OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Pittsburgh City Council Budget Hearing - Dec 18, 2025

City CouncilThursday, December 18, 2025
BodyPittsburgh, Pennsylvania
SessionCity Council
DateThursday, December 18, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:54:51

Transcript — Verbatim
2:28

Hello and welcome to the Pittsburgh City Council budget hearing for the line item vote.

2:32

I'm Councilperson Erica Strasberger and I chair the committee on finance and law.

2:37

And for this hearing, we will be going over all of the amendments that have been sent over by the mayor and council amendments to determine what amendments will be voted on during this Sunday special standing committees meeting.

3:06

Councilperson.

3:07

So each of you has a packet that has um amendments from I that's Councilperson Strasberger said the administration and from council members.

3:15

Um the first uh the first page of the packet lists out the operating amendments sent over from the administration first, and then the capital amendments from the administration, and then the next page has the city council operating amendments, and uh the amendments proposed by council members for the capital budget will follow.

3:36

So with that in in your packet, there's a number of of documents tabled together that kind of group those.

3:43

Uh the first one is for the administration amendments.

3:45

The first page is just kind of an overview of everything.

3:48

Um, and then uh the details of the operating amendments and then the details of the capital amendments.

3:54

And the next packet is the same exact thing, but for for the council sponsored amendments, uh, the first page is just an overview of each of them, and then the details for each individual one are in the the following pages of it.

4:07

And then the last page you have is just the details for the capital budget amendments.

4:12

And if you are ready.

5:00

And so can it says on your summary to decrease the lifeguard allowance?

5:05

Um to what is accurate?

5:07

Yeah.

5:08

Can you give us any details there?

5:10

Because we have lived now the last five years, it's been quite the roller coaster with lifeguards and pools being able to open and close.

5:16

So we want to make sure that we're not cutting that too closely, honestly, right?

5:22

We don't want to make sure that we're not under budgeting for lifeguards because summer without your pool is a terrible thing.

5:32

So I d the I mean the details may have been sent to me, but I am not um well-versed enough because this came from the administration, so unfortunately do not.

5:42

We don't know why, or how do we have some?

5:43

We do have Chief Cornell here to speak to any of the administration amendments.

5:47

Just reassure us.

5:50

I'm hoping.

5:51

I'm hoping we are reassured.

5:59

Patrick Cornell, Chief Financial Officer.

6:01

I'm here to reassure you.

6:02

Um so this was actually flagged to us by Director Vargas in the actual budget system in the Questica, the number was miskeyed.

6:12

Uh what we typed in was 410974, and it is intended to be 241974.

6:20

Uh and if you look at the outer years beyond that, it is that 240, 250,000 amount.

6:26

Um, so it really is a correction uh from OMB.

6:31

That is fantastic.

6:32

I am reassured.

6:33

That is thank you very much.

6:35

That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

6:36

Appreciate it.

6:38

Thank you.

6:39

Any further discussion on amendment one?

6:43

All those in favor of administration operating amendment number one, please indicate by saying aye.

6:49

Aye.

6:51

Affirmative recommendation.

6:53

Amendment number two.

6:54

Number two, to update various vacancy allowances and shift those funds into various premium pay allocation.

7:00

This is a budget neutral move in 2026 and over the five-year forecast.

7:05

So this particular amendment, um uh council members, um, some some council members uh such as council president Lavelle and I would be happy to speak with you one-on-one about this, but at this time, this particular amendment is not recommended and could be taken up again on Sunday if we choose, but for now, it is not recommended, and I'm gonna instruct our budget uh director to move on to capital amendments.

7:31

I'm sorry, so there was no motion on the there was no motion.

7:34

We do not need to take a vote um necessarily if uh uh if um uh if we choose number two summary, which so does it or does it not have rows on the spreadsheets?

7:48

It does, and the in the that's so that we flip over that page that has the yellow bar, it's all of those rows make up uh increased variances, uh uh vacancy allowances.

8:00

Okay, and for our I'm sorry, I know I'm just kind of confused here, but for following along with the summary page, which is super helpful.

8:09

Is every number on the summary page a different sheet in the packet?

8:14

Or sometimes there are multiple sheets.

8:17

Because I didn't know to flip the page for number two.

8:19

Yeah, um trying to save paper.

8:21

Okay, no, that's fine.

8:22

So for the administration amendments, they only have two, but they are on the same page.

8:26

That first one is just uh at the top there, and then the second one makes up the uh the majority of the page.

8:32

I'm I'm in the right place now.

8:35

Thank you.

8:36

Got it.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Budget█████████████████████████████████████████41%
Public Works████████████████16%
Personnel Matters█████████████13%
Public Safety███████7%
Legal Affairs██████6%
Procedural███3%
Public Engagement███3%
Parks and Recreation██2%
Engineering And Infrastructure██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Pittsburgh City Council Budget Hearing - Dec 18, 2025

The Pittsburgh City Council Committee on Finance and Law convened for a budget hearing to review and vote on numerous operating and capital amendments, many of which were received by council members less than an hour prior to the meeting. The session focused on addressing significant fiscal gaps, proposed cuts to departmental budgets, and necessary funding for city services and infrastructure, with several council members expressing concern over the lack of transparency and time to review the complex proposals before casting votes.

Consent Calendar

Public Comments & Testimony

Discussion Items

Administration Operating Amendments

  • Amendment 1 (Lifeguard Allowance): Councilperson Strasberger raised concerns about a potential cut to the lifeguard allowance, fearing the impact on pool operations. Chief Financial Officer Patrick Cornell clarified the issue was a data entry error (410974 instead of 241974) that would correct the funding to the intended level of $240,000–$250,000, prompting a unanimous "aye" vote for the correction.
  • Amendment 2 (Vacancy Allowances): This amendment proposed shifting funds from vacancy allowances to premium pay allocations in a budget-neutral manner. Council President Lavelle and the budget director did not recommend the measure, and no motion was made to vote on it at this time, leaving it open for Sunday's special meeting.

Administration Capital Amendments

  • Amendments 1 & 2 (Fire Station & Shenley Heights Pavilion): Council approved two linked amendments to reduce the Fire Station 20/Medic 12 construction budget by $1.2 million and increase the Shenley Heights Pavilion construction by the same amount. CFP clarified the additional $1.2 million for the pavilion was necessary because construction bids came in $7 million higher than budgeted; the funds were shifted rather than added.
  • Amendment 3 (Brownsville Road Safety): Approved an increase to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAC) program for the Brownsville Road Safety Improvement Project, confirmed to be covered by federal grant funds.
  • Amendment 4 (Heron Avenue Bridge): Approved a $27,500 increase to the Federal Highway Administration allocation for the Heron Avenue Bridge right-of-way acquisition and final design.

City Council Operating Amendments

  • Amendment 1 (Vehicle Fleet): Sponsored by Councilperson Warwick, this amendment proposed a $10 million increase to the pay-go transfer for vehicle and equipment (raising the total to $20 million). Warwick argued the fleet investment was urgent following recent snow events. Councilmembers Coghill, Kale Smith, and Wilson expressed significant concerns about the budget gap and the implied need for a tax increase to cover the cost, with Coghill and Kale Smith abstaining and Wilson stating he would likely vote "no" on a final vote if no new revenue is secured.
  • Amendment 2 & 3 (URA & Stop the Violence Fund): Amendment 2 proposed a $1 million increase to URA small business development funding, while Amendment 3 proposed a $5 million decrease to the Stop the Violence Trust Fund transfer for 2026. Together, these amendments reallocate funds, reducing the Stop the Violence transfer by $5 million, keeping $1 million for the URA, and leaving $4 million in the Stop the Violence fund for future use. Councilwoman Kale Smith abstained to allow for further analysis of the combined budget impact.
  • Amendments 4 & 5 (Premium Pay & Utilities): Approved increases of $8 million (2026) for fire/EMS premium pay and $6.5 million (2026) for Public Works utilities. These increases are partially offset by subsequent proposed cuts. Councilmembers noted the reliance on potential millage bills to balance the budget; if those fail, further cuts would be necessary to cover these new costs.
  • Amendment 6 (Police Vacancy Allowance): Approved a budget-neutral amendment to create a vacancy allowance in the Bureau of Police to better align premium pay funding with staffing realities.
  • Amendment 7 (City Council Solicitor): Approved swapping one City Council solicitor position for increased legal fees funding ($112,276). Councilmembers expressed concern over losing immediate access to in-house legal counsel and worried that hourly rates from outside firms might exceed the position's value. Despite concerns, the amendment passed with one abstention.
  • Amendment 8 (Software Funding): Approved moving spreadsheet software funding from the Department of Innovation and Performance to the Office of the City Controller.
  • Amendment 9 (Postage): Failed to pass due to a lack of a second for the motion to move postage funding.
  • Amendment 10 (Public Engagement Specialist): Approved the removal of one public engagement specialist position in the Office of the City Clerk.
  • Amendment 11 (Mounted Patrol): Approved a $140,000 decrease to defund the non-union cost of the mounted patrol unit. This came after discussion noting the unit was previously defunded in 2024 but remained in the budget. Councilmembers supported the cut due to the unit's perceived lack of utility for crowd control and its high cost, though some expressed sadness over the loss of a positive community relations tool.
  • Amendment 12 (Non-union COLA): Failed (2 ayes, 5 noes, 2 abstentions). This amendment proposed a 1% cut to the non-union cost of living adjustment (from 3% to 2%). Councilmembers strongly opposed the cut, citing high turnover, inflation impacts, and the difficulty of recruiting staff in a competitive market.
  • Amendment 13 (Clean and Lien Allowance): Approved the elimination of the seasonal laborer allowance used for the "Clean and Lien" program. The vote (6 ayes, 4 noes, 1 abstention) was contentious; proponents argued the program is inefficient and reliant on a bloated seasonal workforce, while opponents highlighted the program's success in clearing blight and its value to underserved neighborhoods.
  • Amendment 14 (Rockwell Lease): Approved the removal of $425,390 for a proposed police station lease at Rockwell Avenue in 2026. Council members noted the preliminary nature of the consolidation plan but agreed to defer the funding for now.
  • Amendment 15 (Computer Devices): Approved a $500,000 decrease in funding for computer devices in the Department of Innovation and Performance. Councilperson Warwick abstained and expressed strong concern that cutting IT resources hinders basic city operations, while others supported the cut as a necessary belt-tightening measure.
  • Amendment 16 (Training & Conferences): Approved a decrease in funding for training and conference sponsorships in OMB.
  • Amendment 17 (Cleaning & Landscaping): Approved a decrease in funding for cleaning, landscaping, and litter can sensors in DPW.

City Council Operating Personnel Requests (Amendments 18-22)

  • Amendment 18 (Playground Project Manager): Approved a promotion for a playground team member from associate to project manager.
  • Amendment 19 (Transportation Demand Coordinator): Passed with a divided vote (4 ayes, 2 noes, 2 abstentions). This adds a position to replace expiring grant funding. Councilmembers debated the necessity of a new position versus existing vacancies.
  • Amendment 20 (Inspector III): Approved a new Inspector III position in Domi to replace a retiring "paving guru" on the paving team.
  • Amendment 21 (Litter Operations Coordinator): Passed (5 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstention). Sponsored by Councilperson Warwick to coordinate city-wide litter and illegal dumping efforts. Some members noted the role of a previous anti-litter coordinator was unclear but supported the new coordination efforts.
  • Amendment 22 (Operations Analyst): Approved swapping a program specialist for an operational performance analyst in DPW.

City Council Capital Amendments

  • Amendment 1 (Fleet Acquisition): Approved a $10 million increase to the pay-go funding for vehicle acquisition (complementary to Operating Amendment 1). This amendment was noted as contingent on a successful millage increase to fund the pay-go transfer legally; otherwise, it would not take effect.
  • Amendment 2 (Baldor Street Landslide): Approved a $220,000 bond deliverable for slope failure remediation by reducing urgent flood control funds. This is a critical first step to save approximately 12 homes in the South Side Slopes.
  • Amendment 3 (JAC Stack Roof): Approved a $250,000 bond deliverable for roof repairs at the JAC Stack pool concessions building.
  • Amendment 4 (Let It Go Street Repair): Approved a $150,000 bond deliverable for street repairs in the "Let It Go" area.
  • Amendment 5 (Neighborhood Business District Support): Approved a $1 million increase in pay-go funding to align with the operating budget increase for small business development.
  • Amendment 6 (Bus Shelters): Approved an $110,000 bond deliverable for bus shelter improvements, reducing asphalt replacement funds. Councilmembers expressed support for the safety and comfort of riders but some abstained regarding specific site locations.
  • Amendment 7: Struck by Council President Lavelle.

Key Outcomes

  • Passed: 23 out of 27 amendments passed, including most administrative corrections, infrastructure bond transfers, and specific personnel promotions.
  • Failed:
    • Administration Capital Amendment 1 was initially confused but clarified and passed.
    • Amendment 12 (Non-union COLA cut) failed decisively (5 no, 2 aye).
    • Amendment 9 (Postage) failed due to lack of a second.
  • Deferred/Unvoted: Administration Operating Amendment 2 (Vacancy allowances) was not voted on due to the recommendation against it.
  • Critical Contingencies: Several major financial decisions, particularly the $10 million fleet funding and the premium pay/utility increases, are effectively contingent on the approval of a millage tax increase during the upcoming Sunday special meeting. Without new revenue, the city faces a significant structural deficit.
  • Next Steps: Council President Lavelle announced a memo would be issued detailing the complex procedural steps required for Sunday's meetings, including the necessity of voting on the millage first before finalizing the budget amendments.

Meeting Transcript

Hello and welcome to the Pittsburgh City Council budget hearing for the line item vote. I'm Councilperson Erica Strasberger and I chair the committee on finance and law. And for this hearing, we will be going over all of the amendments that have been sent over by the mayor and council amendments to determine what amendments will be voted on during this Sunday special standing committees meeting. Councilperson. So each of you has a packet that has um amendments from I that's Councilperson Strasberger said the administration and from council members. Um the first uh the first page of the packet lists out the operating amendments sent over from the administration first, and then the capital amendments from the administration, and then the next page has the city council operating amendments, and uh the amendments proposed by council members for the capital budget will follow. So with that in in your packet, there's a number of of documents tabled together that kind of group those. Uh the first one is for the administration amendments. The first page is just kind of an overview of everything. Um, and then uh the details of the operating amendments and then the details of the capital amendments. And the next packet is the same exact thing, but for for the council sponsored amendments, uh, the first page is just an overview of each of them, and then the details for each individual one are in the the following pages of it. And then the last page you have is just the details for the capital budget amendments. And if you are ready. And so can it says on your summary to decrease the lifeguard allowance? Um to what is accurate? Yeah. Can you give us any details there? Because we have lived now the last five years, it's been quite the roller coaster with lifeguards and pools being able to open and close. So we want to make sure that we're not cutting that too closely, honestly, right? We don't want to make sure that we're not under budgeting for lifeguards because summer without your pool is a terrible thing. So I d the I mean the details may have been sent to me, but I am not um well-versed enough because this came from the administration, so unfortunately do not. We don't know why, or how do we have some? We do have Chief Cornell here to speak to any of the administration amendments. Just reassure us. I'm hoping. I'm hoping we are reassured. Patrick Cornell, Chief Financial Officer. I'm here to reassure you. Um so this was actually flagged to us by Director Vargas in the actual budget system in the Questica, the number was miskeyed. Uh what we typed in was 410974, and it is intended to be 241974. Uh and if you look at the outer years beyond that, it is that 240, 250,000 amount. Um, so it really is a correction uh from OMB. That is fantastic. I am reassured. That is thank you very much. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any further discussion on amendment one? All those in favor of administration operating amendment number one, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Amendment number two. Number two, to update various vacancy allowances and shift those funds into various premium pay allocation. This is a budget neutral move in 2026 and over the five-year forecast. So this particular amendment, um uh council members, um, some some council members uh such as council president Lavelle and I would be happy to speak with you one-on-one about this, but at this time, this particular amendment is not recommended and could be taken up again on Sunday if we choose, but for now, it is not recommended, and I'm gonna instruct our budget uh director to move on to capital amendments. I'm sorry, so there was no motion on the there was no motion. We do not need to take a vote um necessarily if uh uh if um uh if we choose number two summary, which so does it or does it not have rows on the spreadsheets? It does, and the in the that's so that we flip over that page that has the yellow bar, it's all of those rows make up uh increased variances, uh uh vacancy allowances. Okay, and for our I'm sorry, I know I'm just kind of confused here, but for following along with the summary page, which is super helpful.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com