Good morning and welcome to Pittsburgh City Council's public hearing on Saturday, December 20th, 2025, relative to the 2026 tax and budget amendments legislation.

Would the clerk please read the title of the bills?

Bill 2451.

Resolution authorizing the City of Pittsburgh to participate in applicable cooperative purchasing agreements for goods, materials, equipment, supplies, services, or construction as authorized by the Commonwealth Procurement Code, and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Law for the 2026 fiscal year.

Bill 2452, resolution providing for the letting of contracts and for the use of existing contracts for the purchase of materials, supplies, and equipment for city departments, and the maintenance, repair, rental, and or leasing rehabilitation, renovation, inspection, or servicing of city buildings and facilities, and for any miscellaneous services in and for any city departments and providing for the payment of the cost thereof for the 2026 fiscal year.

Bill 2453.03.

Bill 2461 Ordnance Amending the Pittsburgh Code Title II Fiscal Article 7, Business Related Taxes, Chapter 245, Earned Income Tax, Section 245.03, Declaration and Payment of Tax at Subsection D so as to fix the rate of interest on delinquent earned income tax for the year two thousand and twenty-six.

So as to fix the rate of interest on delinquent home rule tax for the year two thousand and twenty-six.

For the record, we're joined by Councilman Strasberger, Councilman Warwick, and Councilman Wilson is with us online.

And then we'll take testimony from Register Speakers.

Thank you, Council President.

Let me just pull this up.

Okay, this is um the same presentation that we gave council members a couple weeks ago to go over uh the the just a quick overview of the budget.

So quick agenda is to go over the five-year forecast and what uh the council budget office thinks is a realistic version of the five-year forecast with actual numbers that we pay out every year, and then to look at potential uh operating cuts to the budget and potential millage increase scenarios.

So this is the five-year forecast that was sent over in the mayor's operating budget, and you can see the operating results are positive in each of the years, and we stay within the threshold of the ten percent minimum fund balance as a percentage of expenditures.

Um our office has kind of brought up a lot over the past six weeks or so, it would save us just under three million dollars.

Then we looked at a few throughout the city.

A little bit more impactful here.

We looked at the five year forecast our way out of.

If we utility our way out of this, we had various options for millage increases.

So this shows options for a 30% increase or a 20% increase for 15 or 10.

Um the average residential property taxable value in the city of Pittsburgh is around 100,000.

So a 30% increase would increase uh the total bill by 246 dollars per year, or about $4.75 a week.

That it's also important to point that this does not take into account possible reductions to the assessed values of those properties for things like the homestead exemption or senior tax relief reductions.

So if you are a senior that uh qualifies for this and you own and live in your house and it's taxed at 100,000, that would actually drop the value, the taxable value down to 45,000 a year.

Uh so it would be somewhere closer to 140 increase um at a 30% millage increase.

So this is what the five-year forecast would look like with a 20% millage increase, but also not applying any of those cuts.

You can see that we are able to pay all of those bills that we highlighted as the most urgent and important to address first.

Uh you will have a positive operating result, and you will hit your fund balance uh percentage as uh as a percentage of expenditures in each of the years.

This doesn't take into account potential increases for um increased transfers to pay-go to pay for fleet and demos, which we sorely need.

Uh it still has the outer year increases to salaries for non-union employees at one or two percent in each of the years.

Uh and it still doesn't address things like um maintenance for vehicles, but a 20% increase, and we just showed this as an example.

This isn't a recommendation, we just wanted to put stuff out in front of you so you could take it in and digest it.

Um this would be able to get you to uh a balanced budget.

That was it.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Schlossberger.

May this is it possible for this?

We realized that this is these were really small numbers for this to be included as an attachment to the uh this budget hearing, this public hearing, as well as any relevant legislation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That director reflect we've also been joined by Councilman Sharlin.

We're now going to move on to testimony from our public speakers.

Once your name is called, please provide your restate your name, provide your neighborhood for the record.

You'll be given three minutes to speak.

After we have exhausted our list of registered speakers, we'll take comment from anyone else in chambers, and you will also be given one minute to speak.

Our first registered speaker is Daniel McCarthy.

Uh my name is Dan McCarthy.

I live in Shady Side, and I'm an organizer at Just Harvest.

Just Harvest works to address hunger in Allegheny County at the route through economic injustice and through a focus on public policy, food access, and community power.

I'm here today specifically in support of the proposed budget for the city's food justice fund.

The food justice fund has provided critical investment in food access and food security programs across the city, from grants to grassroots organizations and neighborhood programs to awards for community food banks.

The Food Justice Fund has provided both support and infrastructure for addressing hunger in Pittsburgh.

Just Harvest runs a fresh access program at farmers markets, which enables shoppers to use food stamps or SNAP, as well as credit or debit cards to purchase foods at farmers' markets.

Without this program, many SNAP recipients would have little to no access to farmers' markets and even less access to healthy and local foods.

For the first time this year, thanks to a grant from the Food Justice Fund, we were able to provide a snap match for the 2025 market season.

So the Snap Match provides a dollar for dollar match for shoppers using SNAP at eight farmers' markets in the city limits, including city parks and partner markets.

This program expands the amount of fresh nutritious and local grown food that shoppers can buy with their benefits, making markets more accessible and affordable.

The reason that I'm talking about this is because it's one of the many programs that was funded by the city.

And I wanted to give an example of the impact that we can have when the city invests in food access.

I mean, this year we saw a huge increase in SNAP transactions.

The East End market saw a 49% increase in SNAP reductions compared to last year.

So folks using SNAP had more money for the food budgets, and vendors and farmers saw much higher returns from their SNAP customers.

So this is a win-win for everyone.

The importance of food access and food security has been especially clear this year.

I think I don't need to remind you, but with the challenging economy with funding cuts from federal programs, a historic government shutdown, the delayed SNAP, more and more people are experiencing food insecurity and hunger in Pittsburgh today.

So clearly, the city's choice to invest in a food justice fund was vital and prudent.

The Snapmatch program was able to provide SNAP recipients at markets with emergency funds during the benefits pause, and as our communities together to support one another, the organizations that stepped up were also those that the city chose to invest in.

So without the proposed funding in this year's budget for the food justice fund, this fund won't be able to continue supporting anti-hunger measures when we really need them the most.

So I'd like to strongly urge the council to keep the proposed funding for the city's food justice fund and the park's budget.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Let the record foot Councilman Gross has also joined us online.

I also have a next speaker is Gabriel Mitch, which will be followed by Jamie Marie Christian.

Hi.

Um I'm following up Dan.

I'm Gabe Mitnik.

I live in Shady Side, and I'm here to ask the City Council to keep the Food Justice Fund alive.

I moved to Pittsburgh about a year and a half ago, and one of the things that's impressed me most about the city is all of its community organizations.

There are so many local groups here who gather here motivated not by profit but purely by love for their neighbors.

And it's a beautiful thing, and it's so crucial in making Pittsburgh a real city, like a massive interwoven community, and not just a place where 300,000 people happen to live near each other.

Since moving here, I've gotten to participate in organizations gathering around music, sports, meditation, religion, electoral politics, ballroom dancing, masala try, skateboarding, bicycle repair.

But the most important organizations here are those that gather around food.

When the city created the Food Justice Fund, it supported the one in five Pittsburghers who experience food insecurity.

But also it did that by funding 34 incredible local organizations, enabling people to gather at food distributions, workshops, soup kitchens, farmers' markets, and community gardens.

When Pittsburghers come together to feed one another, this is what makes Pittsburgh a city, a community.

Helping our neighbors, whether it's with our volunteer labor or our tax dollars, is our privilege and our responsibility.

On one last note, last month's SNAP fiasco made it abundantly clear that we cannot count on the federal government to help those in need.

As a city, we need to do it ourselves.

So I urge the council to keep the proposed budget for the food justice fund.

Let's feed our neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Jamie Christian, followed by Chris Beam.

Good morning, members of council.

It's so nice to see all of you again.

Uh happy holidays, and thank you for sharing your time and space with us this morning.

My name is Jamie Marie Christian.

Um I've been here many times before.

Um I'm the executive director and founder of Let Us Start Up the Beat Sustainability Collective, who has projects in Carrick and now Banksville, and also the owner of Gypsy T and Herb Company, which is now based in Southside as of this month.

Uh today I want to talk to you about something about that connects all of us our food, our land, and our health, and why the city of Pittsburgh Food Justice Fund along with land access for urban farmers and community gardens is not just important but essential for our future.

Food justice is about more than healthy access to food, or excuse me, access to healthy food.

It's about repairing systems that historically excluded communities from land ownership, economic opportunity, and environmental safety.

The Pittsburgh Food Justice Fund plays a critical role by investing directly in community-led solutions, supporting local growers, neighborhood gardens, and food producers who are building resilient food systems from the ground up.

Land access is the foundation of that work.

Urban farmers and community gardeners, excuse me, community gardeners cannot grow without secure, affordable access to land.

When cities prioritize land access, they empower residents to transform vacant or contaminated lots into productive spaces that feed people, create jobs, and restore ecosystems.

This is how local food systems take root, literally.

From an economic perspective, urban agriculture keeps its resources circulating locally.

Every dollar invested in our local food production supports small businesses, creates employment, and reduces dependence on long supply chains that are vulnerable to disruption.

The Food Justice Fund strengthens Pittsburgh's economy by ensuring that every food dollar benefits our communities, not just different distant corporations.

But perhaps most critical is the excuse me about this work is the ecological and public health uh sustainability.

Many urban soils, especially in post-industrial cities like Pittsburgh, are contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium.

These toxins don't just sit in our ground.

They enter our foods, our food, our water, and our bodies.

Research increasingly links heavy metal exposure to autoimmune conditions, neurological disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases.

This is not an abstract issue.

It is a public health crisis rooted in environmental neglect.

Urban farmers and community gardeners are at the front of the soil remediation throughout the practices like raise beds, uh, phytoremediation, composting, organic soil management, reduce tox the reduced oxygen exposure, and rebuild the soil biology and create a safer growing environment.

So I ask you today, please take these two subjects into consideration when you are choosing uh what to approve in your budget.

Thank you and happy holidays.

Thank you.

We have Chris Bean followed by Faith Mews.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Um, I just don't want to take too much of your time.

Thank you so much for listening to this hearing and allowing us to give our voice to help get this budget passed.

Um I want to thank Council President Lovell for proposing um a temporary reduction and stop the balance funds while still making sure it's fully funded for the upcoming year.

Um I love the idea of reallocating some of that money to the URA for the small business support program and for using the rest of that money for um fleet maintenance and purchasing your vehicles.

Um I want to thank you so much for your deliberation.

If anybody from Allegheny County Council is listening, um please do a reassessment so that we stop needing to do uh these hikes.

Um the most equitable way of raising taxes is for us all to pay our fair share on fairly assessed properties.

And right now we're kind of just distorting our old 2012 property assessments.

So I would love for the county to actually fix this problem.

Um the state can fix it too by forcing us to do a reassessment.

But I also want to encourage um city council um not to do a full 30% knowledge increase, but to try and find your way to something a little more manageable, like what budget director Pete McDebitt proposed of 20%.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

We have Faith Mews, followed by Chris Parsnik.

Um, good afternoon.

My name's Faith Muse.

Um I'm from the Mount Washington neighborhood.

Um I am opposed to this 30% property tax increase.

Um, we as the working class in the city are always constantly footed with every increase this city has, whether it be for the deficit to help, uh deficit help, or other things you need.

With this tax increase, people will leave the city even more than we already are, and lower income people have nowhere to go.

Um I'm already living paycheck to paycheck.

Um renters will foot this through a rent increase with our landlords as well.

Our city needs to make things like UPMC pay their fair share, and universities like Duquesne, Pitt, and CMU foot said bill.

Not us working class folk.

Because if the time comes and more and more people are on the street, we all know how the city and county treats them.

This city deserves better than people proposing 30% property tax increase on us, the working class, and people taking money for trips.

I understand that we need money for various services, as we've seen with these last two snowfalls that were predicted.

But in as we have no preparation, but we are putting all this on to us while we are sitting on so many untaxed organizations is unfair to all of us who work in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let the record reflect.

We've been joined by Councilman Mosley as well as Council Councilwoman Councilwoman Kiel Smith, excuse me.

Uh we have Chris Parsnik, followed by John Kett.

Hi, um, my name is Chris Parzick.

Uh, I'm a resident of um 31st award.

I'm calling in today uh to oppose the uh councilwoman Warwick's 30% property tax increase proposal.

Uh this amount seems unreasonable to me to put all the burden on the uh property owners of the city of Pittsburgh to balance your budget.

The city of Pittsburgh left state oversight of its budget less than 10 years ago, and we now find ourselves in the precarious position.

This is an embarrassment to the outgoing gaming administration and for city council.

The city controller is here report in May warning of financial issues with the city.

And has issued numerous reports before that about COVID money running out, and nothing seems to have been done up to that period of time.

Here we are less than two weeks away from the end of the year to balance the budget.

Mayor Ganey lost his primary in May.

Almost six months have passed since then.

We should have known that he would give a budget to uh unrealistic budget to try to brighten his image on its way out the door.

Council President Lavelle asked City Department leaders about cuts of 5%.

This seems reasonable to me.

Um to go along with a more balanced approach to try to balance this budget instead of just a 30% hike of property taxes on the city of Pittsburgh residents.

Share pain needs to be considered, not just cuts, but uh additional revenues needed, but again, shared pain needs to be considered.

As the previous speaker has noted.

Also, my last point is I hope that the city council will work with the new O'Connor administration on ways to get more money from the big five nonprofits, CMU, Duquesne University, UPMC, and alligating health network, which make up over 20% with other nonprofits of all property in the city of Pittsburgh.

The ganging approach of trying to sue these organizations has not worked and has only recovered about 90,000 more dollars in successful property challenges.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have John Katz followed by Gregory Daly.

Is John Katz with us?

If not, we'll move on to Gregory Daly followed by Stormy Morris.

Mr.

Daly, you're still on mute.

We can come back to Mr.

Daly.

So we have Stormy Morris, followed by Alita Hermanowski.

Hi, Pittsburgh City Council.

Um, I oppose the tax hike, but I know it might be necessary.

But it seems like every time there's a crisis in Pittsburgh, the taxpaying citizens have to suffer.

I say target the ones who come here and take advantage of a hospitality because they can.

That's where the shortfall is.

Investigate programs that are not clear on who they are giving money to and services to, and people who double team services because they know no one is going to question it, and stop hiring friends and families for jobs that they are not qualified for.

Pittsburgh is a great town.

I've been homeless once in Pittsburgh, but I can honestly tell you I've never seen a homeless immigrant.

Thank you.

Hi.

I've owned and lived in a commercial property in Bloomfield for the past 20 years.

I'm opposed to the City of Pittsburgh property tax increase of 30%.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, affordable housing and the rising cost of living are serious problems in Pittsburgh and throughout the country.

I believe that everyone deserves safe, decent, affordable housing.

I've always offered it to my tenants because it's the right thing to do.

The cost of electricity, water, liability, and homeowners insurance has also increased significantly in the past few years.

Allegheny County taxes already went up 36% this year.

I still haven't raised the rent, but if you raise these taxes 30%, I'll have no choice next year.

When Sarah Anamorado was running for county executive, she said she was going to make commercial property owners pay their fair share.

I emailed her and ex and to ask what that meant and explained that large tax increases would hurt small property owners and renters, while large real estate developers who aren't even from the area get enormous tax breaks while gouging people with high rent and ridiculous fees.

No one from her campaign ever bothered replying.

Not everyone who's a landlord or owns property is wealthy.

People are struggling.

Not to mention that the city is losing billions in property tax revenue because UPMC is a supposed nonprofit.

They pay almost nothing while overcharging people for essential medical care, paying their CEO tens of millions, and buying up prime real estate in Western Pennsylvania.

The property taxes they pay could easily make up for the budget shortfall.

As a lifelong liberal, I'm sick of lip service from politicians who talk about people paying their fair share.

This worn-out cliche actually promotes policies that cause rents to rise and makes it more difficult for low-income and working class people to find affordable housing.

Find somewhere else to get this money.

Make UPMC universities and other fake nonprofits pay their fair share.

There's plenty of wasteful spending that could be eliminated in our local state governments as well.

For example, there are two brand new unused fire trucks worth $600,000 sitting in a garage in Mount Washington because they're defective and the piping doesn't fit existing equipment.

This is just one example of why people are disillusioned.

It seems like no one at any level of government cares at all.

I know I'm very fortunate and I'm grateful for what I have every day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Bailey Passano, followed by Icahana Hal Malkina.

You have just a few short weeks in the end of the calendar year to figure out where tens of millions of dollars is going to come from in our budget, and that is not easy.

On one hand, the federal dollars that have bolstered our budget in free in recent years have expired, and city property taxes have not increased in over a decade.

On the other hand, residents are in a world of rising financial pain.

Water and electric bills have been rising in double digits year over year.

Our county property taxes were given a massive jolt last year of 36% in one year.

Overall in the economy, prices are rising because of tariffs, unemployment are rising, and Pennsylvanians getting their health care from penny are going to see their monthly premiums go from hundreds of dollars a month to possibly thousands of dollars a month.

There are households hanging on by their fingernails that don't have that extra five dollars a week.

I won't mince words.

A 30% property tax hike for people is disastrous.

It is a bill for people losing their homes.

It's too much.

Houses are for people.

Let's try to keep people in them.

I'm going to take my last minute and shine some sunlight on numbers I'm sure the council is familiar with, the four largest nonprofits in Pittsburgh, HighMark, UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, and CMU, if they were not exempt by law from almost all of their property taxes.

In recent years, they would have paid well over 30 million dollars.

We are short tens of millions of dollars in our budget.

The big four have received a $30 million tax break.

Something isn't lining up.

HIMARC has pledged to contribute a few percentage points to the initiative of payments in lieu of taxes, but only if the other ones do it too.

UPMC has been conspicuously silent on the pilot program.

I know that City Council does not have levers to impel them to contribute, but perhaps 2026 is the year we shine the sun on fiscal fairness.

The business models of these enormous nonprofits bear evaluation because there is an extraction of wealth that residents are footing the bill for.

Please do not vote for a 30% tax hike.

I know that City Council is working with the levers they have in their power.

Thank you for what you're doing.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joel Malloy, followed by Laura Chu Wines.

Hello, my name is Joel Malloy.

I'm a citizen of CARIC.

And I'm speaking on behalf of the continuation of the funding of the Food Justice Fund.

Um I'm speaking on this because I have a myriad of concerns.

Um the most pressing ones come from data that has uh been shared by the uh Jefferson Regional Foundation just yesterday, actually, nearly 16 percent of households.

It's 15,000 families within the service of the Allegheny Health Network, Jefferson Hospital or recipients of SNAP benefits.

Uh communities such as Clarendon, Duquesne, uh Elizabeth Borough, Homestead, McKeesport, West Elizabeth.

Um, in these communities, more than 25 percent of the households utilize SNAP.

Um, as well as two uh sorry.

As of uh 2024, uh food insecurity affects one in uh three black neighbors, one or four Latino neighbors, one in five children, and one in eight neighbors overall.

Uh this represents a twenty-five percent increase over the previous year, uh, according to the Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank.

Um, and even more concerning 10 percent uh of an increase in food security among children.

Um, you know, as of April of last year, uh the Greater Pittsburgh Food Bank uh distributed in April of last year, they distributed more pounds of food than they did in any month of the pandemic, um, which to me is pretty significant.

Uh this was before the government shut down and its effect on SNAP benefits, the consequences of which are still being felt to this day as many people have had to fall back on their other financial obligations uh just to put food on the table.

Um so in other words, we're not out of the woods, we're entering them.

Uh the big beautiful bill, reduced SNAP benefits, will reduce SNAP benefits by 20 percent over the next 10 years, which is the largest reduction in the history of the program.

Um, and even if we don't consider the blow to SNAP, we still have to consider the growing inflation, rising costs of rent rent, which is you know up 50 percent in Pittsburgh since 2019, which is the largest increase of any major city in the country.

You know, the astronomical health care costs thanks to the ACA cuts, um, as well as stagnation of wages, you know, under these conditions, folks literally will not be able to put food on the table.

Um my concern is somebody who's lived in this city, you know, my whole life.

You know, I've committed to volunteering in my free time, and I come face to face with the growing inequity on a daily basis as I, you know, try to give what little I can here and there to the homeless that I you know see on the street, um, which are growing, you know, it's a growing number of homeless out there.

Um, you know, we're staring down the barrel of a famine in a society that throws away 40 percent of food year to year.

Uh, you know, to fill up we have to fill up the gap left by the our federal government.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

We have Laura True Wines followed by Ralph Socoro.

Is Laura with us?

I don't see you.

All right, so we have Ralph Socorro followed by Patrick Thomas Stack.

Morning, Council President, members of council.

My name is Ralph Socorro.

I reside in the Banksville section of the city.

I'm here to speak about two issues today.

Uh resolution 2455, uh fixing the number of city employees for 2026 and the proposed 30 percent tax increase.

First, resolution 2455 as written.

The resolution does not accurately reflect the current staffing levels of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire, which currently stands at 696.

If adopted in this form, the city will exceed the authorized number of firefighters January 1, the first day takes effect.

The Fire Bureau is a 24-7 public safety operation.

Staffing levels are not arbitrary numbers on a spreadsheet.

They determine response times, firefighter safety, and the city's ability to meet basic duty to protect life and property.

Council should not approve a staffing ordinance that already out is out of compliance the moment becomes law.

This resolution must correlate to the reflect the actual number of firefighters currently employed and needed to safely staff the Bureau.

Second, the issue of the proposed 30 percent tax increase projected to generate 41 million dollars in additional revenue.

My comments today are not about whether council should or should not advance this proposal.

My concerns are about how new any new revenue, if approved, will translate into real measurable improvements, particularly in a fire bureau's fleet.

The uh Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire has identified significant and well-documented apparatus funding gaps, approximately $30 million for 2026, $22 million for 2027, and 20 million dollars for 2028.

These figures reflect long-standing replacement and maintenance needs to meet the accumulated uh that has accumulated over time.

Given the city's history of deferred fleet investment, it is reasonable to ask what processes, safeguards, and funding structures will put in place to ensure any additional unrestricted revenue results in a reliable uh fire apparatus, improved response capabilities, and enhance public safety outcomes.

Clear plans, timelines, and accountable measures uh are not a policy decision, but they are supposed meant to be transparent and provide confidence to residents, property owners, businesses, and visitors that critical public safety needs will be addressed in sustainable ways.

As council considered these revenue proposals, I respectfully encourage them to also require clear, enforceable strategies for fire fleet investment so that future funding decisions are matched with measurable results and long-term public safety benefits.

Thank you very much.

And before that, my grandparents.

Like to point out that some of these expenses this administration has put at the forefront of our future.

Again, I'm not against arts or public programs or helping the less fortunate.

I am pointing out that this administration put these programs before the priorities of the expectations of the average citizen, the average taxpayer, that someone show up when they call 91, plow our streets, maintain the roads and infrastructure, and take out the garbage.

These should be priorities before social agendas and special programs.

public programs or helping the less fortunate I am pointing out that this may uh uh administration put these programs before the priorities of the expectations of the uh average citizen uh the average taxpayer that someone show up when they call 91 plow our streets maintain the roads and infrastructure and take out the garbage these should be priorities before social agendas and special programs I would hope if this is increases passed priorities should be responsible responsibly allocated to the needs of the city of Pittsburgh thank you very much I'm gonna go back to some of the individuals who are online Gregory Daly Yes sir yes sir how are you doing today council we are well you can proceed I'm already um mine is more or less uh true to help so that we can check into some funding because I'm not not in agreement with any of these tax races uh there's one source that nobody has ever thought about trying to find out where are the monies going to they've already been approved so it's not something you gotta have to go and have uh somebody go investigated or whatever that way but the sports betting with your defend what is it fan bell and all the different ones you can call into all the money should be going into there's absolutely no control over any kind of tax money so that was one of the things I wanted to call in that maybe somebody can go and try to look into it and see what's going on with it how to get uh some of that money because they're just walking away with all the figures that it's all 100% profit to them and nothing to any of the taxpayers which was already set up years and years and years ago when the gambling came into a stuff and the other thing was it has to do with the nonprofits uh somebody can go and see what they can do even if they go and put a a dollar on every card that goes and parks in their parking lot extra that we can get I think that would be a big help thank you very much and I do appreciate you taking the time out thank you we will try Icahanaha Malkina again if not we'll proceed to Laura to weights or wines here can you hear me?

Yes we can oh thank you I'm sorry I wasn't able to get off mute earlier.

My name is Laura Shew Weens I'm speaking first as a resident of uh Park Place at 7731 Edgerton Avenue um I don't have uh strongly prepared my remarks today but I will say that I and my neighbors in Park Place and Point have been reaching out to our council member uh Kahari Mosley um to say that even though many of us are not rich don't have a lot of disposable income we are people that really they care about our neighbors and care about fully funding our city so that you know our uh DPW has enough trucks so that they are able to um uh plow the streets that that our after school programs can be fully funded that the housing opportunity fund can be fully funded because we know that when services are cut that it harms our most vulnerable community members um and so we strongly support and I strongly support um uh the passage of the councilwoman Warwick's tax increase because I don't think we can sustain a city of cuts uh rather than uh ensuring that our our city is is actually getting enough revenue to be fully funded so I wanted to say that first um uh as with my Pittsburgh is Republic transit hat on I will just thank uh council members for supporting the the uh the effort to pass a budget that includes funding for the partner pass so that city employees can um have an affordable that they will have access to public transit um uh way to commute and is it as an incentive as an employer um for for downtown workers to take public transit it's also a way to show that the city is is is modeling the kind of behavior we want to see from all developers and employers particularly with those with the best access to transit in our our region um and uh the partner pass is a very very affordable um mechanism for for making that happen so really grateful for the support of council um in passing that and um and excited to see how it changes um travel behavior and also uh shows other employers what it's like to be uh a a a great employer in in the city of Pittsburgh so thank you thank you now we have Amy Zeiss followed by Forrest Ketterson good morning can you hear me?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Now we have Amy Zeiss, followed by Forrest Ketterson.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

My name is Amy Zace.

I live in the Beachview community at 1305 Orangewood Avenue.

Um I'll try to be brief today.

I wanted to first um thank council for working so hard.

I can't imagine anybody besides um city workers and uh service workers who are working so hard at this time of year, and I do not envy your position in trying to bring a balanced budget into fruition.

Um I think that this uh episode highlights the need to perhaps reform the way the budget is done.

Um it's very frustrating to hear the Gainey administration argue that this is a balanced budget when it is clearly not.

Um I want to thank uh council president Lavelle specifically for um introducing the idea of limiting some of the stop the violence fund.

Um if there's funds that can be used to keep operations running, uh we need to exhaust those first.

Um I want to speak as somebody who just purchased a home uh just barely a year ago.

I'm really happy to invest in Pittsburgh and make it my home.

Um, but I'm well aware that I pay a higher tax level than most of my neighbors due to lack of reassessment, and I urge this council to consider continue pushing our county level to enact a um countywide reassessment.

Um that would be the fairest way in order to um ask for more is to make sure everybody is paying their fair share in the first place.

So as a newcomer, I um who believes in the city.

Sure, if you want me to pay an extra five dollars a month, um I want to do that.

I want the city to uh keep running all the snow plows and all the operations it needs.

However, I urge you to consider you know the burden that people like myself are already under, and Pittsburgh particularly, I think is at a precipice.

Um as uh McDevitt said, we can't cut our way out of this.

We need to grow revenue, which means uh growing residence, and for Pittsburgh to remain attractive, we need to uh retain our core services.

I am concerned about uh lack of funding for the land bank in particular, and um our fleet, which is in dire need of repair, um, and additionally, the need for um uh uh teardowns and demolitions throughout the city.

It's uh an issue that uh the past few years.

Thank you.

We have Forrest Ketterson followed by Xander Paske.

Good afternoon, members of council.

My name is Forrest Kesterson, and I live in Carrick.

Back in 2013, Just Harvest and the Post Gazette collaborated on a series about areas of food insecurity in Pittsburgh.

John Allison, uh postgazette editor at the time, talked about the study in various interviews on KDK TV, KDK TV and radio.

And I recall talking about the series of the local priest, and I said to him, this is a major problem.

I should do something about it.

Maybe I should start a farm.

It was a nice lofty idea, but I knew it was impractical.

And so I went to plan B instead.

I started volunteering with Just Harvest and the Fresh Access Program that Dane McCarthy has described to you.

Again, the Fresh Access Program enables farmers' markets, shoppers to use their food stamps as well as credit and debit cards to buy fresh, nutritious, and locally produced food.

I volunteer on a regular basis at Northside and the Market Square Farmers Markets, and sometimes at the Squirrel Hill Farmers Market.

And I give the shoppers the tokens they use to purchase from vendors.

Now this year we started the Snap Match program, which doubles the food stamps folks spend at the market.

And the program expands our families' food budget, and it makes it more likely that SNAP recipients shop at farmers markets and increase the sales for vendors.

It's a win-win for everyone.

And let me tell you, this was a lifesaver for a lot of customers during the government shutdown.

And again, this successful program was funded by the uh city's food justice fund.

And I'm here to urge the council to keep the investment in the food justice fund proposed in this year's budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alexander Paskey, followed by Mel Packer.

Good afternoon.

My name is Xander Paskey, and I am a landlord and resident of the Strip District.

Over the last few years, we have seen multiple new apartments and condo buildings go up in our neighborhood.

At the same time, the terminal went up, introducing massive chains like Starbucks and Chipotle that complete that compete directly with local businesses.

As all of this has happened, costs have risen dramatically for me to maintain my properties.

I'm lucky enough to oversee some of the historic townhouses that make this area beautiful.

Maintenance and utilities as well as other expenses are a larger and larger drain on my bottom line, and these property taxes are just another nail in the coffin that forces me to price out more and more potential tenants from these homes just to break even.

Recently, this city has approved of plans to install bike lanes along Penn Avenue, which disrupt the commute of many of my local residents as well as business owners in the area.

And soon, by next year, they plan to expand parking meters down the down all the way to 31st Street.

With these further disruptions and now the threat of a property tax hike, I worry that my city has become plagued with a broader market trend of pardon my language, inshitification, in which costs are raised and quality of life is degraded.

I would never sell any of my properties to any major developers.

I value the integrity of my neighborhood and I work hard to keep it beautiful.

But I do worry that with more and more hardships and expense increases, other homeowners in the area will not have the stomach to continue, and more and more of uh of them, and small businesses, owners, anybody.

People that I see now throughout my day will be swallowed up by massive corporate interests who don't care about the people that they service, who don't care about the community, who don't care about this great city of Pittsburgh.

Ask that you please consider all of this when making your decision on any future legislation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mel Packer, followed by Aaron Bergen.

All right, I'm on.

Hi, I'm Mel.

You got me?

Yes.

All right, hi, I'm Mel Packer.

I live in Point Breeze.

I think a lot of us are not being terribly honest about what's going on here.

Our body has metastatic cancer.

It's in every organ we have.

Chopping a piece of it here, a piece of it there, cutting here and cutting there is not gonna stop the spread of this cancer if we don't attack the whole thing.

And that unfortunately is probably gonna mean a tax increase.

That may be a very it is a very unpopular position amongst some of my neighbors of Point Brees, and it's truly an unpopular position amongst some people who are the progressive left, of which I'm proud to be a member.

But I'm facing facts here.

Emily, my wife and Emily DeFerrari live in a six-bedroom brick house in Point Breeze that's probably valued today to $800,000.

Well, you're assessed at $238.

That is absurd.

We are not paying our fair share.

Yes, we get a break for the sea of citizens, but we're not paying our fair share, and neither are a lot of my neighbors who may not like me saying it, but the people who can afford to buy houses on our neighborhood for six or seven hundred thousand dollars can also afford to pay more taxes.

The facts we in the city is broke.

Pie and sky answers are not going to help us.

Focusing on one cut over another is not going to help us.

Yes, we should tax the nonprofits who beat the we should beat the hell out of UPMC, frankly.

We should end the war budget.

That's federal.

Yes, we should end development grants and tax breaks, but it's not happening tomorrow.

We are two, three weeks away from next year's budget and from and how we operate during the coming year.

So until the lava gets there, we need to fix potholes, we just need to plow streets, we need our city services, we need raises to service workers.

I talked to my trash collection folks.

Their contract is terrible.

They need to raise, they deserve a raise.

We need aid to those most in need.

We need transit subsidies as Laura spoke about.

There's no magic here.

This is not going to change for the new administration.

You can do all the finger point you would want, and some have done that.

It will not change the facts on the ground that the city is broke, and we're coming into a period where we need more revenues.

And we're coming into a period where we need more revenues.

Revenues should not come from just taxpayers.

I agree.

Whatever increase we do, and I think 30% is too much, but I would live with the 20%.

Whatever increase we do, we have to find some way to spare those who honestly cannot afford that.

But the facts of life are that many of us in some neighborhoods can afford a tax increase, whether we like to admit it or not.

Any business that had the dismal forecast that was read at the beginning of this meeting will say we have to raise prices to make some profits.

We don't have prices.

We have taxes.

That's all we have.

We have to find a way to get my brother news in the city, or this medicatic cancer is going to eat us up, whether we like it or not, as services will decline and the reputation of the city will further decline if we can't provide those basic services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aaron Burgeon, followed by English Spurtson.

Hi, my name is Aaron Bergen.

I'm a Homewood resident, a public school teacher, a single mom, and a homeowner.

I've been waiting for once nearly half a decade for the Homewood pool to reopen.

And I understand deeply how parks and recreation directly impact every aspect of our lives and futures.

My neighbors and I have had limited access to recreational things in the summertime, and this would um a tax increase would frankly be able to fund our pools and keep things open and accessible to all neighborhoods, which is something that we desperately need.

I don't have a ton of discretionary funding in my own personal budget, but I am happy to take a 30% tax increase if that means that my neighbors and my child can go to the pool in the summer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

English Burden, followed by Addy Lord.

Afternoon, Council.

My name is English Burton, a co-founder and uh deputy director of North South Partnership Project.

I'm here in opposition to 2457.

Um currently, man, you know, the stop the balance grant, you know, a community investment grant, it serves, you know, like a whole array, man, you know, community groups.

Now I'd like for you to think where would this town be without the compassion, the passionate, and the willingness, man, of these groups, man, to do this work.

You know, all that comes into play.

But sometimes, man, you just need hard dollars, man, to get this work done.

You know?

And what I'm saying is this is that if we don't have, man, the funds to continue this work, you know.

Think about where the city is gonna be.

You know, and I know a lot of y'all sitting at these tables, man.

You understand I'm saying, don't live in low and modern income neighborhoods like a lot of us do.

You know, in balance, man, that hits this town, hits a lot of us a lot closer than it does you.

You know?

So what I'm saying is this, you know, is that like the stop the balance funds, we need them, man, the relevant stuff, you know.

And it's only a small part of the budget, man.

So I'm against transferring, reappropriating, tampering in any kind of way with the stop the balance community investment fund money.

You know, the lady up here, she was talking about she'd never seen a homeless immigrant.

I see them every night.

You know, we averaging, man, a hundred, a hundred and fifty man homeless people at night in my facility.

You know, uh a lot of them are immigrants, you know.

Uh so the food insecurities, everything that people spoke about, you know.

That's all relevant stuff.

You know, but mostly, man, I want to concentrate, man, on the stop the balance money because it's relevant, it's necessary, man, and this town needs it.

You know, I mean, we're done come a long way, man, to heal some of the stuff, man, that ailed us.

You know, we can't stop now.

It's just like, man, you know, like stopping man, you know, like your recovery man in the middle of it.

You know, you don't do that.

You have to continue, man, straight on down the line till you get to the end.

We ain't saying, man, we're gonna cure this thing.

You know, but we definitely gonna put a dent in it.

You know, and we can't do that, man, if we don't have the proper funds.

Thank you for letting me share.

We have Addie Lord, followed by Casey Brown.

Hello, council.

Um, thank you for having a public hearing today.

Um, I'm Addy Lord from Greenfield.

Uh, and as a relatively wealthy Pittsburger, uh, I believe deeply that we're responsible for one another, and that uh unfortunately the buck is currently held by you.

And when we zoom out to what our government situation looks like at the federal, state, and county level, we know that you only have so many tools in your tool belt to use to get us a balanced budget.

When I hear about our food justice fund or stop the violence, I know that they seem like easy targets because they get a lot of criticism.

But what I see on the ground is that we're building community through those and in ways that neighbors who might not be interacting with one another are, and that makes us safer as a city.

Um I really hope that you do look at all of the human services, whether that is parks and wreck, which I think is a vital part of our communities, the number of people I'm lucky to live across from one of the pools.

Uh the number of people I've met just because I live there is incredible to me, but that has also meant that when I had a neighbor whose house was on fire, he was more comfortable with me and other neighbors because he knew us.

Um then that could also leave our fire department to take care of his house at that time.

There are I have thousands of stories about neighbors that I have met because of the senior center lunches or any number of things.

Um I know that as much as I would love for our big nonprofits to be hit, you only have so many options for that as well.

Um so I hope that your advocacy in the background with our state government to try to shift that uh with the county government to see a new uh and universal assessment, continue that work, and in the meantime, if it means that we have to uh not cut our way out of this, as Mr.

McDevitt said, uh, because we can't, I think that a raise in the taxes is clearly what you have available to you.

I'd also suggest I think one of the other difficult things is that our state constitution doesn't allow for progressive taxes, uh, which I would love personally to be able to pay pay my fair share that wouldn't be hitting uh other Pittsburghers in the same way.

Um maybe one of the options could be a capital gains tax, where most Pittsburghers who do not have investments or other uh options aren't going to be hit the same way as I might by selling investments that I'm holding.

Um but I hope that one way or another uh you are able to balance this budget like many people don't envy you.

I'm sorry it stands with you.

But um as a citizenry, I hope that we can also put pressure on other levels of government while you're standing here trying to figure out how to make this work.

But I appreciate that you are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Casey Brown, followed by Harvey Holtz.

Hey y'all, my name is Casey, and I live in friendship.

I am here because I have very high rent and a 30% increase in our city's property taxes are gonna make everything substantially worse.

I am here to strongly urge you to vote no.

Nonprofits take so much from our community, and they give so little back.

Think about what health insurance is doing to us.

They're plundering us.

They're a middleman.

They have no place going on touched while every single crisis you come and you ask more and more and more of us.

Nonprofits like UPMC, we often talk about them like, oh, they're driving this huge economic growth in this city.

But growth for who?

We have seen this massive growth.

At the same time, we've seen massive gentrification in South Oakland, in East Liberty, in Lawrenceville.

People are being displaced from their homes and their communities.

People are being people will be slammed by higher valuations in these places.

Once that inevitably happens, and we're going to have this property tax on top of that.

Renters have already seen huge increases.

$500 in the past five years.

This process will accelerate with a property tax increase.

You are telling poor people, sorry, pack your bags, move to another neighborhood, or get out of the city.

You have no right to tell poor people that.

Yeah, you come up here and you make excuses.

The Democratic Party is the excuses party.

Up from Joe Biden during those four years to the state legislature to you.

They claim this tax increase is for city services.

What city will be left?

Are you kidding me?

Every single member of this council should be working around the clock to make nonprofits pay.

If I were you, I would be humiliated.

We also need to address the police budget.

Despite police vehicles driving 6,800 miles less than the average city vehicles, they are getting 41 million dollars a year in replacement and upgrades.

Of course, that means further militarization.

And their police cars.

This is because they have a two to five year replacement schedule compared to at least five for the rest of the city fleet.

That means it's going to the police and not your snowplows.

In addition, the police over time have totaled 5.4 million by September.

That is an almost 37% increase compared to last year.

We need a party of and for the working class.

We need to ditch this party of excuses.

We have oh, Miss Holtz.

So we'll have Harvey Holtz followed by Russell Dreyer.

Oh, let the brother reflect, Council McCocky will join us a while ago.

Sorry.

Good morning, City Council.

Good morning to all.

Again, I'm Harvey Holtz from East Liberty.

I'm a proud member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and Jewish Voice for Peace.

And for those old enough to remember, bump bump, bump, bump.

Have speech, will travel.

Nobody.

Okay.

There are five options the Pittsburgh City Council and the mayor could take to counter the proposed egregious across the board tax increase that would wound the working class, the poor minorities, and leave capital untouched.

But before I go to those, I must say that the council has shown courage, not only on the issue of unfair property taxes, but on the issue of the earned income tax, one that excluded a tax on the rich.

For your past challenges, I commend you.

I'd say more, but you only give me three minutes.

You have all the time in the world to extol your virtues.

So I suggest that you need to be more aggressive in cutting programs that do not harm working people.

Now you can be more aggressive with so-called nonprofits.

One deny them city permits and zoning exceptions.

I believe you have that power.

Revoke their city grants and deny them the use of public facilities.

I believe you have that power.

And be stronger in opposing nonprofit status.

And of course, tax exempt status.

And finally, this would be wonderful.

Declare eminent domain over their properties.

Take an example.

UPMC.

It damages Pittsburgh.

Their monopoly squeezes out competition, suppresses wages of tax unions.

They understand hospitals, hurt workers and patients, charge punitive patient costs, hold billions of dollars in property while denying Pittsburgh taxes is owed and needs to function.

I think you need, and you've done some of this before, you need to build a movement that transcends council.

So we might fight together, the people of Pittsburgh and Council against these transactions against the working people.

Most broadly, I think we could have three goals, one short term, others long.

Immediately rid yourselves of the outrageous 30% tax increase, and implement a fair tax.

That on capital gains, on interest, on dividends, things that the rich would pay.

There's no tax.

Income tax on the rich.

As all these things, this is a class war.

I can explain more fully.

But whose side are you on?

Russell Dryer, followed by Gina Polaris.

Paula.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good afternoon, President Lavell and members of council.

My name is Russell Dreyer, and I'm a Bloomfield resident.

I would like to speak today on the issue of affordability.

Because affordability is not an abstract concept to the people of Pittsburgh.

It is a daily lived reality.

Raising taxes is a hardship on seniors living on fixed incomes.

It is a strain on working families, already juggling rent or mortgage payments, utilities, child care, transportation, and health care.

It is a deterrent to small businesses trying to survive in an already challenging economic climate.

Pittsburgh residents have already paid dearly into the system through property taxes, burnt income taxes, fees, assessments, and rising costs driven by years of inflation.

They have upheld their end of the social contract.

They should not now be asked to bail out the failures of this council or successive administrations to align spending with reality.

Affordability demands discipline.

Affordability demands prioritization.

And most certainly affordability demands accountability.

It is not affordable governance to expand programs without sustainable funding.

It is not affordable governance to underestimate known costs and then turn to taxpayers at the 11th hour.

And it is not affordable governance to treat a tax increase as a first option rather than the last resort.

A tax increase pushes families out of neighborhoods they have lived in for generations.

It erodes trust between residents and their government.

Does this council believe affordability is truly a core value?

Then the conversation must begin with spending restraint, operational reform, and structural solutions, not higher taxes.

That means asking hard questions.

Are we funding core services first?

Are we measuring outcomes or just expanding line items?

Are there redundancies, inefficiencies, and non-essential expenditures that have gone untouched?

Residents should not be punished because of the failures of City Hall.

I urge this council to reject the false choice between fiscal responsibility and compassion.

True compassion is protecting residents from policies that make their lives harder.

True leadership is saying no to unsustainable spending before asking families for more.

Affordability must be more than a talking point.

It must be the standard by which every vote in this chamber is judged.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Gina Paulis, followed by Michael Scotto.

We see you're off the new, but we can't hear you if you're trying to talk about the We'll come back to you, Gina.

We have Joseph Pegger, followed by Madeline McGrady.

Yes, we can.

My name is Joe Pegger, and I live in Greenfield.

I'm a lifelong Pittsburgh resident.

City residents have strong determination to live in a city for many reasons.

But most of all, they truly love the city.

Lately, though, it would be more accurate to say they love what the city used to be.

Each incident like the tragic one in Carrick yesterday and others hardened our hearts a little more and cause that love to hang on by a threat.

Changes and mismanagement over the last few years in the city of Pittsburgh are the reason for this.

The budget and basic services are the responsibility of city council.

When it's not being done properly, it's your job to fix it.

You are our watchdogs.

You're expected to produce results, not excuses.

When I don't meet my results, I would call into my boss's office and ask what my plan is to improve.

That's why I'm choosing to speak here today.

The list of the city's problems are well documented.

We have infrastructure and policing issues.

We have homeless issue and downtown crime issue, vehicle problems.

We have a C school system that recently published they only have 44% of third graders that can read proficiently.

The easiest thing to do is to raise taxes and throw money at the problem.

But lack of money isn't the problem, it's an effective spending of that money.

I'm not naive.

And I realize you're probably going to raise taxes no matter what people say here today.

Please stop the political games and be honest and realistic with the numbers with your constituents.

I urge you to find new tax revenue and other ways, not on the backs of working people of the city.

Partner with the nonprofits.

Make fleet vehicle replacement and maintenance its own budget item that is mandated to stay separate from the general fund with systematic replacement of vehicles.

Please don't confuse residents' disagreement or silence on this matter as being ignorant or uninformed.

It's an easy mistake to make if your focus is on applause on social media, not results.

I urge you to stop catering to the group of people that prefer photo ops over substance, prefer activist vanity projects over the day-to-day running in the city.

Yes, I mean by that speed bumps, ballards, bike lanes, and master plans when the city is struggling to pay its utility bills.

Take the time to go over this budget and cut out what is not needed.

Have the political courage to do what's right for the city and not spend your time on virtual signaling pronouncements like stolen land acknowledgements or removing statutes.

Get back to providing basic city services as a number one priority.

I know some of you have the courage to do what's right for the city.

This will help all city residents.

I hope that you will do what's right at this critical juncture in our city's future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Madilon McGrady, followed by Alexander Joseph Payton.

Good afternoon, Council, Maddie McGready, uh renter in Highland Park, and I am a co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table.

Um I'm gonna keep it brief today.

Uh I'm speaking in support of council raising uh the revenue necessary to fund a full and healthy ecosystem of city programs and services.

Um our investments in food security, public transit, violence prevention programming, and housing stabilization services uh prevent greater costs later and help Pittsburgh remain a place where people you know want to live and work.

Um I reject uh the arguments suggesting that we need to defund or deprioritize social programs in order to fund other essential city services.

Um it's not time to retreat into scarcity or pit homeowners versus renters.

Um our programs and services are working well, demands are for them are increasing, and taxpayers are really getting a return on investment in what they pay from the services that they receive.

Um and we can't cut our way out of it, as others have said.

So I support raising the revenue.

Uh I know it's a difficult position to be in, but that's that's the responsibility of our local government is to raise revenues necessary uh to fund the central city services, and that includes our social programs.

So uh thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Alexander Joseph Payton, followed by Ronna Davis Moore.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alex, and I am a resident of Pittsburgh, uh Garfield neighborhood, and I want to start by thanking council for the uh public access to this process, um, the recording and openness matter that make it possible for residents like myself to keep up and run alongside you and stay engaged, even when we can't be there in real time.

Um, and honestly, like I said, there's a lot to process in this uh you know, in this budget talk.

I mean, you guys had to figure out this entire thing in like a month's left, months' time, and clearly we're seeing this a lot of trauma responses to what they've heard and in the media, and uh I just appreciate the opportunity for us to kind of deal with this issue transparently.

Um budget conversation is uh isn't abstract to me.

Um I want to be clear about what kind of city Pittsburgh should be continuing to invest to be in.

Uh when I first moved in Pittsburgh, I was living in a housing situation that uh developed unstable.

Someone's car broke, uh, they're lost the job, disputes escalated, um, rent wasn't being paid, landlords uh shut off utilities, attention uh developed, and uh what mattered most wasn't what like what happened, it was but didn't happen.

Uh there was no housing intervention, no mediation, no early response.

Nobody was responsible for stepping in before the situation escalated into violence and ultimately leading into a homicide.

And uh that wasn't confusion, that was absent.

Uh responsibilities weren't unclear, they were unassigned.

I'm gonna address something uh that we often hear in this conversation complaints about paying uh some of the nonprofits or community organizations and want to be very clear when you have a plumbing issue you don't argue whether plumber exists you pay a plumber to fix the problems if there's electrical issue you call an electrician when we have complex issues and require people with uh with skills to solve them and social problems are no different and that's what these services are being uh solved especially in the STV uh fund and I've noticed this I've seen the work of uh my my work surprised we weren't do uh housing during uh COVID seeing rent help and urban league and the housing justice forum put together and do things that the government couldn't do alone I've seen like this this work is not abstract we're talking about community based organizations will only work to fix real issues before they explode and I want a Pittsburgh that's affordable and livable not because it was vacant houses or neglected blocks that keeping prices low because we're actually uh investing in the solution that's why I don't support cutting five million from South the Violence fund I support the full 30 uh three points uh increase equating to the 30 million 30 percent increase if only just to be a call to action that we're not going to sit and rest or allow our our progress to stop here but we're gonna continue to fight and continue to deal with the systemic issues we understand the county just can't thank you our next speaker is Ronna Davis Moore followed by Phyllis the Diana Didiano thank you is Ronor Davis Moore with us if not we'll go to Phyllis Diano Hello my name's Phyllis Di Diano from Beachview as a city resident employee and community advocate for over almost 40 years I'm here today to say that the 30% tax hype is unacceptable I I lived through the app 47 looking at it from a residence point of view the 14 years of freezes and how they affected city staff and all and a lot of sacrifice made on them and also in the community no money moved out into the community it took 14 years and we never really recuperated a lot of things.

I want to talk about four bills two 504 2561 so the first one is the PRT Pittsburgh Regional Transit Partners House I'm also a member of Pittsburghers for public transit proud member and the Pugo program which is the bike share if you see the bikes downtown and there's also funding for city residents.

So if you're an employee those can work hand in hand to get you to work there are people that love their jobs at the city they they could be working corporate jobs making more money including free parking our parking is limited everywhere in the city and also younger people the new generation don't want to own a car they're trying to save a carbon footprint the bike share in tandem with the PRT pass is a God saying for a lot of people to keep their position and not look for other work which we should be fostering.

The other bill uh is two one hundred nine which is the uh RCO's registered community organization I was actually on the steering committee when we started a long time ago I see that council is taking a good long hard look and they do need an overhaul um but this is one way the community can get more involvement with the city of Pittsburgh um the the last one is the food justice fund and for a long time we couldn't apply for a lot of grants because there were nine neighborhoods that were designated to need more assistance.

Totally reconfigure.

And I'd like to know how much money was spent on that.

I know we have to make cuts if we don't have a high tax hike.

And I think it's wise to look at all the different departments, and we all want to help.

I want to thank City Council for doing this day and night and thank you.

Our next speaker is Lisa Haydu, followed by Scarlett Morgan.

Is there a Lisa Haydu with us?

If not, we'll move on to Scarlett Morgan.

We'll go to Julia Klim, followed by Quentin Booth or Bose.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

Oh, wonderful.

Yes, I am a city resident of Frontier.

And I just want to say that I am opposed to the increase as the homeowner.

I feel that I understand that the city has financial burdens, but they're always shifted onto the private residents as well as the small commercial owners.

That I'm not understanding that is not being worked on, like the pallet program.

I understand that two members co-ponsor co-sponsored it from a Boston-based model where nonprofits pay their percentage.

And because most of the big five owns 20% of all property, and they say based on Rachel Hessler's fair share report that was submitted to City Council, that $4.3 billion is exempt in property taxes.

And if they would have paid their fair share of $34 billion, um, we would be in a surplus.

So as what others stated in regards to becoming a more efficient, I agree with that.

I hate the loss of social services, but I don't think it's fair that it should be shifted onto the residents.

It becomes $700 a year.

And our costs are already increased greatly on top of the 30%, 36% that Allegheny County has already assessed.

There's no reassessment, so it's totally unfair.

So I feel like all of those issues should be addressed first before this 30% or even lower, whatever increase is enacted.

Those things, and there should be complete transparency about it.

And I also would like to say that I know that it's a hard decision for you all to have to make.

Today my work is about something different, transformation.

It is about interrupting cycles of violence before each courtroom before we reach a courtroom, an emergency room or a grieving family's front door.

What we see, what we are seeing in Pittsburgh right now is not accidental.

The reduction in gun violence, the growing coordination between community organizations in the city, and the renewed trust and prevention efforts are signs of real transformation taking root.

Stop the violence has helped make that possible by giving community stability instead of uncertainty.

Partnership instead of silos, and prevention instead of reaction.

When funding is paused or reduced, that transformation doesn't just slow it fractures.

We are building something that works.

Something that is financially fragile but powerful.

And something worth protecting.

The Neighborhood Resilience Project stands ready to continue this work with accountability, transcountability, transparency, and the results.

I urge you to fully fund Stop the Violence Initiative, not only to preserve progress, but to affirm that Pittsburgh believes in transformation over trauma, prevention over loss, and partnership over retreat.

This is a moment that calls us to choose stewardship over short-term savings and hope over hesitation.

I believe we are doing I believe we are building oh sorry.

I believe we are being asked to protect what is already bearing good fruit, which is saving lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

June Weirden, followed by Alison Escobar.

Hi, my name is June, and I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Um I also am a resident of Greenfield.

I'm here today to speak against the tax proposal and the false dilemma being presented here.

Some of the city council are going around saying to the media that the only choices are to raise taxes or slash social spending.

It's disgusting that while you're silentaneously making it more expensive to live in the city, you're also thinking of cutting funding to the Stop the Violence Fund, which makes it easier to live in the city by creating um community stability.

Some of you are even threatening people's jobs.

You've cloaked yourself in the rhetoric of fiscal fiscal responsibility.

But the truth is that if city council was being graded on fiscal responsibility, you'd get an F-Let's not blame this on Mayor Gainey.

You've known for years that the pandemic relief money was going to run out one day.

You've known for a while that downtown property values are stagnant or declining.

But you've waited until the very last moment to do anything about it.

There's only one realistic long-term solution to the revenue crisis that the city has, which is to make the big quote unquote nonprofits pay their fair share.

For years, the economic and social policies have been geared towards the meds and eds, UPMC, AHN, Pitt, CMU, and Duquesne.

These are also the largest property owners in the city, representing 12.8% of the property value of the city.

But they only pay a few million dollars a year into the 150 million so that we get from the real estate tax revenue.

If they paid the same as everybody else, we'd be adding 30 million dollars to the budget every single year.

These nonprofits get all of the support from the city, uh, from the city budget and policies, but don't pay anything into it.

And I know what you're going to say.

You'll say that the state legislature is blocking it.

But you have tools at your disposal to bring the nonprofits to the table.

Again, this is the only realistic long-term solution to fund people's needs in the city.

Briefly, I'd also like to speak about uh the city fleet.

So a third of the city's fleet are police department vehicles, but two-thirds of the vehicles up for decommissioning are police vehicles.

And this isn't because they're aging out, it's because they are up for decommission years ahead of all the other vehicles.

And it's also not because they're breaking down sooner.

It's not because they're being used too rough or too hard or something like that.

Only an eighth of the maintenance budget is spent on police vehicles every single year.

Um if you change just that one number, you could save the city millions of dollars in terms of the city fleet, and we could afford new snow plows, which we obviously desperately need.

The people of Pittsburgh have never backed down from a fight.

And so if you stand up to the nonprofits, you'll have people behind you.

But if you continue to play games with our money and refuse to create these only reasonable long-term solutions, we will turn against you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Alison Escobar, followed by April Clissora.

Hi, um, good afternoon, Councilmember members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Alison Escobar, and I live here in Mount Lebanon.

I work here, I pay taxes here, and like thousands of people across the city, I'm struggling to keep up with the rising costs.

I'm here to urge you to vote no on the proposed 30% property tax increase.

We all know what happens when property taxes go up.

Rents go up.

Landlords pass the cost of tenants every single time.

Pittsburgh renters have already experienced an average rent increase, about $500 over the past five years.

People are stretched then.

Between groceries, health care, car payments, student loans, utilities, and inflation, there's no slack left.

When we talk about thousands, a thousand dollars a year, we're talking about groceries disappearing, medical bills going unpaid, credit card debt rising, and savings being wiped out.

The cost of living is one of the advantages of Pittsburgh.

If we erode that, we make the city harder to live in and easier to leave.

And once working people are pushed out, they don't come back.

But the most frustrating part is this.

The proposed tax increase does not touch the largest and wealthiest property owners in the city.

Roughly 20% of property in Pittsburgh is owned by so-called nonprofits, the five of them, the UPMC, Pitt, Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne, and Allegheny Health own more than 12% of all property.

In 2022, they paid around 2.7 million in property taxes.

If they paid at the same rate as everyone else, it would have been more than 34 million.

That money alone would cover a huge portion of what the city says it needs.

Instead, the burden will fall on homeowners and renters, many of them who are already living paycheck to paycheck.

Asking ordinary people to pay more while billion dollar institutions pay less is not a solution.

It's a redistribution of wealth upward.

This tax cycle accelerate housing instability, deepen inequality, and push more people into crisis.

And it won't solve solve the underlying budget problem.

Because the problem isn't that regular people aren't paying enough.

Thank you.

We have April Clishora followed by John McFarlane.

Good morning.

I'm here to talk about how the budget touches on different aspects of my daily life based on what I'm involved in, but not to represent any particular organization.

I read the news coverage of this year's challenging budget process and the trade-offs you're having to consider.

While many in this room have been deep into the numbers line by line, I'm going to have to take this in broad shot.

First personal experience.

So we're coming off of this past couple of weeks with the weather, and I saw it from the angle of basic city services.

During the previous five to six inch snow event, when school went back in session, I drove my school bus all over the north side and didn't see evidence of salting or ploughing.

And I didn't see it in Greenfield either.

But then on the other hand, yesterday on the way home from school, it hit so fast and slippery that there was probably no way we could have gotten out ahead of it.

But we did have a city fault truck up in find you, and it was able to get one of my colleagues down a hill.

So obviously, basic services make a difference.

But what somehow calling extras and non-essentials are very much critical to me too.

I see it from the angle of the violence prevention program on our school buses.

Drivers have a very singular kind of relationship with our kids, being with them sometimes an hour or more, and it's just us with the kids, we don't have any aids unless there's a special needs child on the bus.

I'll just share one memory I have when the third grade boy's older brother was encouraging him to fight on the bus.

And then days later, after the black eye and so on, I was able to catch that third grade boy sitting way up in the front of the bus by me and speak to him just for a minute at a long red light about how that fight started and see the soft genuinely passing over his face.

What can prevention do in an early age from some of our kids?

Or at the high school age that are struggling to control anger because they have a lot going on.

Maybe they are living on another student's couch.

In volunteering with the Presbyterian Church in Allegheny County, I'm the one who checked the voicemail box for my church for housing and utility help requests.

We got hit so hard in July that we got more calls in one month than we usually get in one year because other agencies were funneling calls anywhere that they could.

This month I followed up with one of the callers that we could not help during the summer for eviction prevention, and he is currently living with his wife and one kid with a relative, and they're hoping an apartment will come through soon.

I also get to be a parent, and I can rely on the E Rec Center in Greenfield as a safe place for my daughter to walk to after school and receive a great deal of enrichment.

If you look at the Facebook page of that department, I think it is City Park, you can see what the kids are doing all around the city rec centers.

If you look at the Facebook page of that department, I think in a city park, you can see what the kids are doing all around the city rec centers, and I can't tell you enough how excellent our staff is around the city doing this work.

Thank you.

We have John McFarlane followed by Brian Knotson.

Is John McFarlane with us?

Thank you.

If not, we have Brian Knotson.

Good afternoon.

My name's Brian Nottman.

I'm a resident of the 29th Ward.

I am speaking in opposition to Councilmember Warwick's current village increase proposal.

This proposal, if passed as it is, would be an undue hardship on those who rely solely on Social Security or retirement income to survive.

It would also be passed on as a markup to any resident who rents.

As a previous note, speaker noted, shared pain should be the answer for any tax increase.

Because the city cannot legally raise the LST, an employment tax increase should be considered.

An increase of 0.17% or 17 cents on every hundred dollars earned from one percent would raise nearly 14 million in revenue.3% would close the budget gap nearly completely while ensuring all are paying their fair share for public works and public safety.

A mix of this and small and a smaller millage increase would be more appropriate than putting this solely on a city's property owners.

Consider a split rate value taxing structures, taxing structure for land versus buildings.

If land is taxed as a higher rate than buildings are, slum lords and property speculators who allow buildings to deteriorate would no longer see a tax breaks for properties that are falling apart due to lower valuations.

The real world consequences of passing these budgets keep hitting home for our residents.

Project Zero is a great initiative that was shown yesterday.

It can't happen at public works, can't treat the roads, especially when ice on the roads should be expected due to precipitation, temperature drop with high winds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have John Sefer, followed by David Gearing.

My name is John Seifer.

I live downtown.

I am not a lifelong resident, but I got here as soon as I could.

And I appreciate the complexity of your task to do this.

But we are here less than two weeks before the end of the year because of a massive failure of planning.

The vehicle repair and book plate replacements are foreseeable events.

We've known that the big nonprofits aren't paying their fair share for a long time.

The federal pandemic money running out was foreseeable.

And even I know this is a shock, but it snows in December.

Having one third of the vehicles in repair at that time was unconscionable and may have contributed to a traffic death.

As I said, it's a massive failure of planning, and heads would roll if this happened in a well-run business.

We've heard people here today ask for more services from fire trucks, food insecurity, transit to pools.

These are necessary for a thriving Pittsburgh, especially given the failures of our current federal government, where more of the burden falls on the state and local.

And you can't do that without money.

Some of the ideas proposed here today are very creative.

Many may not be beyond your control, maybe beyond your control.

Those that are should be considered, but most of them will take time.

And that's time you don't have because of the planning failure.

I'll support a tax increase to get us out of this jam if necessary, but the jam should have been foreseen and prevented and must not be repeated.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning.

I'm not here to suggest places to get more money.

Per capita, we've always paid enough until the recent blunders of the recent administrations.

I would love to know if the EVs are actually producing a maintenance compared to ICE vehicles.

We have many problems in that department at this time.

Uh, as far as the maintenance with the vehicles is do the ICE vehicles actually produce that we have any anything to um to corroborate that the EV vehicles uh have a uh cost savings in the long term.

Um really I'm here and I'm going to deliver a state of the city.

Our city's council calls for a 30% property tax hike and ignores the very failures they've authored.

Streets once bustling with shoppers now sit vacant.

We've had substantially incredible failures where we've pushed business out of the city.

We have bike lanes no one uses that have seriously hurt businesses in the city.

For what?

We have speed bumps and driving obstructions everywhere that make it difficult to drive delivery trucks, fire trucks, crane trucks for the electric company to get through the city.

To what actual gain for anybody, any of the real people that live here, that work here.

Instead of drawing revenue, these half-baked projects repaint a proud steel town into a construction yard nobody wants to drive through.

And still, they ask for more.

Is she the number in four or five?

Do you know if her number is 6701745?

Okay.

That's her.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, thank you.

The financial crisis facing the city of Pittsburgh did not happen overnight.

It did not happen by accident.

This crisis is a result of decisions.

Decisions that were approved with city council votes.

Votes in which taxpayer dollars were diverted away from essential city services.

Critical investments in public safety, these are critical investments that lives depend on.

Instead, decisions were made to award millions of dollars in contracts to organizations that depend on bloated city budgets to survive.

Some of these contracts have raised serious concerns, including concerns that members of this very council have acknowledged.

There has been this pattern of using creative math, balancing a budget with this creative creative math, using agency bond transfers and trust fund transfers to mask operating expenses at capital expenses.

All to claim that there has been a balance balanced budget for the past several years.

These accounting maneuvers do not solve the problem.

These are things that will affect residents.

Why are residents always the ones living with the consequences of bad decisions?

Pitts are continued to struggle with crime by homelessness, housing issues in all neighborhoods, whether it's life or whether it's affordable housing, all neighborhoods have housing issues.

Not to mention the failing public schools.

This is a fact.

This isn't an assault.

This is just reality that can't be denied.

Instead, we have neglected and a deteriorating city fleet across all public safety departments, including public works.

Taxpayer dollars should be used efficiently and used to deliver basic and essential services.

These should be the top priorities on Grant Street.

City residents and taxpayers deserve accountability, transparency, they deserve confidence that they're thank you.

So that exhausts our list of registered speakers.

If there's anyone in chambers who has not spoken and wishes to speak, please come forward at this time.

Also provide your name and neighborhood for the record.

You'll be given a minute to speak.

Good afternoon, Council.

Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Dr.

Karen Hall.

I'm an Easton resident and CEO of OzNo, Inc.

I stand before you to ask you to please use your use your moral and ethical judgment as leaders for the city of Pittsburgh.

And I also stand here as an advocate for the stop the balance fund.

And I now have the opportunity, and I see every day the difference in Ozzium and other grantees like myself are making as we are making a difference in the lives of the kids and the youth that we serve.

Someday people come, you know, that are frustrated about the idea of a tax hike, and I understand that.

So I just wanted to kind of, you know, I just making some notes.

Um I did want to just kind of start by talking about what we spend our money on, right here at the city.

And I know, and you know, as I feel like there has been a lot of commentary in the press about uh misuse of funds or you know, sort of we should have seen this coming.

I do want to say just for the for the the folks in the current in the and you know, obviously the outgoing administration.

Um the place where we are now, and you may not hear this in the media, but everybody at this table knows that this administration has been telling us for numerous years that we have very tight years ahead.

The place where we are now, and you may not hear this in the media, but everybody at this table knows that this administration has been telling us for numerous years that we have very tight years ahead.

We have heard it every single budget year.

Um we've heard it from the controller, we've heard it from the administration.

Now, there certainly have been disagreements about how money should be spent, right, in the budget, and and there have been concerns that have been raised that have not been addressed until this year, primarily, and I'll let other members, you know, this is from my perspective, right?

Primarily because the the American rescue plan money is has run out, right?

So we had this big influx of $335 million after COVID to, you know, and um and I did want to talk a little bit about just to sort of give the big picture of what that money was spent on.

I'm not gonna go through every single line item, but the big ticket items of what we spent COVID dollars on.

So about about these are rough numbers, about 150 million went to avoiding layoffs at the city and just sort of operational needs, right?

Um, maybe some new positions.

So about 7 million went to demos, demolitions.

I feel like that could have been more.

That probably should have been more.

Again, this is me speaking.

I'm not, you know.

About 10.5 million went to facilities improvements, right?

That's improving our city facilities, rec centers, you know, fire stations, you name it, right?

Uh city city facilities.

About 15.5 million went to fleet.

That could have been more.

That should have been more.

I think we see that, right?

That should have been more.

Um went to infrastructure improvements.

That's like bridges and things like that, right?

City infrastructure improvements.

17 million went to lead line replacements.

10 million went to um community development, right?

That's sort of um community supports.

19.5 million went to support affordable housing initiatives.

3.5 million went to the land bank.

That could have been more, right?

That could have probably been more.

Um, and some mobile restroom that we installed in downtown.

Um 11 million went to land acquisitions and maintenance, seven million went to small business supports, and about two million went to the arts.

So those are the big ticket items.

I just, you know, I I know that that list is not going to go out to the world, but just at least for the folks who are in this room, and I by the way, I appreciate you staying to hear what council members have to say, right?

Because, you know, we talk a lot about these things, but what we say does not always get transmitted out.

So I did just want to clarify that.

And and also to say that we did know, we have been told over a number of years that 2026 was going to be a very lean year, right?

So that's kind of, and and and I know that we've heard a lot about basic essential services, right?

That the city should be focusing on basic essential services.

But I think sometimes just listening to speakers, there is a disagreement about what that means, right?

What does it mean?

What do basic essential services mean?

For me, you know, in addition to obviously getting the streets plowed, potholes, um, I think basic essential service, you know, public safety.

Um, I think that our city parks are basic essential services.

I think that after school programming for our kids and summer programming for our kids, and uh places where our seniors can go are basic, these are not nice to have.

You may not need them, an individual resident may not need them, but these are basic essential services.

I also think that the housing opportunity fund, which we spend money to ensure that people can stay in their homes, right?

That's rent relief, that's um uh help with for for low-income homeowners that need to make improvements, those are basic essential services.

So is the stop the violence fund that has been used to ensure both to support our unhoused residents, right, to try and keep them safe, and also to uh keep our children from getting shot.

I think that's a basic essential service.

So is the food justice fund to make sure that you know folks in our neediest communities have access to fresh, healthy food.

So, you know, and that is, right?

That's the politics of our country, right?

What does it mean?

What is a basic essential service mean?

So that's that's not something that we can resolve, but you know, I think that as members of council, we can sort of, you know.

Um now the other question that uh lots of folks raise where should we be getting money?

And boy, do I hear you on this?

The large nonprofits, UPMC, AHN, CMU, Pitt, Duquesne, they are not paying that, they don't pay property tax, right?

You all, homeowners, the property owners, and and landlords, small landlords, but right, like you're you're paying property tax, they are not paying property tax.

And I also want to underscore that the outgoing administration tried.

Not saying that it worked, but they certainly tried, and past administrations have tried too, right?

This is not this is not a um, you know, the Ganey administration started taking all these property, you know, started taking nonprofits to court over their over their pro, you know, sort of challenging their tax exempt status on individual parcels, right?

It has not yielded massive results, but you know, it's yielded some.

Uh that's an approach.

The Ganey administration has also had negotiations, and I don't know if this is public, I'm just gonna say it because whatever, what do we have to lose?

I know that Mayor Ganey was in negotiations specifically with UPMC, and that UPMC put a measly and I will say measly, $7.5 million a year for 10 years on the table, and our mayor said no.

That is not enough when when when you when you alone would pay, you know, some 30 some million or you know, whatever in total, that's not enough.

And like it or don't, good decision, bad decision.

I'm not here to judge that, but uh well, personally I I think he was right.

I don't think 7.5 million is enough, but I also hope that the incoming administration is ready to sit down and have those negotiations and get a real meaningful deal from our nonprofits.

And you know, I fully support any efforts in doing that.

And any other council members who have that kind of sway.

I wish I did, I don't.

Um, tax abatements for our for our big developers.

We give massive tax breaks for folks build building all kinds of like luxury apartments and charging people you know $3,000 a month in rent.

Massive tax abatements.

So that's another place.

That's another group of folks that you know are not paying taxes for a number of years.

Um again, some people are for it, some people are against it.

There are folks on this council who are for it, but it is something to recognize.

And people are right when they call it out that homeowners are being taxed, but we're giving, you know, giving major tax breaks to developers to come build new housing or you know, or or other buildings.

Um I heard capital gains tax.

That's music to my ears.

And I promise you right now at this table that I will be introducing a bill at some point in the coming year to tax capital gains.

Philadelphia does it, right?

The richest people in this city, and we have lots of new incoming people, very high earners, very high earners moving into the city of Pittsburgh who have very nice portfolios, right?

And this is and I'm not talking about retirement accounts, right?

I'm talking about dividends, capital gains on your, you know, on your um on your your stock portfolio, right?

And there is lots of money that we can pull in by you know using, and and by the way, just for so folks understand, there is a cap on what we can tax income, and we are at that cap.

There's a state cap on what we can tax income we currently tax wages.

We're capped at the one three percent total school district gets what, like roughly two, we're roughly one, and that is a cap.

We cannot go higher, right?

So that's for anyone wondering why don't we tax higher earners more?

That's that we are taxing everyone as the state allows us as much as we can.

So and then finally, and this is something else that uh you know is important to recognize, and I certainly recognize it myself.

Raising taxes makes people mad.

And when you are an elected official and you want to keep being an elected official, it is 1,000 percent not in your best interest to propose raising taxes.

And that is understandable, right?

And that is why I think that here in the city of, and that is why we don't do it for 10 years at a time, right?

12 years we saw it at the county, we're seeing it here in the city.

That's why we don't do it for you know over a decade, because nobody wants to do it, because you, you know, it makes people mad, right?

And so I think, and again, something that I am gonna look into doing, I hope legally we can do a uh a mandatory one or two percent increase a year that just automatically happens.

Take the politics out of it, right?

That way, with the cost of living, right?

As costs go up, so do so do taxes very little by little.

So you're not getting just punched in the gut with a giant tax increase every decade, because that's not fair, and that's hard, and it also depletes cities, it sort of you know leaves municipal governments kind of you know, struggling, struggling, struggling until we reach a breaking point, and that we don't want to be at a breaking point, right?

That was someone came and spoke about planning.

It's not right.

That's that's not how where we want to be.

So that's something else that I'm interested in in looking at for the coming years.

Um, yeah, so you know, again, I recognize the 30% tax, and I and I, by the way, my colleagues, I cannot give them enough credit, right?

Certainly, council president and um finance chair Strasberger, they are doing so much work to figure this out, to figure out a balance, right?

It's not all, it's not all one thing, right?

Like 30% sounds high.

I recognize it's gonna be lower, right?

Or I I hope that it is going to be lower.

Um, but they are working very hard, and so are our directors, right?

To find the balance here, something that is fair for everyone.

So I I want to thank them for that.

And then finally, just to just to kind of level set on what a 30% tax increase means.

And I know this has been a bit in the media, but so for every hundred thousand dollars of property value, assessed property value, right?

You current uh you currently pay about eight hundred dollars a year.

So the 30%, and again, it will probably be lower.

The 30% would be an additional 240 a year.

Um I've had lots of people call me up and say, Oh my gosh, what?

Like that's so much.

And I say, give me your address.

I had a I had a good friend of mine who lives in Hazelwood, call me up and say, what this is in, you know, that's that's a lot of money.

Like, I say, give me your address.

Let's put it in the real estate portal, right?

She's lived in our house for a long time.

We put it in the real estate portal.

It's assessed at 25,000.

Okay, so that's significantly under, right?

So I want everybody to go home and tell your parents and tell your grandparents, anybody who owns property, look it up in the real estate portal and see where you're assessed at, right?

Just to understand for yourself, like what the implications of a tax increase are gonna be.

And then I also want to underscore, again, and and we will put out information about this in the coming year.

The senior tax relief program, Act 77, seniors who make less than $30,000 a year, which is includes 50% of your social security, okay, you get um you get uh a very significant tax break.

You get a 40% tax break, okay, on your real estate tax.

So that's important to know.

The homestead exemption, so that's if you live in your house, right?

If you live in your house and the property reduces the assessed value by $15,000.

So again, the friend I was talking about, her house is assessed at 25, but because she lives there, it's reduced by 15, right?

And so, you know, uh, you know, it's it's 120, you know, it's that that is a significant savings.

Um, and there's also an early payment discount, it's small, right?

It's a 2% discount, but it is um if you pay by February 10th, right?

And our Department of Finance has staff that will work with any resident, any resident who is requesting a hardship plan, right?

We have staff that will sit down that will talk to you, figure out if you qualify for the hardship plan and will work out uh you know a payment schedule for you.

So I just want people to know that those resources are out there, no matter what type of tax increase we see, and we need to see some type of tax increase.

We really need to, right?

Um finger pointing aside, feels good to say I told you so.

All of that aside, this is something we need to do.

Um, you know, and um, yeah, so and and for renters, I I hear the renters out there that that are saying that this is going to increase rents, but one thing that I it would be interesting to ask your landlord, what is your mortgage on my unit?

Ask your landlord, what do you pay in mortgage on this unit?

And then tell me if you are paying, if they are like if your landlord is just eking by, right?

That's an important question.

Because at the end of the day, certainly for landlords with 10, 20, 30, right?

Like the 240, I guarantee they are pay they are passing on far more just by charging you market rate, if they are indeed charging you market rate.

They are passing on far more than the you know 240 extra dollars per hundred thousand dollars of assessed value.

So I just, you know, I I understand what the renters are feeling.

You are the most squeezed people of all, and that's why the capital gains tax is so necessary because renters, you don't have capital gains, right?

You don't have dividends, you don't have that kind of money coming in.

And that's why this tax structure is sort of fundamentally unfair to the lower earners on the spectrum.

So that is something that I recognize, but that is a longer term, you know, that's a longer term fix, right?

That will probably involve a lawsuit if we get it passed.

I will say that.

Um, but anyway, that's so that's a lot of me rambling, but um, I just again thank you all so much for coming.

Thank you to everybody online.

Um, this is tough.

And thank you to my colleagues for for sticking it out and for bearing with me.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilman Smith, followed by Councilwoman Schlossberger.

I'll yield to Councilwoman Strasbourg.

She's the finance chair.

Yeah, is that okay?

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I think Councilmember Warwick covered a lot of what I wanted to say.

So that was very thorough.

I appreciate that.

Um I really also want to reiterate that I'm I appreciate you all being here.

I appreciate you taking time out of a Saturday, and you're probably going to be paying attention to us tomorrow as we're as we're casting some votes as well during this unusual budget budget season.

Um the only thing above and beyond that I will say in and note here is one to reiterate that yes, we absolutely have to get our largest nonprofits paying something equivalent to a property tax and continue to lobby our state legislators to to make the change at the state level.

Um yes, we do need a countywide reassessment.

I agree with both of those things.

When it comes to, and I will, you know, I will do everything I can to leverage whatever power I have on for both of those.

When it comes to providing basic city services, just to level set, because I don't think it's been stated at least this budget season.

It is usually at some point in some budget season, that we are we find ourselves as a city with 300,000 people managing the infrastructure that's meant for about 600,000 people.

And since the major depopulation post-1979 steel um industry collapse, um we've been there and we haven't clawed our way back.

So we have the property taxes coming in for you know about half the property taxes that we should coming in and other revenue sources because we just are a depopulated city and we need to get back to a higher population now.

That's obviously not gonna happen overnight.

So we do what we can, and we find ourselves in these situations in part because of that, not making excuses, but I also want to point back to a time before any of us here were on council in 2003 when city council found itself in a similar situation, except mag or orders of magnitude worse.

We we had we faced a far greater deficit in our budget, in part because council members didn't have the political courage to um make the tough decisions, continue to use interesting accounting methods and papering over what was a really serious problem.

Um the easy way to do it, one year allocations to um, you know, to make a one-year fix and then another one year fix.

And then what we found ourselves in was uh Act 47 state oversight, where we really were hamstrung from investing in our employees and investing in our bridges and investing in our roads and further investing in our vehicles, and that is why, in part our vehicle fleet is so depleted, and we cannot get back to a place where we are under Act 47 oversight.

And that is why, in part our vehicle fleet is so depleted, and we cannot get back to a place where we are under Act 47 oversight.

We have to do the responsible thing now this year, um before the very tight 2026 fiscal year kicks in.

Um I absolutely agree that should a millage increase pass this year by this body, that we have to be absolutely transparent with not only you know the the city city workers and what we're doing, but the city and the public as to where uh that additional revenue is going.

We've heard of you know some needs today of what it could go to.

We already have council member Warwick, and by the way, I want to I want to uh commend Councilmember Warburg um approve of it or disapprove of uh of the proposed millage increase.

Uh takes political courage to to to propose that in the first place and to have this conversation, and also then you know, um a very specific bill that would um that we preliminarily voted on yesterday that would um allocate 10 million dollars to our vehicle fleet, doubling it from 10 million existing.

You know, we know that we actually need about 31 million dollars per year investing in our very old and um disinvested fleet to to to claw our way out of the hole that we find ourselves in.

But 20 million would go a long way.

But wherever it is going, wherever any kind of additional revenue um uh is allocated, we have to be transparent and not just say it's in the budget, find it.

We have to be you know out there showing people where the money's going, fire apparatuses, ambulances, snow plows, street sweepers, um other vehicles that are really important.

But um, yes, continuing to feed the people who need food through the food justice fund, um making sure that people remain in their houses, sort of the basic services that um in someone mentioned the sort of order of needs, like the basic services that you need to survive and and um basic city services that people notice in the neighborhoods, right?

Public safety, public health.

Um so I look, you know, if if we if we are pulling the wool, if anyone is pulling the wool over anyone's eyes as to where the additional funds are going, again, should we pass a millage increase because it's not a foregone conclusion at this point.

Um I know I'm gonna be holding them accountable.

The other thing that hasn't really been spoken about yet is what I'm I've been calling the known unknowns.

We have a lot of uh known needs, right?

Our fleet, our basic services, but we also and we also know that it's not real popular to talk about, but we have um an underfunded rainy day fund.

It's called our fund balance.

And over the years prior to the pandemic, we invested in our rainy day fund so much so that we were criticized for it every year.

And then what happened when the pandemic came was we were able to avoid laying off 600 people because we had such a strong rainy day fund that it got us through June before the federal government bailed us out and we were able to then we would have had to lay off workers at that point.

But unlike every other city, we were able to maintain our full staff because of that rainy day fund.

It's really important to continue to put money into that.

So that is something absolutely I will continue to advocate for money going toward.

But the known unknowns, there's anything could happen, right?

Anything a recession could hit at any point, a globe, another global pandemic.

We just don't know.

We have to we can't be skating by on just the bare minimum budget, just hoping and praying that we get by another year.

We have to be responsible, fiscal responsible agents.

That's the core of what city council does.

So I'll stop there.

That's again, I I'm going on a long time too, but wanted to fill in some of those gaps of what's been in my mind throughout the year as I've sat on a financial task force and um and uh and really continue to learn a little bit more about the fiscal position of our city.

And um I agree with speakers who say that we need more, we we we need to continue to set up structures so that we don't find ourselves in this position in the future, and that we have more long-range planning um that can be you know self self-imposed, self-fulfilling, so it doesn't take political action to put into place.

So I'll leave it with that.

Um thank you all for being here.

Thank you, Councilwoman Smith.

Thank you.

So I think I'm in a very unique position because I did not vote for the last year's budget, and I did not, I did not vote for the police budget the year prior to that.

But I'm going to say that I'm also not supportive of a 30% tax increase.

I and honestly, you're gonna have I'm have a very difficult time thinking of any tax increase until we look at what we can cut back in our budget.

And to say that there's nothing, I mean, just this past week alone, Councilman Coghill saved two million dollars on the comp plan.

And I worked thank thankfully the administration heard me and heard my concerns about a six million dollars for the um salt dome.

I mean you could throw a tarp over it.

So that's eight million dollars in one week.

And I think we need to go through this budget, see where we can cut back, and there are don't tell me there's not because we just saved eight million, so don't say bare bones because we just saved eight million, and I think that there's other places that we can look in.

Councilman Laval did put in something but uh for stop the violence, and I'm co-sponsored with that.

But uh, as you said many times, it's not not funding stop the violence, it's using the spending down the money that we have in there, and then the following year you can refund it.

So it's not stopping it, it's freezing it for one year.

So I just think that there's lots of places that we can look and lots of things we should we should talk about.

But one of the things that makes me so upset is that I I do hear all the comments about the nonprofits, and I think how can they sit here in the city that they claim to love and watch us struggling like this and not want to at least fund some of these these programs.

I mean, including the food justice, including the stop the violence, including the the REACH program, and I love the REACH program, everybody knows I I I speak highly of them.

But I think it would be amazing, but it we don't need a mayor's office coming in to negotiate that council can negotiate that.

And when you talk about political will, I I think I've had political will and showed that quite a few times over the years.

But I and but I'm not gonna sit here and say it's political will to hurt people that are already hurting even further.

We have people in our city that are struggling, they cannot afford things, and to say that somebody who's making $30,000 gets half off their taxes, I like to see council members live off of $30,000.

That is uh that is absolutely it's not even an incentive to me.

I mean, you know, you can't get blood from a rock.

And that's what we're trying to do here.

And I think we're trying to make people pay the same people over and over again.

And our own unions moved out of the city.

They're not paying a lot of them, a lot of them are not paying taxes.

And I think it would be helpful if you know, and they're yet a big part of our budget.

And yet at the same time, we know that they bring something to to make our city so attractive to live in because we have the best of the best, the best firefighters, the best police, the best medics, um, the best laborers.

We have we have great employees.

But I would love for them to live in the city again.

I mean, sort of like when the teachers moved out, uh, and then you start watching the school districts, you know, their the struggles and their challenges.

And so I just feel like some of this is you know, honestly, premeditated to almost destroy the city.

Um but I will say that we these numbers are certified, this the in the revenue is certified.

So we can't say that that's that that those numbers aren't aren't accurate.

Those numbers are certified.

And you know, when we talk about planning in previous years, even last year when I voted no, we we found out 13 hours before our budget vote.

So that's why council members didn't even have time that that the controller had concerns 13 hours before.

And so we didn't have time.

That was her first year, so I do want to say that.

But that's why some members may have voted for it and may not have done, you know, done what they would have done differently had they known you know earlier and had had the opportunity to really look at the numbers.

Now this year she's she's you know letting us know.

But there's there's also a lot of controversy over whether these numbers are accurate and and what we're saying.

So I think that and I understand the new administration wants money to operate on, and I'm sure that they're you know lobbying a lot of people here to put their votes in.

I mean, uh political courage would be say to say we are going to work with you, we want you to be successful, but we also want you to work with us on where we can cut and where we can make sure that we're saving our residents money and not making them pay something they just can't simply afford.

Um and I understand a lot of there's a lot of will to blame the previous administration, but I think that they've also done you know some some misspending and some things that maybe they shouldn't have done.

I mean, we all have some some responsibility to bear here.

And but at the same time, I think that they're at least saying that they don't want a tax increase.

Um but I do think that there's things like some of these programs are worth looking for sponsorships in, and and there's other ways that we could do that.

Similar to what we do for the um the marathons and and different events we have with City Parks.

City Parks is amazing, but they run on a shoestring budget because they are out seeking private dollars all the time.

I don't want to see them totally funded by private dollars, but I would like to see them, you know, some of the city do some of this some additional outreach and some additional sponsorship and private dollars coming in.

But I on my way out the door, the last thing I want to do is raise taxes on people that are already hurting.

And we all claim how much we care about affordability.

We all claim how much we care about people having food on their table.

We all claim that we care about people having safety and protections.

But then when it comes time for it, we're gonna be the ones putting the biggest burden on them.

One of the biggest burdens on them.

I mean a 30% increase, even if it's not 30%, Councilman.

And I know that you're doing the best you can too.

And I I know that you're trying to you're a problem solver.

I do know that about you, trying to always solve solve issues.

So I'm not I'm not critical of what of your heart and your intention.

I'm critical of the amount and and the reality of what this means for our residents.

I just can't I I will not vote for a 30% increase.

I could honestly see me voting for a small percentage of an increase.

If we did it one time and we just said we cut back everywhere we had we could.

But that would require us looking at this budget seriously and really cutting back where we can and where we sh if it's not a core function of the city of Pittsburgh, then we should be trying to get sponsorship for it or try to or put it on hold until we can get some funding before we put this burden on our taxpayers.

To me, that's political courage, saying, you know what, we can't afford your program this year.

You know what?

We can't afford to give money away this year.

I'm sorry we can't help help you this year.

But here's where resources will be, and here's what help will be.

That's to me would take great political courage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I've got Councilman Mosley followed by Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

Yeah, I wanted to just make two personal points before some brief remarks.

Uh one, um, we spoke ad nauseum about uh, you know, the impact of a reassessment and and like my neighbor, uh Mel Packer, and and I hope my my wife isn't listening in.

I know she probably is.

Um, that, you know, uh so many, many homes, particularly mine in North Point Breeze is woefully underassessed.

Um and that's something that we do have to, you know, address.

Obviously, that's not in in our power as city officials, but I but I do hope that in in the near future, you know, one of the things that we can do, you know, is get reassessed, and I'm happy.

Um, you know, hopefully I'm not sleeping on the couch tonight, but I'm I'm happy to, you know, to pay the fair share uh for the house that we purchased in North Point Breeze 13 years ago, which I do feel is um woefully underassessed, you know, and also around uh the debate around the pilot when my wife was the county controller.

Um she fought vociferously, you know, against UPMC um and became UPMC's, you know, um, you know, most hated, most wanted resident in Allegheny County for the work that she did.

So I saw firsthand at a uh front row seat um to how hard it is um to hold them accountable and and to find ways that to bring them to the table.

So I appreciate um the the energy and the passion that was in this chamber you know today, uh, but I saw firsthand how hard it is, and we can, you know, we can protest, you know, we can we can be loud, we can scream, we can holler, um, you know, but it is gonna take serious legal work, you know, serious organizing, as well as you know, legislative changes at the state level to really bring that to bear.

Um they have very deep pockets, um, they have very skillful lawyers.

Um and you know, I watched my wife um, you know, work terribly hard uh for years um using her position as county controller uh to bring that to bear, and unfortunately she was unsuccessful.

Um but I do want to thank everyone uh who testified today and those who have reached out uh via phone.

I got a number of text messages when I woke up this morning, um, as well as those who've emailed my office and called my office to share their position um around uh the range of options that we have.

Um and at this juncture, I think there's there's only two things that I'm clear about.

You know, one we face an enormous challenge, and that there's no consensus among this body or among the citizenry on what's the best solution to this enormous challenge.

And I and I'm what just want to share, you know, that I do have serious concerns about the menu of options that we have at the table, you know, whether it's raising taxes on our most vulnerable homeowners, um, whether it's laying off the workers who make the city run or cutting services that our residents depend on.

Um in my opinion, none of these options is more desirable than the other.

But over the next 24 hours, I'll be spending considerable amount of time uh talking with my colleagues, reaching out to others to figure out you know where I'm gonna land and and and where my uh vote will be, you know, when in the very near future we will come to a vote to decide um how we're gonna move forward.

And again, I want to thank the public for bringing their voice to the table and and again for the emails and the calls and showing up on a Saturday, as my colleague, Councilman Stralsberger said, and taking time um out of out of your personal day, particularly, you know, during the season that we're currently in.

I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this, um, as well as their political courage.

And I want to, you know, thank everyone for the willingness and commitment uh to address the this challenge we we face.

You know, I I've said it a number of times, you know, one of my favorite quotes uh, you know, from one of my mentor Bernard Dory, who's a community organizing extraordinaire out of LA, um, who spent several years in the early 2000s really helping me cut my teeth, you know, as a community organizer, and uh as I've said at this table before, you know, he says in this line of work you have to be comfortable being uncomfortable.

Um I think when he shared that with me back in 2004, um, I don't think he understood that he was talking about a time like this that I would be in.

And um, and then this is a very uncomfortable position that we all find ourselves in.

Um, but I appreciate uh you know being a part uh of this body and being a part you know of this uncomfortable moment with with eight other people I have high amount of respect for um and and and and really rest assured that um my eight colleagues you know really care about the city and really want to figure out solutions and and not interested you know in political theater and political games, but real solutions.

So over the next 24 hours, uh we have a lot to deliberate on.

Um, you know, and I look forward to identifying some solutions that really solve problems for all of the myriad of challenges that we heard today, um, and not only to figure out solutions, you know, uh for the next uh 72 hours and and not just for the next calendar year, but uh for uh foreseeable future for the city so that history, you know, uh looks upon us as those who had the political courage uh to find a way to move our city forward in the right way.

So again, thank you everyone, and I'm sure a lot of folks will be tuning in tomorrow, and and I look forward to again um you know uh placing ourselves on on the right side of history as we move forward.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Council President, and uh thank you for chairing today.

Uh it's been um you know, it's been a pleasure to listen to everyone gave up a comment and uh appreciate my colleagues previous comments and I want to recognize you know, there's a lot that resonated with me uh on some of the comments.

And they relate to kind of how I've been feeling about this um, you know, these proposals that have been mentioned, which uh, you know, I mean, it either way you look at it, it's gonna affect people differently.

And you know, it hasn't been mentioned enough, just how much the renters really would take a take a hit here with a tax increase because we all know, I mean, we can't control it, but you know, that will just that f that that cut that increase will be put on them.

And you know, we do have programs that we run through the housing opportunity fund to fill the gaps and those programs will become more expensive.

And so we really do have to figure out a good sustainable way of how we spend our money.

So at a time like when residents are still feeling squeezed by housing costs, utilities, and everyday expenses.

I don't think raising taxes is responsible place to start.

I think we made great steps uh a couple days ago when we uh looked at how we are spending money.

We continue to look at how we spend money.

And I'm looking forward to further conversations about that.

I've also had several conversations with members about uh potential new revenue streams and uh looking forward to the future of that.

Um, I think that there are a lot of possibilities that we can be exploring, although we are at a at a deadline here, but we do have the ability to uh continue to explore that in January and make budgetary changes at that time for the 2026 budget.

So I think you know, before we ask more from taxpayers, we owe them a clear demonstration that we're using existing dollars efficiently and prioritizing investments that actually delivered results that they want to see.

Um all the time and effort that's been put into this.

And uh I think um I think on some of these numbers, uh I think there's just um you know, I don't think there's a consensus on that we all agree on uh what the gap is that we're trying to solve for.

Uh I appreciate the um you know, I appreciate the advocacy towards uh uh saying why those are the numbers, and um I'm looking forward to further conversations on how we can deliver the best government for the public.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross, I saw your hand go up to the Councilwoman Gross.

If not, is there anything else for members?

I'm sorry, Mr.

President.

I'm just struggling with my Zoom, but I am here.

I appreciate it.

Um can you all hear me clearly?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

So um I I won't repeat what many of my colleagues have already noted, which I think again um we always want to thank constituents for being available either online or coming downtown to to be heard.

Um, and I've been busily taking notes for the entire meeting.

Um, I think councilwoman Warwick summarized pretty well um some of the points that I wanted to also acknowledge that um we we understand that this is local government and that we fund what we consider basic and essential services, but there is a difference in what our speakers understand is basic and essential services, and I concur with her that the housing opportunity fund, the stop of violence fund, and the food justice fund are all examples of essential services, and I really want to acknowledge how um clearly the call to action to support our struggling city residents is right, and we understand that utility costs have increased, that other taxing bodies are also increasing taxes, um, and that people are really just trying to make ends meet.

I have said before, and I'll say again it's really important that we help them make those ends meet because otherwise they're forced out of the city.

And it's really for all of our benefit that we help residents stay in the city.

Um, and um for for many many reasons.

Um I'm also eager to hear about other revenue sources.

Um I know some of my colleagues, again, a handful actually, um, that I've been talking with have creative ideas, and I eagerly um look forward to that debate.

Um, and uh I think it's really exciting, and but it will take time.

None of those are really ready to put on the table today or tomorrow.

Um, I do want to recap one thing, which is that I think doing our homework and looking back at history, um the military in the city of Pittsburgh has actually at another time, it was it was more than 10 years ago, was actually higher than what councilwoman Warwick is proposing.

I'll say that again.

Um I don't actually have the starting year in front of me, but up until January 2013, the mills in the city of Pittsburgh was 10.8.

If we passed Councilwoman Warwick's 30% increase, it would only go up to 10.48.

So the mills in 20, I think 12 went up, maybe it was 2011, went up to 10.8, and we collected property tax in the city of Pittsburgh at 10.8.

Um, you can just kind of search our media outlets, and it shows that in or in our legislative record, it's a little bit harder to search.

Um in January 2013, Mayor Ravenstall proposed that that mill age go from 10.8 down to 7.56.

And so for about a year it was collected at 7.56.

Um, a couple of us were on council in December of 2014 when Mayor Perduto said, uh that 7.56 was actually a tad low.

Let's bump it back up to 8.06.

So that was December 2014, and I was able to vote on that, I think it was half a mill increase.

So it went up to 8.06 in December 2014, and it has been there ever since.

While property values have radically changed in the city, but it is not accommodated for because we haven't had a thorough reassessment, which is what we the county needs to do.

And so what council work is proposing is going up to 10.48.

But again, I don't have the date in front of me, but that in the 2010s, the property, the mill age actually went up to 10.8 for a couple of years.

And the reason it dropped back down to 7.56, council voted to reduce it to 7.56 in 2013, is because there was a county reassessment.

So I do want people to understand that it's true that council um it seems like a big jump, but it is not up to levels where it has previously been as mills.

But they were only there for a short time because when the county reassessed, city council lowered it back down to even lower than its current rate.

So if we were able to like get a reassessment or to find to put some of these other taxes and successfully put them in place for capital gains or for other sources that members are considering, which I think are great ideas.

That was because of a reassessment.

So I do want people to understand that.

And I I appreciate all of their work and creative suggestions.

I'll just also say for the record because we really really hear you that our nonprofits should be paying.

But just as a recap, there was uh a March 2013, Mayor Ravenstahl announced his lawsuit challenging UPNC's charitable status, um, and that was appealed to the state on their state nonprofit status.

Um UPMC sued back.

Peduto, Mayor Perduto withdrew that lawsuit in July of 2014, and then there was no lawsuit for uh up until about March of 2023.

Um so the Paduta administration and early Gainey administration were were not actively suing, and there were negotiations for you know almost 10 years, um, that didn't net a dollar, not even a dollar anywhere.

Um, and then Gaines started back with the again.

This is easy to find.

I think WESA has really good records.

Um challenging kind of at the county assessment level of like, hey, this parcel that you own isn't being used for charitable purpose.

That parcel that you own isn't being used for terrible purpose, and that's the one that's not I think only about 100,000 per year of new property tax.

Um, but I still feel it it's just good housekeeping.

I said that at the time when we voted to allocate some funds to do those um challenges parcel by parcel.

It's just good housekeeping.

Is this a nonprofit parcel or is that one?

And we should be we should continue doing those.

I think it's because it sets up recurring revenue on those parcels.

So there's lots of good suggestions that I heard that I'm eager to hear more about about like what muscles do we have that we could flex, even though we're so preempted by the state on those nonprofit parcels.

Um I am ready and willing to talk more about how we can use what tools we do have.

Um so I appreciate it, and again, council has a lot of work to do, and we will be working with each other to try to figure out how we can do the most good um with the dollars that we have.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Schuller.

Yes.

Uh I think most of the other members uh you know said a lot of what I was thinking here.

Uh so I will be relatively brief here, but uh want to be clear that this is something that I don't think any of us are taking really lightly.

I think it's a a really hard decision.

Um my work here often or right now really is you know, calling different folks from from the my district, um, you know, obviously um I'm checking in with uh some of my mentors and and people that you know came before me here to try to you know walk through this.

But one of the things is just abundantly clear here is that we represent a city, we all represent a city that has very different needs and very different assets all throughout it, and and what is an easy decision for some members to make is a a very challenging decision for other other members.

Um our neighborhood or our neighborhoods all throughout the city are not are not equal.

And uh I think that makes this calculation just just even more challenging for for all of us here.

Um I I my goal here, and I think uh councilwoman kale Smith, who is both literally and physically on her way out.

Um, you know, it has always said that our job is to represent the district that that elected us, and those are the people that we're accountable for uh too and and that we are accountable for.

Um, you know, here at this table and in this uh building and with this body here.

So uh my my job here is to continue to try to engage with as many of them as I can over the next uh period of time here, uh, you know, and try to think through what this means for them, what um diminished services mean to them, um, folks that have already you know had years and years and years of diminished services.

It's not an easy decision.

Um I you know, I just I want to make clear the magnitude of the decision that is before us here and um how how have heavily it's weighing on on me and and probably all of us here.

So none of us wanted to be in this decision or in this situation.

I think the um, you know, we did always hear that these were going to be the lean years.

Um I think we are on the other other end of lean.

Um, and you know, if we were in a position, you know, we we could certainly put anything on the budget.

We could say we're gonna spend no no overtime next year, we could just make things up, but I do think that it is important, and it is my my promise to my constituents that that we will pass a at least an honest budget.

Um that isn't what was handed to us, and I think we are unfortunately you know in in a little bit of a deficit here with just some of the questions that are coming up here in terms of you know the economics of what this really means for the city.

Um and I wish that that wasn't the case.

I wish we, you know, and full credit to council staff and the you know the budget office that that's trying to help us through this, but you know, we this shouldn't have happened this way, and you know, it is uh really unfortunate that that's that's where we are.

But um, you know, as my predecessor always said, we don't have the luxury of maybe we have the hard decision of yes or no.

So here we are, and uh we will we will figure out a plan forward, but just want to know, you know, make sure my constituents know that this is a decision made with with only them in mind.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um I certainly won't belabor all the previous points that have been eloquently made.

I will simply state to those who came down to actually speak about the stop to violence that I believe violence prevention is a core city function.

Um I just want to reiterate to them that we're actually not cutting away cutting funds from the stop to violence fund.

The reality is there's uh a fund balance within that fund that allows us to continue to lessen how much we transfer in, still keep all our core functions next year, transfer in the additional five million, which allow for all our core functions to occur in 2027, meaning everyone who relies on this part of funding will still be able eligible and be able to tap into this funding to continue the gains that we've made within our city, and then the additional the regular transfers will occur.

So I just want them to be assured that we're not harming this fund in any way.

I stand behind it.

I stand behind the great work that many of our partners are doing.

Um and we will certainly move forward.

We have less than 24 hours to figure this out.

Um I've heard members say we need to find ways to cut.

I don't know how else we're cutting beyond what we've already done.

Um we looked at every myself, the budget director, councilwoman Strasburg or Matt, and I know members have looked themselves.

I just don't know how we cut our way out of this problem at this point.

I don't see how being fair to the public that this body does not raise the random rate in some form or fashion.

What that is, I don't know.

Um, but if we're going to produce an honest budget, I just don't know how we do it without some version of a millage increase to cover our loss.

Oh, sorry, to cover oh to fix our facilities.

Um so I just don't know how we we solve for that gap that does exist otherwise.

Um with that being said, I do want to take a moment of silence before we adjourn.

There was a young woman named I Shir Kami, I believe it is.

She was a Carrick High School student that was hit by a sliding car yesterday and unfortunately passed away.

So I would like to have a moment of silence for her.

With that, I believe we've exhausted the business of this public hearing and we are adjourned.