually will support this because it's the councilman's district, and I try to defer to the council member that represents the district when I place my votes as long as it's you know, nothing it's gonna affect our area or the city as a whole.

But I I want to say that I think that we really should have looked at all the parks and tried to put I don't I I don't there's so many things fascinating that happened in a lot of our parks and this history behind them.

I would like to see markers that you know if we can ever afford that or if somebody could support them.

If somebody could, you know, could maybe uh sponsor them.

But um like Oakwood Park has a great history.

It was a mu amusement park with a you know, a trolley station and and a water reservoir that the wall is still there, and it's huge, it's a huge one.

Everybody always asks what's that one.

It's actually a big thing on Reddit, you know, people asking about it.

So I'd like to see, you know, you know, and we already know Cool Hill and you know Mount Washington and um some of the other parks across the city, but I just would like to see something in general, like uh uh something for all of them that we that we work on that if we ever get the opportunity to do that.

That would be great.

Yeah, we'd love to do that as well.

I mean, I'm thinking maybe that's something Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy can sponsor help right because it really should be something that's in every park because I remember when Shinley Park not only had you you know other the other things that people were talking about, but I I grew up in Oakland on Fifth Avenue, and we used to go to Shanley Park to ride horses, and so I remember there were horse stables there.

So I mean there's a lot of history in a lot of our parks, and I'd like to see some of that just never forgotten and remembered what they could have been and what they were.

So thank you.

That's it for me.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

I think I better quit telling stories about when I was young because it's really aging me here.

All those in favor of Bill 2296, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

No.

One no.

So noted affirmative recommendation.

Thank you very much.

New papers, Bill 2565.

Thank you for your work.

Bill 2565, ordinance amending and supplementing the city code of Title VII, Business Licensing, Article 3 Sales Businesses, Chapter 719, vendors and peddlers to include Virginia Avenue between my Wyoming Street and Maple Terrace Avenue.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion, just brief discussion.

This is a request of the business owners along the area.

Thank you.

Sorry, what it's at the request of the business owners on that street.

So that's it.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2565, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2584.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of permits licensing and inspection for the issuance of a warrant in favor of the community college of Allegheny County to provide a five-day lead dust sampling technician and lead risk assessor course for the code enforcement unit supervisors, cost not to exceed $8,750.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2584, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 2585.

Resolution amending resolution 60 of 2013, providing for the implementation of a residential permit parking program area P and the uptown and bluff neighborhoods to explain the streets pursuant to Pittsburgh Code, Chapter 549.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2585, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2588.

Ordinance submitting the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title V, Traffic, Article 8, Parking, Chapter 550.

Mobility Enhancement District to remove the pilot sunset date.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of Bill 2588, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That moves us to innovation performance asset management and technology committee chaired by councilwoman gross.

Bill 2558 resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into an agreement or agreements or amendments there too with DQE communications first circuits for direct connection to GCP, Google Cloud at a cost not to exceed $51,279 over one year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2558, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 2559.

Resolution amending resolution 340 of 2025, authorizing the mayor and directors of the departments of innovation and performance.

Excuse me.

With B3 Solutions Inc.

for further provision of software maintenance and support the services.

Development of critical applications and possible transition guidance by extending the contract by 18 months until June 30th, 2027, at no additional cost to the city.

The total cost not to exceed of the contract will be 2,141,321 over a period not to exceed nine years or six months.

Just as backgrounds, um, the flag here for council members is any mention B3 solutions, uh which we used to have many, many early, I want to say like early internet.

Um sorry, I'm offline.

Um the the flag here is the B3 solutions that council members have kind of been trying to disentangle the city from for twelve the twelve years I've been here because it was kind of a I I said a minute ago when my mic was off kind of like an early internet moment where there was a local company that hand built a lot of systems and software.

Um and so uh why don't you fill us in but why we're still seeing them?

Yes, you're correct.

They originally developed many of our um systems for most of our departments.

As a matter of fact, we had 42 different software applications that were being used.

We're down from 42 to one.

Okay, and the one is for finance, and as Jen and Ian can identify the the the finance is for collection of taxes, and we want to go through several taxing periods to do duplicate processing to verify that the new system is calculating the um the receipts correctly.

Okay, um I I understand that we all understand the importance of redundancy.

Why does this say nine years?

I'm sorry.

Am I reading the right bill?

Right.

So it originally I would guess what uh 2014 amended.

Uh about 20 yeah, 2012, 2020.

Okay, so it the original contract was a nine year contract.

No, the original contract was a three-year contract.

And then we amended it.

This is which which amendment is this?

I'm sorry, I don't remember.

I know you might want to read the the language.

You need it.

I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me.

It's 22 2559.

Yes, uh-huh.

So it does say the total cost not to exceed the contract will be 2,141,000.

Yes.

$321 over a period not to exceed nine years and six months.

That's correct.

The nine years will be June of 2027.

When it starts, no, when it ends.

When it ends, okay.

So that's what I was trying to describe.

So the nine years have started in 2016.

Or no, 20, I do my math right, 2018.

We started at the We're not extending this for nine years.

No, absolutely.

That much we can all understand.

We're extending it for 18 months.

We're extending this for 18 months.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what I would need everybody to kind of be clear on.

That's correct.

So we're extending it for 18 months at no additional cost, is the other thing.

Correct.

So this title says zero more dollars, but another eighteen months on the term.

Um did I say that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

I'll just step back now and unless council members ask questions.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Cockell.

Uh, so this is software for us to collect taxes.

When we took that over from Jordan.

No, different different taxes.

Jangola finance department director.

So long time ago, B3 actually built our current tax collection system.

So and they are like the administrators of the system.

So any kind of changes or anything that we need to make or have an issues, like they're the ones that actually handle any of the fixes that go on, but they're also helping to migrate data from that system into the new one, and then sort of align our processes.

So we need them to sort of stay online as we test the processes that we migrated from like the B3 system into the new CSS system.

Some of these processes, especially the billing part, the main billing that we send out in January literally happens once a year.

So for some of these functions, we have like one shot literally to test it and make sure everything is working accordingly.

So, which is the reason for like an 18-month extension.

They don't happen every day, and so that we can't test, make fixes, and then retest.

We have very limited options and time available to do that.

So essentially this guides us as to what we're billing, who we're billing.

This has nothing to do with the collection of taxes as we hired Jordan to do for many years, but now we've taken that back.

Jordan only handled the prior year.

And we took that back.

We do so this actually is our current tax system that we bill for current year.

And until which we always did.

Right.

So yeah.

Same cost.

I mean.

Right.

Yep.

Okay.

Um I think I understand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

I just want to say real quick, I just want to say I really have a lot of issues with this 3B contract because it's been going on for so long.

But I do trust that one, it's no additional dollars, but I do trust Councilwin Gross because she'd criticize you more than I did if I there was something wrong.

So I'm good with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're anxious to get out of it too.

So you know.

So we don't have clear access to our data with using B3.

So thank you.

And thank you, Councilman, for explaining everything.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of Bill 2559, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2560.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into startup participation agreements with selected entities as part of the cohorts of the PGH lab and further authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance to enter into program participation agreements with local municipal entities to allow such entities to test products and services through PGH lab at a cost not to exceed 100,000 over one year.

Motion to approve peace discussion.

Second.

Second discussion.

Thank you.

And it's been going on now for a while.

And so I just wanted to I'll let you get a chance.

Sorry, hi.

Thanks for to give us a chance to just tell us a little, you know, tell us a little bit about how great it is.

If you wouldn't want to Andrew, uh Andrew Hayhurst is our senior manager for um what to you senior manager of innovation.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

So I manage microphones up to up to your pocket.

I'm sorry, thank you.

So PC.

I'm sorry.

Uh so PGH Lab, we are entering the 10th year of PGH lab.

It started in 2016.

And um we're really excited.

Uh I have actually have numbers here.

So we've had 59 compil 59 completed pilots over the last 10 years from 56 different companies.

And the the amount of projects that we've done have been incredible and really exciting.

Um as you guys know, in the last couple of years, we have changed to become a customer first program, and we now pay participants to participate in the pilots, 25,000 per pilot per company.

Um and since that has happened, the amount of interest in PGH Lab has grown exponentially.

Actually, we have had 78% more applicants to enter into PGH Lab since we've moved to this first customer approach.

Um we're really proud of what's happening, and we want to continue.

Maybe you could give us kind of like re-remind us, because you know, we do keep track of a lot of different kinds of programs and city functions.

Now I would summarize it as saying this is like a small cohort of companies, right?

That you choose each year from applicants, and they get like a one-year contract to do some city, something that we need is a city.

Exactly.

But it's a tiny little bite of one because they're tiny little startup companies, and otherwise in all the other RFPs and other proposals, they would never even come close to being able to do it.

Right.

Okay.

So they're um we it's between the six and nine-month pilot program that we do, kind of depends on the the specific projects.

Um but yes, we give them a six to nine month contract, we pay them twenty-five thousand dollars to and this is our opportunity to really test out some of the innovative solutions throughout the city at like low risk.

You know, this is a low-risk pilot that we can challenge, you know, our operations to do more things.

And you know, the risk is $25,000 of it failing versus you know, entering into an agreement for two million dollars or something along that line.

So this is you know a great opportunity for us to pilot innovative solutions and support our um innovative, you know, startup ecosystem throughout the city.

Right.

So yeah, so on both hands, like well, maybe maybe the city could do these things differently.

Who can help us on a like a six-month contract, figure out if that would work?

And so it's cheap.

But then also, on the other hand, there are small companies who like that's a huge contract for them.

Yes.

And that they'll get paid for six months, you know, they have costs covered, can really make or break a small startup company.

Um, and we want to make help them make it, not break it.

Um so um one of my favorites, because at first this was kind of like just kind of like the first couple years, I think it was like very techie, and of course it's the innovation and performance, and maybe we didn't really understand or see uh and and citizens especially couldn't see like there was no like publicly facing um one of these experiments or pilots.

But that um one of my favorites, so I'm gonna brag about it is um council members are a little sick of listening to me talk about composting and how it can divert so much of our municipal ways.

IMP is literally sniggering, I think is the right word because I talk at them about this all the time.

Um and so we spend all this money sending garbage trucks that are getting three miles per gallon diesel and spewing particulate matter and poisoning the air 15 miles out to the land up every time they fill up.

So they come and pick up your garbage at your house, and when they fill up, they they have to drive all the way out there, and it's the stupidest thing.

And um, so it costs us in in labor time and it costs us in you know vehicle mileage and it costs us in fuel.

And if we compost it citywide, some cities are cutting that tonnage down by half.

So that's twice as much mileage, and you know, you get twice, you get you lower all your costs by half.

So um one of them was a biodigester, local smart up or startup company.

I think we we had them at rec centers, so they were diverging food waste.

Um so I'm excited about that.

Is this allocating just the funds or how have you actually chosen some of the new we've chose four companies?

Okay, yeah, tell us about that.

Yeah.

Um so I'll go through real quick.

There's four.

So uh aquatonomy is going to be partnering with EMS and River Rescue, and they are going to help they basically have these like drones that they want to drop into the river to help with search and rescue.

And and as you guys know, and you've probably talked to EMS, right?

Like the visibility in our rivers is not great.

And so this will help them kind of uh expand their operations and be able to, you know, hopefully recover evidence of what's in the river.

And I mean, I know this is a sensitive topic, so I don't want to go too deep into it, but uh so it's really exciting trying to use technology to expand river rescue and search and evidence.

Um we also are working with Pittsburgh drone services, and so the I will say this year we are very technology forward.

It has not always been that case.

Um but drone services will be working with our sustainability team to um basically look at areas in the city that where insulation, like some of the insulation programs that sustainability is trying to do to help fund you know lower economic houses with and provide insulation for them.

They're gonna look at the the heat loss in these buildings and see if if we can provide you know, guide these owners of these houses into these programs that will help them insulate their homes better.

Uh Orange Peel Collective is a company that IMP is going to be working with with our AI working group to kind of think about how we can demystify AI with employees of the city and how we can expand the use of AI.

And then the last one is Viridian.

Viridian is a company that uh will be helping us create a digital twin, um, which digital twins is like pulling in real-time data and how we can make actionable decisions based on that data.

So they're gonna be working with our GIS team to uh see if there are ways that we can use kind of their their 3D mapping software to expand services that we offer to the constituents and like whether there's there's like the possibility to create better maps and better insights for our constituents with their 3D rendering software.

Thank you.

I'm gonna after this brief comment, I'm gonna open the floor.

But uh while I still am enthusiastic about the the program, I think it's one that we should continue, and it's been a great 10 years.

I realize maybe we need a little oversight because some of those things are definitely red flags to my constituents.

So maybe we'll you know, I'm not gonna pose these today because they do seem like there are some um guardrails on them.

Um, but we may have to talk about our technology policies.

Which I know there is a whole committee, all of that kind of things, but um we want to make sure that our public is comfortable with what we're doing.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, and we do have a data governance team that's working on AI policy as well as privacy and algorithm policies and things like that.

I know, and it's wonderful it really is, but I I think the public should feel confident in what we're doing, but they can't if they don't know what we're doing.

So stop there.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick.

Do we uh do we pitch the ideas, the things that we need, and then they come up with the or or or is or do they come to us with ideas.

We pitch um we basically say these are the categories that we're interested in.

Okay.

And for the most part, those have kind of stayed the same.

They've been sustainability, process optimization.

Um and this year we did add, you know, uh AI.

And so that's where we we invited companies to kind of pitch ideas for us on those different categories.

And then we work with the departments and operations to find a champion within departments to line them up and try and build out this pilot program.

Okay, well, I'm gonna pitch you an idea.

Yeah.

That is an intergovernmental services portal where it's like and then it would include all the nonprofits as well.

So whatever you need, you know what I mean?

So that rather than digging through the city, or you know, I mean, we have just had people who call the office and it's not something that the city does, and so we look and direct them, but it would be nice to have I mean all of our city governments, and we have so many websites and sometimes it's old and whatever, it would be wonderful to have one kind of collaborative location for services in general that then directed you where you needed to go.

Yeah, that would be great.

And even had like blurbs of sort of brief and like the you know, these whether you need food or you need child care or you're a senior, or you need tax help or how whatever.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I think there is um some work to our website that we could probably build some of that stuff into it.

But I think that's a great idea.

Anyway, just the five.

Thanks.

Councilman Coghelm.

Thank you.

That's interesting.

Uh so when somebody we sign up for a pilot program, $25,000, that's just like their fee.

Do they bring their own equipment and necessary things to do the job?

It depends on the specific project, right?

And most of the time, yes.

They are using that $25,000 to procure whatever they need.

It's theirs to use if they have to buy a drone, they'll do you know, they could use it for salary drone, they can their discretion.

Yes.

Go.

Okay.

So what really caught my ear was their discretion, but you know, we define what the project is with them.

So we create a statement of work.

So it's not if they need the tools to complete the project or go at the path that we direct them to go, that's they could use that money to purchase whatever they need to do.

Exactly.

Okay, understood.

Um what really caught my ear was what you said about um the rivers.

Okay.

I have good friends from EMS that are in the scuba team, and there is actually zero visibility when you're in the river.

I don't know if you've ever swam in the river.

I used to as a kid all the time.

And you know, you got maybe a foot, right?

Yeah.

And when they're unfortunately down there searching for a body or a vessel or something like that, they're feeling that's all they're doing.

It's feeling so this technology that we're gonna enter into with this particular startup does what now to help them.

So imagine um They go underwater.

It goes underwater.

The the drone goes underwater.

Yes.

Okay.

Um it will use I we I haven't gotten into the details on the technology, but I imagine it's uh we've been joking.

I just bought uh robot vacuum, right?

And so I think it's like that.

It will use LIDAR sensors to reach out and map.

We'll tell them whatever they're looking for, basically.

It can go submerge.

Yes.

That's amazing on its own right to me.

I didn't know drones could like go underwater, but I guess with technology.

And then they could identify whether whatever they're looking for.

Exactly.

And take them right to that spot without them feeling around.

Exactly.

That's amazing.

They've also they've also offered to like map the bottom of our bridges too.

Like they could go in and in theory.

To see how many abandoned cars are downloading, or they could see whatever we have.

We were joking about could they go find the bomber that uh two bomber.

I know, yeah.

Yeah, well that would be a good thing.

So like the other endless possibilities, and we're really excited about it.

Right, right.

I understand it was removed like to that within our side on it.

That's what they said.

By the federal government.

Yeah.

Something tells me if we were still there, we would have we would know we're there if it was ever there.

So uh okay, that's amazing technology.

I think that is very well worthwhile pursuing if we can you know get the technology.

Do they have a patent on this technology or is this just something that's common that many cities do and I don't know the answer for this specific um company if they do have a patent on that?

I my guess is that it's it's out there.

And it's by sonar.

They obviously don't give us a clear picture.

Like not even a drone can be a good idea.

I think they can render an image.

Yeah, interesting.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, very, very interesting.

I um I'd love to invite you out when we'd love to be there.

I would.

I would love to be there.

I would.

Yeah.

And uh obviously EMS is fully engaged in this process and yeah, actually this is uh back to Councilmember Warwick's question.

This is one where they actually reached out to MS beforehand.

Yeah, and they were collaborating beforehand and then you know still applied and went through the selection.

Because I know they're trained to feel they don't see you really can't see when you're in in a river.

Yeah, you know, muddy, whatever waters.

Okay.

Um yeah, I'll I'm supportive, it's interesting.

I'm glad that you know we're looking at cutting edge things that possibly make you know our future easier or better for probably less dangerous for the exact okay.

Thanks so much.

Yeah, thank you.

Further questions.

And you all have the PGH lab has final presentations each year that we can come to and and observe and learn more about, right?

Absolutely.

Yes.

Okay.

And we're all invited.

And you all are invited.

Um we have an end of year presentation this year.

Uh I'm sorry, I'm blanking on where it was.

It was in Hazelwood.

It was a great venue out there.

It was incredibly hot.

But uh we give uh companies an opportunity to kind of present what they found.

And uh it's it's like just a fun, great event to celebrate the successes of the program.

All right.

All those in favor of Bill 2560, please indicate by saying aye.

I affirmative recommendation.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Bill 2561.

Resolution amending resolution five twenty-six of twenty twenty-five, authorizing the mayor and the director of innovation and performance on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh to enter into an agreement or agreements or amendments thereto with E Plus Technology Inc.

for a voice over Internet Protocol Unified Communications platform to implement convergence of systems to support citywide communications by reducing the approved amount by 315,724 dollars for an amended total cost not to exceed 1,784,726 over five years.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Uh yeah, the key words here are reducing.

So I just wanted to s point that out to members.

I don't know if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Discussion?

All those in further discussion?

All those in favor of Bill 2561, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Final committee of the day, intergovernmental and educational affairs committee chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Bill number 2563.

Resolution adopting plan revision to the City of Pittsburgh's official sewage facilities plan for 4725 Avenue at no cost to the city.

Motion approved.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 2563, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That concludes our meeting agenda this afternoon at 1 30.

Council will hold a buck will hold budget hearings for the Department of Management and Budget chaired that I will chair.

Next week, Council will hold their regular meeting on Tuesday, December 16th, and standing committees meeting on Wednesday to seven December 17th, both at 10 a.m.

To register to speak at these meetings, please fill out the sign-up form for the council meeting web page by the deadline.

And you may also call the clerk's office at 412-255-2138.

Is there anything from members?

Council Member Warwick.

Um yeah, just a quick comment.

So um I I um got an email and then uh was all uh also a text from Megan Hammond at Fair Housing, who is someone who I appreciate enormously.

And um just about and and I I don't know all the details about this, so I want to you know preface with that, but um that you know there's actually concurrent to this meeting was a um commission on human relations hearing um about a city employee who um used a slur toward a resident while at work um without getting into the details.

I just you know it's it can be very difficult working for the city, right?

Like the public can be um can can sometimes be challenging, but it's it is very important for our staff, especially you know, all the time, but especially when they're at work, you know, to um to do everything they can to remain professional and um and uh uh you know, and I know that we saw, I don't know, online I saw there was recently uh maybe it was a Swiss Vail employee, you know, again using very inappropriate language in um in uh w with a resident.

I I don't know the details of that one either, but I just just ask our employees and and I I think that and I don't regardless of the legality one way or the other, right?

I it just it's it's very important for everyone who works at the city of Pittsburgh to um you know, even when it requires taking a deep breath and you know, sort of taking a beat to to um be very careful with our words and to um you know when when when dealing with the public as as as challenging as that may be sometimes and uh and and also uh for uh for us as a city to make sure that our employees have the necessary training and whatnot to make sure that incidents like these don't happen because it can be very challenging being out there, you know, being out there in in the world and uh so I'll I I'll just leave it at that, but I I appreciate uh Megan Hammond bringing it to my attention and to you know to our attention and uh anyway, thanks.

That's all.

Thank you.

Councilman Cogham.

I'm sorry, Councilwoman Kill Smith, and then Councilman Carlton.

Just briefly, I just want to say I I do think that there needs to be some additional training.

We actually had more than one of these incidents occur in especially in our district, and one was one of our employees then again, and um but back then I think there were some mental health issues or whatever, and so the administration worked through that.

But I just think maybe in general, just and I also think that people are becoming so desensitized because it you know, people use racism a lot and and not always when it really is racism.

But it's sad because then it minimizes the seriousness when there really is some severe true racism occurring, and we want to make sure that's what we're avoiding and and addressing.

And so I think it would be helpful to have some training on it.

You know, and I I'm sure our you know HR department does some, but maybe some you know, more frequently or reminders or something.

So I mean it's a shame you even have to have that, to be honest with you, that somebody in their own right would even just not want it to hurt somebody else.

I'm sorry.

That's it.

Yeah, councilman Cogham.

Thank you.

Um to both your comments, you know, it's right for us to expect our employees to be respectful and polite, period.

Um so I just want to say that.

But while I have members here at the table, I just wanted to go over next week.

We're trying to plan with the planning department a briefing.

Tuesday we have the line item vote.

So it looks like we're gonna have to schedule it on Monday, whether it's virtually or if you could be here in person to discuss um, you know, what the planning department is coming back with the corn plan and the and the details around that.

So I just wanted to give you all a heads up so I don't have to chase you through the hallway.

It's uh Monday, we're scheduling for now.

Tuesday, we were afraid after a line item vote, that's not until 1.30.

And you know, it gets to be around four or five o'clock, and you know, I was scared to lose you all at that point.

So we'll let everybody know as to um you know that time and that day.

And we talked to Dr.

Bay, and Monday seemed to be a problem, but I feel like that's the day that we have to work with here.

And I'll work with the council president and new finance chair.

Just a note, the the budget line item vote is 1218 the Thursday.

Oh, did that change?

Yes.

Oh check your own.

Okay, so then I will shoot for Tuesday again, but we'll give you notice.

Yes, and there'll be it'll be further.

It's been it's been circulated to council members, it'll be further circulated to don't chase us through the hall.

We've got to reveal it.

I don't have to I don't want to chase you.

Okay, well that's good.

Then we're gonna shoot for Tuesday.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from members?

Seeing none, I will take a motion to excuse the absent members.

Uh there's no absent members.

We're all here.

Good job, good one.

Um, all here, but okay.

We're very much here together.

I'll take a motion to approve the minutes and adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor?

Uh meetings adjourned.

Thank you.