Good morning and welcome to a special standing committee meeting on Sunday, December twenty first, two thousand twenty-five.

With a clerk to take the role.

Mr.

Charland.

Mr.

Cockill.

Miss Gross.

Here.

Mr.

Labelle.

Here.

Mr.

Mosley.

Here.

Miss Cal Smith.

Mr.

Warwick.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberger.

Five members present.

Okay.

Seven members present.

Thank you very much.

Our next order of business is public comment.

I would like to remind everyone to the rules of Council of State that comments are limited to massive concern, official action or deliberation, which may be forced to the council and profanity will not be permitted.

Our first registered speaker is Dr.

Ronald Miller.

Is O'Connor?

So you say but do you?

If so, then equitize the inequity between Pittsburgh East and West Neighborhoods shifting dollars from Oakland and Squirrel Hill neighborhoods to neighborhoods in what I call the beehive.

Um the East against West Pittsburgh, which has devastated West neighborhoods.

West is now an essentially an overtaxed desert.

And East desert.

Dominated by local undertaxed CMU and Pitt.

The beehive neighborhoods within the Pittsburgh City Neighborhood Network, PCNN, which I invented.

In West Pittsburgh, Beachview, Bell Hoover, Bon Air, Brookline Share Borders.

And Banksville is the furthest west.

Who decided these borders of these neighborhoods?

There's no evidence that there's been a referendum to which uh adult individuals voted for these uh vo for these borders.

All bees need pollen, and they need it very badly, and they need it via I think neighborhood elected councils.

What was the last time, Mr.

Lavelle, you were in Bonair and down Bonair Avenue, or in Beachview, down Beach View Boulevard, or Ganey, or Mr.

O'Connor.

In Beach Beach View, in 1970, there were 14,000 people.

And in 2020, according to the U.S.

Census, there are 7,000.

This is decimation under the Democratic Party.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is English Burton.

Is not here.

Our next speaker is the Kahana How Malkina.

I'm approved to the tax country.

We have a unique opportunity to send a powerful message to the people attempting to subjugate the American way of life.

Simply hijacking the republic for which it's been.

What will you do?

After listening to yesterday, it is clear to me that the public and the people of the city of Pittsburgh forget City Council Barbara Woolworth proposal to increase the city tax rate from eight point zero six million to ten point four eight miles, cost of homeowners an additional two hundred and forty-two dollars a year.

What measures are in place to prevent such disparities from continuing to happen.

I urge City Council once again to take people to address the disparities.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Solomon.

Thank you, City.

So for having me here.

I don't know what will.

Looking at the budget and looking at the city as a whole, there's really only one way out of this, and that's growth.

Growth of the number of businesses, growth of the amount of development, and growth of the population.

The budget proposal of $680 million has three big pieces in it.

143 million in property taxes, 148 million in income tax, and 164 million for businesses from payroll.

Being that was 30 million short, we need to do two things in parallel grill and cut.

Looking at the national uh tax revenues for a minute.

Over the past 20 years, tax revenues were grown at 4.1% in a national level.

In the federal government, after the 2017 tax cuts, the federal tax revenues grew at 5.8% annually.

Let's let that sink in for a second.

Cutting red tape and cutting taxes resulted in economic growth, which in turn brings in more tax revenue.

Back to Pittsburgh.

I think we need to change our mindset to be more of a growth mindset, attracting new businesses, new development, and people at record rates.

We can rebalance this budget and have a surplus if we move quickly.

The math is actually pretty simple.

If we can cut 3% a year over the next three years while growing property payment income three percent over the next three years.

Next year we would have a four million dollar surplus.

In 2027, we could have an over 30 million dollar surplus, and in 2028, we could have a 70 million dollar surplus.

To get there, we really need alignment setups.

At a city level, I think we should incentivize the employees with a shared bonus pool from a small percentage of cuts, out of a small percentage of the cuts.

We need to provide the employees with a framework, a series of questions to help them guide as they make these cuts.

Some of the obvious examples are any program or nonprofit that is not provide a benefit that it claims it will provide, that should be an easy area to start making cuts.

For some quick cash, the city should sell all delinquent properties it owns to developers and ask them to get these moving at least 70% developed within the first year, taking property ownership.

Attracting new business and development.

Um there's nowhere that's more obvious that growth incentives are not aligned than Hazelwood Green, which is sat mostly vacant since 2002, and the non-arena lot.

These two properties alone account for almost half the same size of downtown.

Just from guessing, 25% of property tax and over half a payroll tax that generated downtown.

Imagine if we had another 50% of development in those two areas I mentioned.

We should be asking ourselves how we can attract these businesses to come here along with develop new housing as quickly as possible.

We should be cutting as much red tape as we can and offering tax incentives with the goal of eventually lowering taxes for all businesses.

New jobs benefit all Pittsburgh Pittsburghers, new and current.

Abundance of housing will in these areas will also help reduce housing costs for all.

It's a simple supply and demand.

New program idea that I would like to float.

Any big or medium-sized business that helps attract a similar size business should also receive some.

So over the last two years, large commercial property secured an assessment reductions of 30 to 60%, hundreds of millions of dollars were removed from the tax base, resulting in revenue losses that shifted into the residence and the public services.

The revenue did not disappear because council or the mayor overspent.

It disappeared because the system allowed it to appeal away.

When that happens, cost will advantage, they move, they show up as pressure to cut prevention, housing, support, and other safety programs that didn't cause a problem.

That's why payment under the taxes are appropriate response.

They're not punishment, but they're voluntary opportunity for major beneficiaries of the current appeal environment to help stabilize the system like structural reform is pursued.

They're clear and documented candidates for this approach, including major downtown properties that have received large assessment reductions, such as U.S.

Steel Tower, the Tower of Pensia Plaza, EQT Plaza, PPPG Plaza, three gateway center, two uh PNC Plaza and related gateway properties.

These are not marginal properties and they depend on city infrastructure, public safety and transit, and workforce access, asking to participate voluntarily while broader reassessment reform is addressed and is a reasonable civic response.

When people ask who's responsible for the budget price of the answer is not the residents or the city council, the system that allows revenue to be reduced faster than it can be replaced.

Rising revenue while demanding accountability is not regulated governance.

For rising revenue while demanding accountability is not reckless government council to keep the essential programs intact, raise taxes, pursue a pilot program while uh give major participation for major beneficiaries of the current issue.

Uh thank you and uh appreciate the works you guys are doing here.

Thank you very much.

That exhaust our list of register speakers.

Excuse me.

If there's anyone in chambers wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Anyone in chambers wishing to speak?

If not, we will go to our standing committee agenda beginning with the Finance and Law Committee, which is shared by Councilman Strassberger.

Our first deferred paper is Bill 2632.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code Title II fiscal Article 9, property taxes, Chapter 263, rural property tax and exemption by fixing the rate of real estate taxation for 2026.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Councilman Warwick?

Yeah, thank you.

So this is uh the bill that I put forward to raise property taxes by 30 percent.

Um so just for you know, for the public, I think everyone here at the table has heard this before, but just to sort of lay out a little bit um the rationale.

So uh here at council uh we have been told under no uncertain terms by our uh controller and also by our budget director that uh we are in a very precarious financial position.

We have this is this has been made loud and clear uh to council members, and so um I felt that it was imperative that we act on that information.

Um the rationale for raising taxes, 30 percent, which by the way, for every 100,000 of property value currently um you pay uh roughly $800 for every hundred thousand dollars of property value, and this would raise that a 30% increase would raise that by about 240 dollars per year.

Okay.

Um the rationale for for the 30 for that number, right?

For the for the 30 percent number was that um my understanding and all and what we were what we have been told was that um the current budget this year put forth by um the administration, there's about 10 million dollars underestimated on utility costs, roughly 10 million dollars underestimated on um overtime premium pay.

And uh also that the budget has 10 million dollars toward vehicles, but that what we need and what we have been told over and over again by our DPW directors, our public safety directors, and the equipment leasing authority is that we need at least 20 million dollars a year uh invested in our fleet to um to be able to even begin to to keep our fleet up to date the way that we need it to be, as we've seen recently um with recent snow events and um and issues with our ambulances and also with our fire vehicles.

Um that would have brought that you know that that need total about 30 million, and uh the 30 percent increase would generate roughly 40, a little bit more than 40 million.

So my rationale was fill the gap, right?

Fill the gap of uh of thirty million, and then allow us an additional 10 to make improvements in areas that we really need to improve, right?

Uh two big ones being our need to improve uh our response to litter and illegal dumping throughout the city, and also to our need to tear down vacant and abandoned properties, right?

We do not have enough funding to do the amount of demo work that we need to do.

So that was my um that was my rationale.

And um I do want to say that uh I understand that there is a desire to also make cuts, right?

And I I recognize that and I appreciate that.

And I am very grateful to all my colleagues on council and also the directors who have really gone through down to the absolute bare bones and put forward potential cuts, but those cuts don't get us where we need to be to fill the hole.

Um I also want to say, just for the public, um, that there is a narrative, just in general, right?

It's not just here in Pittsburgh, right, but everywhere, right?

Certainly in the United States, that government is like fundamentally wasteful, right?

That government is fundamentally dysfunctional and blowing money everywhere.

And I I hear that, right?

And it's something I've I've thought myself, you read the newspaper, but in my three years on council, um, I really have to say that with a few exceptions, I will certainly say with a few exceptions, that has not been my experience here at the city of Pittsburgh.

I feel like our our directors running our departments actually do uh a good job, right, of trying to deliver on services that our residents need.

Um there is some disagreement about the budget, about the 2026 budget, right?

There's the administration that is saying that the budget is tight but workable, and there uh, you know, and then you have the controller and our our budget director that says it's not workable, it's not uh, you know, it's it's not a reasonable budget for 2026.

We're definitely going to go over.

Um with that understanding, um my feeling is that whatever the case, the budget's tight but doable or unrealistic, whichever side of that you're on, that doesn't feel like a safe place from my perspective for us to be at the city of Pittsburgh in our ability to deliver core city services to the public.

And that includes public safety, right?

Police, fire, EMS, DPW, um keeping our streets safe and doing work in our streets that make them safer for pedestrians.

That's our city parks, our pools, our senior centers, our rec centers, after school programming, summer programming, um, programs that uh support uh food initiatives, uh violence prevention programs, um all of these things are core city services, and the city of Pittsburgh has a lot of other, I'll call them nice to have services, but that I don't want to see, I don't want to see us lose either, right?

Like our amazing farmers markets, right?

Those are farmers' markets are are wonderful, right?

I don't want to see those go away.

I don't want to see our nice events like films in the park and 4th of July festivities and all these cool things that are that's really nice.

It makes Pittsburgh a really nice place to live to have those things.

And so that I'm just trying to that that is my rationale, right, for uh a tax increase that filled the gap but also gave a little bit of extra wiggle room.

Um then I do, you know, before you know, I also want to say I am very um clear-eyed about who should be paying to support the city of Pittsburgh, and I understand that it should not always be falling on the backs of our homeowners, right?

I understand that the large nonprofits, UPMC, AHN, CMU, Pitt, Duquesne, that they need to be paying their fair share.

I know the administration worked on that.

Uh we didn't get there.

I hope that the incoming administration is committed to working on that.

Um, but that's not something that we can count on here at council today, right, for the 2026 budget.

I also think that our high earners, we have a huge influx of high earners to the city of Pittsburgh, right?

Folks making, you know, 200 plus thousand dollars a year, folks with big uh, you know, uh stock portfolios, right?

I would like to see those folks paying more, paying more of their fair share and uh, you know, capital gains uh paying on on those extra earnings.

And that is something that I am committed to working on in the coming year, but that's a longer term fight.

So again, not something for this year.

Um and then finally, I think that we need to take the politics out of how we do taxes in the city of Pittsburgh, right?

And by that I mean it is very hard for elected officials to propose tax increases, even when they're needed.

And that difficulty is ultimately, I think Councilman Gross will give us some history.

What led to Act 47 was how hard it is for elected officials to commit to raising taxes when it need because it's a hard decision.

Um we need to be, we need to find a way to raise taxes steadily a little tiny bit every year so that we can keep up with the cost, with the rising costs without, you know, without having to have this huge political fight and then taking a giant bite out of um out of everyone's pocketbook every 10, 15 years when we kind of reach the breaking point and we just you know we're you know, everything's about to fall apart.

That's not a way, that's not a way to govern, that's not a way to plan.

So um that's something else that I want to work on.

And then finally, um, just so that folks know, uh, there are a number of tax relief programs.

Um there's the homestead exemption, which reduces your property value, your assessed property value by 15,000 if it is the if it's the property that you are living in in your home.

Uh there's senior tax relief through Act 77.

Uh if you are a senior and you're making less than 30,000 a year, and that would include half of your Social Security, uh, you get a 40% discount on your property taxes.

So that is important.

Seniors need to know that that is out there, especially our low-income seniors.

Um, there are a number of other rebate programs, and also our depart department of finance.

Um, you can apply for hardship, and if you qualify for the the hardship plan, you will, you know, there will be someone to help you in the department of finance to help you figure out how to work out a plan to to pay your taxes.

Um, uh, and I know that there may be some some changes to this number, right?

Like coming in at 30, and it feels very high, and I recognize that.

Uh, but regardless, I I really would like every homeowner in the city of Pittsburgh to go to real estate.allegheny county.us and look up your address.

Find out what your property is assessed at, because I promise you it is a lot lower than you think it is.

I promise you that it is lower than you think it is.

I've had homeowners call me up, you know, friends of mine and say, what?

This is crazy, a tax increase, you know.

A hundred currently a hundred thousand dollar property is paying eight hundred dollars a month.

I've had folks call me and they look it up, they look up there and say, let me look up your address for you, and their home is assessed at twenty-five thousand dollars, right?

Look up your property and and um, and I think that that will help ease some folks' minds, at least I hope so.

Um with that, I will just say thank you so much to my colleagues.

Everyone has been working so hard to try and figure out, you know, the piece that I put forward was the tax increase.

We it is something that we have to do, and as far as figuring out the cuts where we can trim uh my colleagues on council have been doing an incredible amount of work on that, and I'm very grateful to them, and I and I am very hopeful that today uh we get to uh a balance between the two that ensures that we can keep providing core city services to our residents, the services that they that they um that they deserve.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um just pile on a little more of the doom and gloom because I think there's another item that we've been glossing over that I keep repeating to people is that there's not only all of the big budget gaps that Councilwoman Warwick listed, but I didn't hear her really highlight, and maybe she did and I dismissed it.

The fact that for over a hundred years, the city's water bill was zero.

Zero.

When we had 30 swimming pools, our water bill was zero.

Now we're down to 15, 16 pools.

But these years we have an outstanding balance right now, unpaid of $13 million to PWSA.

You can thank the state legislature for that, who put us under the public utility commission, which is really supposed to dispense wave utility commission, which is supposed to only be governing private water systems.

Um next year's is projected to be 10.

So that is another burden on this budget.

But I think in general, I think um councilwoman were captured very well that it's it's really not our expenditures except for that one.

That's one that we didn't used to have that have increased, but it's really and some of the callers as well today and yesterday mentioned it's really our revenues that took a hit in the last year.

The the facility usage fee, generally known as the dock tax, six million right there, thrown out by courts.

Right?

The appeals by I think the major property owners, I think the caller um during public comment said have cut the you know, appealed the values of their downtown properties in half some of them.

And then the courts allow them to discount their payments down to 60% of that value.

So it's really been a significant drop.

With due to the shift that we're still you know, kind of feeling out all of the all of the mid-size cities, especially that have used to have so much revenue from their downtown business districts post-COVID with the shift in work that so many of the offices downtown are empty half the time.

Um is a significant shift.

Asking the question in our our our records, you can find it in the media and you can find it in our legislative record, Legistar.

You know, what's how what has the millage been going back about 25 years?

Um councilwoman Warwick's amendment that we're discussing would raise it to 10.48 for the current 8.06.

In 2003, this table set the millage at 10.8.

10.8.

And it stayed there 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, all the way up to when until the county did a reassessment in 2012.

Nope.

I think.

And I don't have the exact date of when the assessment was, you know, uh approved.

And then this table, Mayor Ravenstahl put a you know, a piece of legislation over to lower that millage from 10.8 to 7.56.

And it stayed there for just really a year and a half, two years.

And then I was at this table and some of the other members as well, when we decided actually, oops, that was actually a little low, and that was the first year of the Paduta administration, and he asked us to raise it to 8.06.

That was in December 2014.

That's 11 years ago today.

And so it has stayed there this whole time.

But again, for 11 years, it was at 10.8.

And I I think an interesting note of history is that as I think some members have reminded us several times, the city went into Act 47 on December 29th, 2003.

In November, late November 2003, Salah Udin, who sat at this table, Councilmember Salah Udin, asked this table to raise the millage to 15 mills.

Hold on, let me just scroll down on my little tiny phone.

November 24th, 2003.

Legislative number, I don't have it in front of me.

Oh no, 2003-2561.

That motion failed.

So we tried again.

December 2nd, 2003.

20, nope, that was the proclamation for that was uh the ask for Act 47, December 16th, 2003, legislative number 2003-2620.

He tried again to raise the mills from 10.8 to 11.5.

And on December 29th, the city declared Act 47, 2003.

So this is all you'll find it on Legislatar, but again, in 2013, there was a county reassessment, and this body lowered the mills from 10.8 to 7.56.

And I emphasize that because it's not unfounded that the normal citizen thinks, well, if they raise taxes now, they're never gonna lower them.

But we have in fairly recent history over the last 25 years, raised and lowered them several times.

Um Councilwoman Warwick, putting this amendment on the table, which raises the millage for the first time in 12 years from 8.06 to only 10.48.

We've had it higher than that in the last 20 years.

So I'm supportive because what cities do when they don't have money is not open your swimming pools for the summer, especially when there's a $13 million water bill that they haven't even paid.

What other cities do when they don't have the money for waste haulers, your garbage trucks, they don't pick up your garbage.

And it piles up on the street week after week after week.

We've seen these examples in other cities.

We can do better than that.

We it's true that we need a reassessment, that raising the millage now won't will be a burden on some households.

But when we have a reassessment, which we're hoping and we certainly need to have, and the state government is looking at forcing one, courts could force one.

Um it we know that it's long, long overdue.

Other cities reassess annually, right?

This millage could lower and be more equitable, right?

So it's less of a burden on the households that can't pay.

Um and uh again, I appreciate my colleague listing all of the current programs that we have to try to create relief to low-income households and to anyone who is struggling.

We don't want to, you know, push anyone out of their homes by not being able to pay a property tax.

But we have had significant increase in home values in some parts of the city, especially the district I represent.

Incredible jump.

Tenfold jump in property values in some of the census tracts that I represent.

In the span of just five years.

We were the like 15201 was the highest increasing property value um over a five-year span.

I think the first one, first like if they did it by zip codes, I think, was a zip code in San Francisco.

Position number two, I think was another zip code in San Francisco, and position number three, nationwide was 15201.

So this is not fun for anyone.

It's certainly scary for some people, but as Councilwoman Warwick said, look up what your actual assessment is.

You can find it on the Allegheny County real estate portal, and then you can see what this math means.

It would be raising it not even quite two mills.

So you can calculate yourself how much this will cost you over the um spread every year.

So I'll stop there, um, Mr.

Chair.

I think we have um we've kind of understood that this isn't it's not unheard of.

Um we've had higher millage with this increase.

There that Pittsburgh has lived through a higher millage um in its past.

And uh certainly the math that we've heard through all of our budget hearings from the controller's office, from our own budget office really does affirm that what we need is more revenue.

I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um thank um everyone who came here on a Sunday.

It's good to it's good to be here.

Um I've never been here on a Sunday.

I have but uh times are different.

And so I appreciate everyone who all the staff and everyone who uh made sure this is happening and council president, you know, your leadership on the timeline and uh the finance chair.

Council vs.

Strasbourg, your leadership on the timeline as well, and organizing all these meetings and all these all these uh beautiful yellow pieces of paper I have in front of me, uh which are which are amendments for the for the budget.

But um I just want to get to the point of why we're here today, and I've been saying from the beginning that we have to fix our own house before we charge you more for your house.

Because I have different numbers that I've been going off of that I think are um that I think I want to mention since we're talking about the budget.

So I've been listening, and uh I know that the the reasons for the the initial 30 percent were um I'm listening that it's after listening that it's 10 for utilities, ten for overtime, and ten additional for the fleet, and then um maybe there was some other more money.

I think that gives us a 30 million.

Well, just just considering that those numbers.

Um and I don't mean this as a you know, I want to argue back and forth.

I'm just letting the public know where I'm at with the numbers when I was having conversations with um everyone who works uh in this capacity to come up with the numbers.

So with the utilities, um we got a bill, we we allocate eight, and we got a new bill for twelve.

That's four, that's four additional million.

And then the electricity went up, and that was two additional million.

That's that's six million dollars.

So I just have different, I just have different math on the utilities.

So if we're saying ten for utilities, I have six.

And they um you know, they explained whether or not you agree with their calculations, and you know, for transparency, I've been you know, out with I think most members here saying that we disagree with the amount that they're estimating for overtime.

And then they walked us through their so like for instance, you know, whatever the overtime number was, you know 15.

If you know, we look at the past three years, the estimates, and that was um, if you look at the average of the past three years, it was over by you know, X amount, rough rough estimate.

So we definitely saw that as a way to um we definitely saw that as a way that they were looking to balance the budget by making those numbers smaller, and after walking through their math on how they get there, and you know, you it's pretty it's some pretty interesting math, but I understand that the all this money with vacancy, and we we did it.

We you know took the vacancy from the police and we put that into uh our numbers.

So we essentially borrowed their math uh to fill our balance to make it look like we're we're holding our balance sheet.

So after you go through their math, my overtime number that I was coming up with was as high as uh we had to solve for five million.

I could be off on that, but it seems like there was some disagreement.

So it seems like the number of ten, which was stated was the reason to go for the initial 30% increase was was high.

Uh in my, you know, that was that was higher than what I was calculating.

So that's six, five, that's eleven, eleven million, and then there's you know, obviously we need to fund our fleet better.

So if we look at what we already done, we've already amended seven million, there's different amendments.

So that fills our balance sheet, seven more million, stop the violence fund for this this year, it gets us five.

Um and then there is there was a proposal for um looking at just overall vacancy, what the numbers are at the end of the year, and that was 11 million.

So I I just think I brought this up to a few people.

I think the number C number about you know the overall vacancy that happens in every department, I mean if we can agree that it fluctuates every year, that does get us to that does get us to you know either a low number or a high number.

So it's you know, I'm not sure what the range is, but it was proposed that this year it could be eleven million.

But regardless, you know, there is this, there is this um, there could be like this delta within it.

So we could assume you know there is um that there is gonna be some money left over just from natural vacancy throughout the year.

And then I've been talking to members through about other ways to generate revenue, and uh I believe that could uh also um you know be very fruitful and something that we couldn't get done this month, but it's something we definitely could get done in in January, and I believe that would um that would that would also bring additional revenue um, which I believe would be well over eight million.

you know there is this there is this um there could be like this delta within it so we could assume you know there there is um that there is going to be some money left over just from natural vacancy throughout the year and then I've been talking to members through about other ways to generate revenue and uh I believe that could uh also um you know be very fruitful and something that we couldn't get done this month but it's something we definitely could get done in in January and I believe that would um that would that would also bring additional revenue um which I believe will be well over 8 million and then if we have a mayor in that's willing to negotiate with UPMC if they came in at 7.1 my understanding is it's not 7.1 is that you know there is an all or there there is a um all or nothing kind of uh sentiment here that all the nonprofits would give in uh if if UPMC were come along so if we make them a partner we could probably get to 15 for all that's low ball on it I think that's that's that's what the pro it's the it's the current mayor but you know I mean the current mayor um you know decided to take that uh that that uh venture to decide to take that that negotiation um south whenever I mean just trying to go after a small parking lots so you know right there we we have we we have better leadership in there to get strike a deal we could probably get to at least 15 million a year and they may want to see that go into the pot so maybe that goes to fleet I don't know um that's not that's not my role to negotiate that which it was so you know that's where I was at with uh the the the numbers um I know that's uh pretty simple for all of us just to you know say different numbers and where we're at with it and everyone has their own their own um their own strategy on what they want to do but um you know I think that this um this year we could get by and we could definitely create more additional revenue and we could uh look to the new administration to figure out where we could make government more efficient without spending more money I think that we all agree that um some departments could do better than others and that doesn't require more funding and so at this time I feel that it it would be unreasonable to put more on the backs of of uh the working families that are in the that are homeowners that are property owners and especially in the time when we have downtown in the state that it is and we see decreasing property values uh we ultimately want people to invest in it we want to show that Pittsburgh is a place to invest and that we're just not gonna you know continue to tax you so all across all taxing bodies there's it's gonna show that um I believe it would show that we're not um that we're not showing that we're that we're making sure that uh like I said I'll go back to that our house is completely good before we tax your home more but you know with that I'm just looking forward to you know working with everyone in the new year I know that maybe we may disagree on tax increase now but you know you do have a a partner in uh making sure that we continually come back to the table and make sure that government works for the people of Pittsburgh and uh we may disagree now but uh you know in the future looking forward to you know working with all of you to make sure that Pittsburgh works for everyone there was one more quick note that I want to make which was um that I do believe that this is a moment where we could set this aside and continue to work on this in January.

We all we have the option opening up within with the new administration and we could continually uh figure out where new revenue is and just like you know I've been talking to members over how we can generate new revenue um I think there's even more ways than one uh without going straight to to real estate tax.

So I you know I I would like to figure out a way to work within what we already have so we can continue on you know showing the people that we're looking uh at our government and and the using their taxes that they've already given us uh the most efficient way um so I guess I don't I don't see this as a as a um as dire of a moment right now that we have to solve this problem I think we could solve this problem uh with new leadership in in the future so I'm looking forward to that relationship and looking forward to working with you all in in the future thank you thank you councilman Smith thank you um almost a lot of what Councilman Wilson just said I feel like this is not something that we have to do right today the budget's open you could do it again you can increase taxes next year if the incoming mayor is unsuccessful in getting um an agreement with the uh pilot agreement in place um there's a lot of things that could happen from now to then you could look through the budget and find out where there might be some waste you can you could wait until um the new mayor comes in and tells us what his agenda is and you could try to come up with a pilot program.

But I think you're you're raising taxes it's not that I disagree that they need raised.

I I think you they probably do need raise some some bit a bit but I think that they don't need raised to the amount that I'm seeing possibly here between 20 and 30 percent I don't think they need is that correct early is 30 percent is what's currently 30 but there's amendments right so I don't think that that's I don't think it's fair and honestly it frustrates me to hear people who really have great incomes talking about raising taxes on people who don't have great incomes to do things like handing money out like like it's candy like it's as if it's you know all the grant money that we're doing all the projects that we're doing yeah there's they're great but they could be funded by a pilot program.

Or they could be funded by a sponsorship.

And I'm curious I'm curious what was presented to council's leadership um what all the options were and I will say that we were told last year that our budget was okay.

So I mean yes we got warnings a couple hours before but up until that point I several of us including Dan Frieson sat here telling us that we needed to do something differently.

But our own budget office did not say that last year until he said we're gonna have lean years ahead not that we're gonna have to raise taxes.

And now we're hearing all this stuff now we have to raise taxes.

And so I mean if you want to say something Pete you want to come up here you can come up here and talk about it.

Okay.

So and that I'm just watching the politics between our own offices and it's it's really irritating me and that's something I'm gonna address with you afterwards.

But I will say this that I feel like we know that right now our residents have just had a major increase with their taxes on the county level.

They just had the increase with this school district.

We keep saying how they're getting hit with utility so you know just a lot and and I understand that our budget is not perfect right now and I do understand that.

And I do think a small increase I would be supportive of and then looking at the budget next year after we see if the new incoming mayor can secure pilot program and to see if there's reasons that we would have to increase it down the road.

But right now is not an emergency I mean it's not that we have to do it now.

You want to do it now.

There's a big difference.

You want to do it.

We could cut back money we could freeze everything that was non-essential um to the city of Pittsburgh's function everything that's non is non-essential.

We could do that but we're not we we still like giving away grant money we still like helping people and I like those things too.

But the fact of the matter is is those things could be funded by private dollars or by partnerships with people or with um you know private funding in sponsorship.

So I I I don't see us saying it's nice to tell people we're cutting out we're with you know we want to keep stop the violence going.

We are keeping stop the violence the fund going.

We're telling them to spend it down.

It's nice to say we want to keep food justice fund going.

And and you know we are doing those things.

But it's nice to say you want to do all these things because you care about people but then you're gonna tax them more for you're not taxing poor people who can get help.

You're taxing the middle class who don't even qualify for the help.

That's what who you're really hurting.

The people the same people over and over again paying taxes in the city of Pittsburgh, paying increases in the city of Pittsburgh, doing uh you know what they can with very little help and very little very little funding anymore.

And while their own bills are increasing.

So it's like you're just creating another layer of of poor people in the city.

That's what you're doing.

You're going to push people out of the city of Pittsburgh and then you're gonna wonder why there's no people paying taxes.

Our own employees don't want to live here.

Our own employees don't live here and don't pay the tax but yet they come to the table and ask us to increase taxes on the people paying it.

And you're willing to do it.

And Councilman Colgio and I just in one week were able to find eight million dollars to s to um stop wasting that money.

And that was with the help of the current administration.

That was the help with the current administration.

But I will say this, that was us just taking a glance.

I would love to see our budget office come up with all the places we could all, you know, cut or hold or freeze, anything that's not essential to the city.

That's what I'd like to see.

And then if we had that, we can have that conversation about what we need to raise tax.

We don't even know what the real number is because we're getting so much mixed information.

And so that to me is disgusting too.

I mean, we pay a lot of people a lot of money to give us right answers and to make sure that we're doing it, making the right choices for our voters and for the const people of the city of Pittsburgh.

And we're getting it last minute and not complete and and contradictory.

So if the residents want to know why we're struggling over this vote, it's because we're not getting all this the information that's not it's it as you can hear and you've heard uh hopefully over these past few hearings, we're getting mixed information.

Some things from our budget office, something from the administration, something from our council, our colleagues.

And it's it makes it really difficult to make a really good decision.

I mean, I think that we do need to probably raise taxes somewhat.

I don't think it's 20 or 30 percent.

And I don't know where how you've come up with these decisions.

You make all these cases and all these arguments, but really you also say you care about poor people.

So I mean, how can I trust anything I'm hearing?

So for me, I'm not gonna vote for a 20 percent increase.

I'm not gonna vote to hurt over.

I would vote for something much less, and I would say suggest that we would hold off until next year until we actually see what the new mayor, incoming mayor can do.

Now I know he wants this to pass.

I know he wants some tax, you know.

Of course, what mayor wouldn't want to have money, and I'm sure you've all gotten some contact information from different people, including unions and others who want to see this happen.

And it's not that I don't want to see it happen.

I want to know that what we're doing is right and I want to know the number is right.

And I have not seen or heard any of that from anyone that the number is right.

And and for me to do that to our residents when they're at such a bad time, such a I I mean, don't tell me next week that you care about poor how house affordable housing.

Don't tell me next week that you care about people that are struggling.

Don't tell me you care about the Food Justice Fund, because you are making people line up for that stuff with your votes.

That's it for me.

I'll say more if I have to, but that's it for now.

Thank you.

Any other members.

I like a councilman Coggill, then Councilman Mosley.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So I've been consistent ever since it was proposed that to raise taxes.

And coming from the private sector, I was really kind of taken back by some of the spending that we've taken on in the last couple of years.

So the reason why I've been consistent is to not wanting or not needing to raise taxes.

I'll just give you two brief examples.

Just last year, I believe, or maybe maybe over a little over a year ago, we took out a $62 million bond for affordable housing.

Great cause, no question about it.

Of that $62 million bond.

We are paying $32 million in interest.

So $30 million will go to the nonprofits who are building our affordable housing, which God bless them, we need them.

I I'm I'm glad I appreciate the work they do.

Uh but when we're in a position where we can't even put vehicles on the street.

But spending like that, that's why it's very hard for me to look at my taxpayers, my property owners, and say, and justify a tax raise at this point.

Also the six million dollar comprehensive plan that Councilwoman uh Kill Smith said that we're, you know, alluded to that we're gonna draw back a couple million dollars, I hope from that.

Um that was irresponsible.

There's many, many, many, many other examples, but those are just two glaring ones that you know stick out to me.

And it is true we haven't raised taxes for property taxes for 11 years.

I understand that, and some may think it's justified.

But don't be fooled.

You know, we have a library tax that we we put on our property owners.

We have a parks tax that we've put on our property owners.

This is just in the last few years.

We have a deed transfer tax that we put on would be new homeowners.

So we have raised taxes, just to be clear.

Just not in the way of a simple property tax.

I've said to my district over and over again, the only way I could vote to raise taxes is when we exhaust every effort, every single effort.

We don't have the time to do that today or before this budget needs to be passed, obviously.

But I will say, you know, I know at least Councilman Wilson and myself are looking at new revenue streams that can be very profitable to us without putting it on the backs of our property owners.

Both during their, I think infancy stage, mine is anyway, but um but it certainly is a viable path to help right size our budget.

Just as Councilwoman Kill Smith said, we've we decided not to build a salt dome.

That's six million dollars that we put back into our capital budget that we now have flexibility to shift around and hopefully put towards vehicles.

Vehicles is the fleet is the main issue for me in the next year, I will tell you.

Um that's just scratching the surface.

That that was like, you know, that was just us talking and you know, coming to the consensus that we don't need to spend this eight million dollars.

And you know, right there alone, that's uh one third of what most of us think that we're in the rares or we're gonna be in the rares.

So um until I can look my tax and my constituents in the eye and say we've exhausted every effort, I cannot you know uh support a tax increase.

I think this administration has been irresponsible.

I think we have been irresponsible, to be honest with you.

Many, many, many cases, those two, the six sixty-two million dollar bond, the six million dollar comp plan, irresponsible for us to do.

And now we're saying to our taxpayers, oh, we need money, we need money, the fleet's so bad.

Well, we could have put that money to the fleet, just so everybody knows.

American uh, you know, the ARPA money, the federal money that is now run out, and this is all new point at this juncture.

But um the reason why I'm talking about it is because this is why I can't vote to raise taxes.

We could have bought an entire new fleet.

Instead, this administration and this council, which I'm part of, obviously, um, chose to put millions and millions and millions of dollars to the URA for affordable housing.

Again, very good cause, great cause.

Same time, we're acting like a foundation.

We're not a foundation, we're a business.

We are running the city's business for the taxpayers.

And because we've made some bad decisions over the past four years, I can't even entertain a raising the taxes at this point.

I would be glad to revisit it next year if we come, if we're still at this table next year and we still haven't right sized or adequately funded our fleet, I'll be the first one to, you know, say, yeah, we are gonna have to raise taxes.

Way too premature right now for me.

Um, you know, I think if we show our residents, if we show the city of Pittsburgh that we are willing to make some harder decisions than we've made and look at new revenue streams that we I know we can produce, um, then they will see that we've made an honest effort.

And I think next year at this point, if we're in the same position, if we still are in such dire straits, I think it'll be a lot more understandable for the city of Pittsburgh and its residents to say to shoulder a tax hike for the property owners.

Another thing I would say, my district has knows where I stand on this.

I've been very clear, um, whether it be with the press or my in the streets of my neighborhoods.

Um I would say I I I don't know this for a fact, but I would venture to say my district probably has the highest concentration of property owners, I would think.

I don't know that for sure, but I'm guessing.

Um on top of that, I think I have probably the highest concentration of property owners who are on fixed incomes and retired.

So to put this on the backs of our property owners right now is just irresponsible.

Um I won't do it.

Um I will exhaust every effort, and I'll make harder decisions as we move forward over the next year in order to right size our fleet first and foremost.

So yeah, and I would say, you know, also I think councilwoman Kill Smith and District 2 and District 4 kind of mirror each other as far as my you know talking about the property owners and their own fixed incomes, so until we really exhaust every effort, and again, we have just scratched the surface.

I've not even talked to most members about what I'm gonna propose.

Councilman Wilson and I've had conversations about what he's gonna propose.

And um, you know, until we go down those roads, until I can look the citizens of the city of Pittsburgh in the eye and say we've exhausted every effort.

At this point, you know, uh you the lots have been made of oh it's it's really hard.

It's a hard decision to raise taxes.

I think it's a harder decision not to raise taxes at this point.

I really do.

And I think while everybody else is raising taxes around us, the county, the school district.

Um, I think we need to step up and say we're gonna be the adults in the room.

And we're gonna make every effort that we can before we come with our hand out again.

So we can be creative, you know.

I mean, there are so many things we could look at spending.

We could look at every dollar we spend, every whether it's for these microphones, whether it's for paper that we use, you name it.

Um I've shown in the past we've carved out millions of dollars just by looking at our expenditures.

When it comes to our table, and we have the final say so, we vote yes or no, okay, on that whatever we're buying, basically.

Everything, anything.

Um I did that in eight hours, by the way.

Over six million dollars, and this was two years ago.

The administration frowned upon it, which I I thought they were coming to thank me, but they said, Oh, you really can't should be doing that.

But here's the bottom line.

We approve the spending here.

So don't tell me we can't do it.

If we don't think it's worth it, what we pay for paper, we go to another paper supplier.

So many more ways we can carve spending besides creating new revenues, besides cutting, which to me cutting our workforce and laying people off would be the last you know thing that I would entertain.

I I want to try not to do that.

But um, but but again, we've just barely scratched the surface.

I've proven in the past we could look at everything we buy, and I think we could save millions and millions of dollars.

So I'm willing to work with uh the next administration.

Um assuming they are going to be working with our nonprofits, and you know, we don't even know where that's at yet.

So before we go raising taxes, let's see what we can do on our end, a full effort, not just say, oh, let's raise taxes, the sky is falling, our vehicles are falling apart.

Well, they're falling apart because we let them fall apart.

This council let them fall apart.

I had a post agenda three years ago, had every director at this table telling us what dire straits their fleet is in.

We had ARPA money, we could have directed to it at that point.

Did we?

No.

So that's why it's not responsible for us to raise taxes.

That's why I won't, if I have to next year, and we're in such dire straits, which I don't think we will be.

I don't think we'll have to raise taxes next year or the year after, to be honest with you.

I think we could hold the line right where we're at.

We have raised taxes, library tax, parks tax, all of it, right?

So that's my thoughts on it.

I know it's been uh difficult on all of us.

Nobody likes to talk about this subject.

I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues as to trying to find ways to right size our budget.

But um again, we've not tried hard enough yet.

So we can always open a budget if if we if we don't think it's balanced, we can do that next month.

So um I'm gonna continue to work on things.

I'd rather focus our efforts not on a tax raise.

Look at other things we can do.

Again, be creative.

We could look at everything we do, and we could save millions and millions of dollars.

I've proved it, I've done it, and I'm willing to do it again.

So that's my thoughts.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you, Councilman Mosley.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, I like to enter a motion uh to amend to reduce the military listed in this bill from 10.48 to 9.67.

There has been a motion made.

It's now been seconded with discussion.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to add a little bit more context.

So not only were the mills in 2000 and two um ten point eight, which is higher than the proposal on the table.

The number of city employees, I think is important for us to look at because we just heard a number of colleagues, and we hear some people in the public saying as well, cut more, cut more, cut more.

Um I don't want to discourage any of my colleagues from looking carefully at the contracts.

I really do appreciate Councilman Cockell and Councilwoman Kel Smith's willingness to look at a capital project on the capital.

Is it operating our capital?

I thought it was a capital project.

Um the six million dollar salt, seven million dollar salt dome.

I think that was a really important place for us to look.

But the number of employees when we're looking at programming and we're looking at services, core services.

I think we just I need to reiterate that I don't see any more places to cut.

I think that is what we saw in our budget hearings.

Um we will be cutting into actual service delivery.

Um and again, when I say when we say words like service delivery, that means your garbage being picked up.

That means your swimming pool being opened.

That means you know, someone being there to answer the phone when you're trying to get a permit.

I mean, these are like core city functions.

Um in 2002, when the millage was 10.8.

The city had 4,000 305 employees.

Again, 4,000 305 employees.

The budget in front of us has a proposed 3,67.

It's not quite a thousand, but it's a solid 700 fewer employees.

And I think we would just be cutting away.

We've we've said it before, but I just wanted to reiterate it.

We've we've said it before here at the thing, you know, it's not kind of there's no fat to be cut.

The fat's already been cut.

Um, and so we'd be cutting into like muscle, it's a kind of a gross, really is a gross metaphor, the more I have to say it.

But um that we we can't cut our way out of this.

We've said it before, we said it again.

I just think that those numbers are also really helpful to have in front of us.

So um again, I'm supportive of the going up to 10.48 because again, we we survived 12 years of it at 10.8, even higher.

It's been done before.

When the county reassessed, it went down to 7.65.

And we after a year, two years we raised it again to the current eight point oh six, and that was 12 years ago.

Um we haven't raised it since, and we know that property values have increased.

Um we need that reassessment to really capture all of that increase in value.

I'll stop there.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I've got Councilwoman Smith followed by Councilman Mosley and then Councilwoman Warwood.

I'd like to know.

I'll wait to make that.

Okay.

Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, um, I also would like to uh for to note for the clerk that uh councilman Charlin asked to be listed as a co-sponsor to the amendment on the floor.

And I want to thank Councilman Sharlin for his willingness to join me in this effort.

Um, I appreciate the conversation that we're having around this table.

And um, you know, as many know I've struggled mightily um, you know, with the decision of uh of how we were going to address this challenge we face of you know either uh unilaterally raising taxes, unilaterally uh cutting jobs, unilaterally cutting services, or some combination, you know, of of all three.

And I remember when council woman Warwick called me on a Friday afternoon and alerted me on her um efforts uh to introduce um the this bill that we have before us, and I told her uh I I needed some time to sit with it.

And you know, and that was weeks ago, and and I sat with that decision uh from that moment on that Friday to about 90 minutes ago, um, sitting down with our budget director and having numerous conversations and getting numerous feedback from um constituents across the city as well as uh across my district and in that initial conversation.

You know, I still share the concern of the most vulnerable homeowners in my district, which I have many and do plan to um you know if this uh does pass um to you know work mightily in the in the new year to ensure that all those most vulnerable homeowners are uh connected with you know uh all of the property tax relief programs um that are available to them, whether municipal programs or state programs.

Um I've already talked to my chief of staff, and that is gonna be uh one of our top priorities in quarter one uh of of 2026 um if this passes and and and I know it's been said you know very recently at the at this table that you know many times and most of the time we wear hats as representatives, but occasionally we have we wear hats as trustees, and and at least for me, you know, I feel like this is one of those moments uh where I feel uh more like a trustee that than a representative and and understanding the gravity, you know, of the of the challenges uh that we face and um just using the house metaphor that has come up, you know, uh a couple times.

You know, I was having a conversation with my wife about this this morning, who many of you know was the county controller for over a decade and is uh you know and and obviously has very strong opinions, you know, about fiscal matters um as the county's fiscal watchdog, who I thought, you know, she did uh uh um exemplary job, you know, as as our as a as a as our county controller and and and you know, using the metaphor of a house and you know, and and and I know you uh my my esteemed colleague uh Coghill, you know, mentioned that you know the many decisions were made over over the years, and I want do want you know, just the the record to note that I wasn't here for for many of those decisions, you know, um and and this is only my second budget that I'm voting on.

Um but while this isn't the house that I built, this is the house that I bought.

Um and and and even though you don't build a house, me and my wife and my two sons live in a hundred-year-old house in North Point Breeze that we did not build, but we bought it, you know, we had to fix the roof, and we had to get a French drain put in, and we put in brand new windows uh this year uh to to make the house more comfortable and we had you know to make decisions to to not go on vacations and not get our sons those two hundred and fifty dollar Kyrie Irving shoes that they like because you know we had to make those tough decisions, and I totally respect you know everybody's perspective and philosophy around this table.

Um and then I will not you know cast any aspersions on any of my esteemed colleagues uh based on the decisions that they make around you know this substantial decision that we have to make and understanding that you know all of us you know outside of our esteemed colleague who will be leaving us in a week or two, um, you know, we will continue to have to work together.

Um so regardless of how we fall, um, you know, today um it is incumbent upon all of us to continue to work together as colleagues and have a collegiality uh necessary um to continue to solve the big problems as well as you know work with the new administration.

Many of you know that I did not support in the primary election, but I have pledged to work with you know hand in hand as as partners.

Um you know, one knowing that you know the the mayor elect was my son's little league coach, while my son was to start shortstop and they won the championship of Squirrel Hill.

And I hope to be able to use that as leverage in moments like this to remind soon to be mayor o'connor, you know what I mean, about my son Thad and and uh and the big hits that he made and the key plays that he made in shortstop um to get his Squirrel Hill team um uh over the finish line.

Um and while obviously I wanted to just bring some brevity to a very tense um c you know conversation um what what drove me you know to to my uh decision um to offer up an amendment and and and support uh increase in in taxes because I do feel like this is you know the best path forward to address our aging fleet.

I do feel like it is our best path forward to address what I do see as core services, like the violence intervention work that all of the law enforcement personnel that I know that I work with closely in the city speak of extremely highly and see as key partners um in making our city safer than it was, you know, particularly when I was a candidate back in 2023 and 2022 um, you know, when when our city was not as safe as it is right now, we know we still have ways to go um to get to where we want to go, but we are in in a better place from that perspective.

Um so in my in my view, um not to question anyone else's sense of responsibility, because I respect everybody around this table, but for me, um I felt like this was a responsible you know path to take, and I'm willing to take you know whatever incoming and then willing to sit down and have a conversation with every single constituent I have in District 9 that has questions about that.

I think I've built a reputation on being responsive, being accessible and willing to sit down with folks and having those tough conversations and being in the hot seat.

Um and and I think that um has been an indicative uh of what I'm about.

Um so I I'll leave it there for now.

Look forward to continued conversations.

But the last thing that I will say is that I do hope that if this does pass, this extraordinary step that we take is the impetus to in my opinion uh you know put on the front burner conversations about the pilot program so that you know we can be like Boston and other cities that do get those resources.

You know, I we were just I was sitting down with Director McDevitt this morning.

We were looking and seeing that, you know, the city of Boston, you know, has got you know, I think they got about 20 million last year and about 30 million and what they call community benefits.

We got to reach out to them and understand exactly what those community benefits mean, but but we definitely need to go around that down that path and also as well as be an impetus for the county um to begin reassessment as well as the impetus to have those conversations with my esteemed colleague, Councilman Wilson around other sources of revenue and other sources of revenue that Councilman Coghill so that maybe this time next year we could be lowering the military again because we have found those uh various uh sources of revenue.

But I think at this moment, for me, the responsible thing for me to do uh you know was to step forward um and offer up this amendment.

Um and uh but again I really you know appreciate the conversation for having around the table and respect um every single opinion um that's around the table.

I know everyone around this table cares about the city and maybe just coming from a different perspective, uh, but I look forward to continue to work with you and I and I look forward to uh you know um the the the commentary and the critique and the input that we'll get for our soon-to-be council member emeritus uh to the Teresa Cale Smith, who I know will be watching closely uh from her perch in the West End what come January.

So thank you everyone for this opportunity.

Thank you, Councilwoman Warwick.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you, Councilman, for those words and both councilmen for for this amendment.

Um I just wanted to be clear to the public that over the past month or so, lots and lots of work has been done by this body.

And that the members of this body who are making the incredibly hard political decision to increase taxes have been tirelessly going through the budget, sitting down with the directors, looking at literally every single thing that can be looked at.

The work is being done.

So I just I I want that to be clear.

It's it's easy to say that the work isn't being done, but it has been done.

And so the folks who are who have been doing the work, I just want to say thank you very much.

And and and also because of that work, because of that work, this amendment, this compromise, the you know, down to 20% is the thing that is is actually going to be doable, right?

So I just want to voice my appreciation for that.

And I am also very excited to hear about new ideas, new things that we can do.

I have ideas myself about new ways that we can raise revenue, but those are not things that that that work has not been done yet.

That work is still to be done.

So once that is done, I am I am here for it, right?

Whatever, whatever my colleagues can come up with to increase revenue and make our city not just functional, not just baseline functional, but actually um excellent, right?

In all things.

We are excellent in quite a few things at the city of Pittsburgh.

In quite a few things.

We provide really outstanding, this is a really beautiful city, but there are things that we could do better, and I and I look forward to working with everyone on figuring out how we can do that, um, both operationally, functionally, but also financially.

So I am also supportive of this amendment.

And again, I really want to thank it's hard.

This is not an easy decision.

And I want to thank both councilmen for um for coming to the table and and working toward this compromise.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I've got councilman Sharlin next.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, so this is a uh I I don't think I have the word for how hard this decision is.

Um I think in the last 24 hours I've I've basically felt every you know emotion, um, except for maybe the positive ones.

Um, and I'm I'm angry, I'm I'm sad, my uh heart is breaking.

Um as we as I have spent a lot of this process talking through to community leaders in my district and and folks I think that have a good understanding of their neighborhood.

This isn't is not in an easy choice for me to come to as the representative of the third council district.

My district is going to hurt from this tax increase.

Uh it is it is not a decision I can make lightly, and I think anyone who's taking this, you know, as uh you know in an easy choice or or you know that I I've heard from some friends like oh we just just vote for it, people won't mind.

Yeah, they will.

Um yeah, they will.

And you know, I'm I'm really, you know, upset that anyone might think that.

You know, I'm I'm talking to community leaders yesterday in Arlington who are saying, you know, at what temperature they have to keep their heat on to make ends meet through the winter.

I mean, this our residents are being squeezed on every end.

And I can't take that lightly.

And I hope that those of us that represent more affluent districts take that really seriously.

At the same time, you know, as the three of us in southern neighborhoods will always tell you, we do not receive basic services to an adequate level.

Uh, you know, to the point that we, you know, grass is overgrown in in all throughout, you know, the hilltop neighborhoods.

We've got people stashing guns in overgrown grass.

We've got um, you know, just uh just a lack of of will to solve basic necessities to make our neighborhoods look like the rest of Pittsburgh.

And you know, we had the the most tragic incident uh this week where um due to lack of uh snow plowing, you know, a young uh young woman was was killed, a young scholar athlete was killed.

We are not delivering adequate services for our residents in the city here.

And I know that if we do not approve this millage increase, that we will continue to see those services continue to lack.

There's no way that the services will get better if we don't invest in that.

There's no amount of cuts that we can make that can make those investments adequate.

I don't want to be put in this situation.

I don't think any of us want to be put in this situation.

This is is not comfortable for any of us, and the the gravity of this the situation is huge.

I wish that we would have found you know compromises earlier and could have looked at um you know alternative pathways, so we didn't have to do this, so we didn't have to squeeze our residents.

Unfortunately, this is the situation we're in, and we don't want to see the city go into Act 47, which I believe without doing this, we're we're cratering towards.

Um I I think there I I do agree with um a lot of my colleagues here.

I think there has been wasteful spending and wasteful decisions that have been made, um, you know, not just over the last four years, but especially over the last four years, that have really put us in a situation where we just do not have the ability to deliver basic services that my residents need.

So I am going to continue to fight like hell to make sure that that we can do things to help those most in need in our in our districts here.

Um, you know, an idea that I I proposed uh earlier this morning, but we just don't don't have the time to look at this.

Is I I believe we need to audit the homestead exemption.

We need to audit the homestead exemption and use that money to expand the homestead exemption to help folks in our neighborhoods that need it the most.

I I promised the residents of my district that I would vote for an honest budget.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we were handed an honest budget when the proposal came over.

Um I I think that we need an accurate accounting of what you know what our utility costs are.

Um and that that's necessary to say nothing of the investments that we need to make again to deliver these basic services.

Um I I thank my colleagues that you know maybe on in early May did not believe that there was problems with this budget, but now do.

Um I I think you know, I'm I'm thankful that we can we can agree that at least there's a problem and it's something that we need to solve.

But again, if seven if seven million was on the table from our largest nonprofit and we walked away from that, that's mismanagement.

That's uh you know, completely unfair to the residents of Pittsburgh.

That's something that we uh we're paying for now.

We're by this vote, we're paying for for that cost.

Look, if councilman Coghill and I can get the five major nonprofits in a room together, there's no reason why the executive of the city can't and can't come to a compromise here.

So I I'm feeling a lot of emotions as I'm going through this.

This is not not an easy decision.

Um it's something that I've wrestled with.

I've I've talked to every community leader that I can.

Um you know, it's something I've I've prayed on, something I've I've really wrestled with here.

I do believe that the only way forward is for us to um approve this millage increase.

And it it really sucks.

It's it's not fair that we're put in this position, but but here we are, and you know, if it again, I I'm not sure what's gonna happen over the next week, but if this is something that is going to face a veto, I don't have plans on New Year's Eve, and and I'll be happy to to cast my vote to override that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Smith.

Thank you.

I just um I know this is going to pass, and I do want to thank Councilman Mosley and Charlotte for putting in something at least a little bit less, but it is still going to affect our residents.

And it's in Southwest Pittsburgh will not see the benefit of this.

Um we know that happened.

We know that's not gonna happen.

It never does.

We get we'll get crumbs thrown our way, like we always do.

But yet it will be our people that are struggling to pay to pay these costs.

And you know, I uh everybody keeps talking about how we can't cut any further, we can't do this any further, and we've all worked well we've all worked.

We've all worked really hard, and I think we've all I was up till ten o'clock last night going over the budget with an accountant, somebody who actually knows what the budget's got what's going on with the budget and with funding.

And the fact of the matter is there are places to cut, but I do think that we do need a tax increase.

I think this is not the amount.

And I think you know, we're we're putting something an extremely high burden on our on our taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it.

I think waiting one year, seeing if a pilot program was was available, seeing if there's some of the things we could fund, you know, through private dollars or through partnerships or sponsorships.

Um there's just so many other things that we should be exploring, and I think just a few more months, waiting a few more months would not change that.

I mean, you could still enter this year with the budget that we have or with a smaller increase.

Um for me, it's it's seeing that with this pay what this does to our residents.

It's I mean, all of us are I mean, we don't we're not struggling.

I mean, we're not struggling here.

So our residents aren't making the kind of money we're making, and their households don't bring pull in the kind of money mo most of ours pull in.

My husband's a warehouseman.

I may not have some of what all of you have, but I can tell you we're not we can with this won't affect us.

But it will affect other people.

And it will affect a lot of people that I that I know.

And the part that bothers me is that we have people calling us and telling us they can't afford things now, waiting in line for for all the different services that we're saying that people need because they're hurting so bad, saying that we don't want rents to go up, saying, well, this is going to raise rents.

And I'm not saying that we don't have to do it.

I'm saying we should be having more conversations.

That's great that some of you have been working, and that's great that some of you have been talking, but those of us who weren't included in those conversations doesn't mean we weren't having our own conversations too with other people too.

Like I said, I meant somebody who would know more about a budget and financing than I do.

And listening to their opinions and their and their advice tells me that we're raising this too soon, too high, and um there's time to actually go through through this a little bit better.

Um and I think our residents deserve that time is what I'm saying.

I I think they deserve us to do everything that we can to make sure and yes, I want I want to make sure they get received you know city services, but that's why sometimes I don't fund things like a comp plan for six million dollars.

That's why I didn't want a dome for six million dollars.

So I I I don't and that's why I voted no against the budget last year.

And that's why the year before I voted no for the police budget, because I do want to make sure I'm making right decisions for the residents, and I'm going to make sure I take time and uh placing those votes.

I can't vote for this today.

I am thankful for those of you that have been working on this.

I wish that you would see that time is what our residents need and deserve.

They deserve that m they they deserve us to do that much, take a little bit of time, look over this budget a little bit better, figure out talk to the new incoming mayor, which I know some of you have been talking to some of his staff, but um to talk to him directly and see what his plans are.

Maybe he has a great plan for you know the nonprofits and pilots and partnerships and I mean I know that he was working with um the cultural trust to bring them, you know, across the city into into different um different parts of the city to do some of the things they do.

So he's already having those kinds of conversations.

So I to me it's just I I think it's it's worth waiting a little bit, that's all.

If it was your bank account waiting for this and doing this, and you were struggling like our residents, you would want people to take their time before they pull the plug on a 20 percent increase on their taxes.

That's what I'm saying.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

I see it has a vote so I'll I'll shut up now.

But I'll say a lot later after they make it thank you Councilman Wilson.

Thank you Mr.

President so now that we have a new amendment on the t or we have an amendment on the table for the to decrease what um was 30 30 percent initially and this looks like it's 20% so this would be a 20% increase this would be a 20% increase okay all right um so I pledge to myself and I'm I pledged myself and and some members I talked to that I would um that I would keep it on the up and up in terms of you know uh how I feel about our differences in this moment I'm gonna do that.

I'm gonna try and navigate that the best I can because I respect all you I have the most respect for everyone all the elected officials you can't know what what this job entails until you're in it there's no way of knowing how this is I've never worked hard in my life when I first got in here so you know I spent uh close to 10 years working at Pitt before I got here and it it just did not you know I'm not sure what could prepare you to be a local elected official I think when Joe Biden came in to walk the parade here one time he said to someone actually said to Bruce Krause man I'm really telling a story from a story on he said to Bruce Krauss he said oh you're you're a city councilman nice to meet you something along those lines I'm obviously paraphrasing so he said you know I was a local elected official one time and that was the hardest job I ever had so uh that that doesn't mean I'm trying to run for higher office to get it to make it easier I can always count on you for laugh of my jokes have a daughter for 25.

But that said you know um you know so anyway I just want to recognize just everyone sitting here what we take into account and I am going to keep it on the up and up but I do want to make it clear that um you know taxes is never a thing that's that's easy to do to raise taxes.

But I do think I do feel and I have seen in the past month here that we did jump right to it.

We jumped right to this is what we do this is what this is how we're gonna fix this you know what we disagree on uh with the administrative the gap that we see in the administrative administration's budget that they sent over I did see that immediate jump and so you know I do want to recognize that there wasn't there wasn't a lot of discussion on I don't think there was a time I don't think there is the time to do it neither you know on on on how to um the time or do we even have the power to what I'm alluding to is you know we don't administer government so I often said in the past years when people ask me you know like well why did you you know why did you approve you know what came over in in the administration's first budget the second budget whenever mayor Ganey came in office I was like the the people elected this mayor the people of Pittsburgh elected the first black mayor and this is the budget he wants.

So let's give it to him I was all on board for that we added 200 non-emergency personnel to that budget throughout those years throughout the of I believe the first couple years and do Pittsburgh see a difference from that I think that's really the question that we have to grapple with when we talk about like expanding government growing government and also increasing taxes like this because we are going to see you know new positions from this we are gonna we already are seeing new positions from this that's that's in the the amendments we went straight to you know growing government in a way that um I don't believe that we fully have the expertise to do none of us ran for none of us ran to be mayor.

None of us ran for none of us ran to be mayor.

We ran to approve the mayor's budget.

We make amendments.

I mean, we're sure we're so used to making amendments for, you know, oh, we need two fifty for a park, five hundred for a park.

I I I just don't believe that we have the expertise, time, or power to actually really buckle down and figure out what is needed to make sure that our government is is is ran the most efficient way.

Uh we can, I mean, I guess we could look at continue to expand, you know, council offices so that we have our own expertise inside inside each one, but I just want to recognize that we we didn't think to do that.

We we immediately jump to increase in taxes for people.

So I don't, you know, I don't try to be in obstruct obstructionist here.

And you know, I just want to make that make a clear, you know, that I recognize the pressures of this budget.

I don't take a no vote, which I'll be taking today on voting no on the budget lightly.

But I just do not believe that going straight to tax increase is the right answer.

Especially at this time where we need people to trust in Pittsburgh, and we need people to invest in Pittsburgh, and not to think that we don't have our house in order and our first option is just to go and raise taxes.

We have the time to make this right.

I would like to work with people to make this right, uh, but I realize that the the will isn't there.

Um it even looks like there's a veto-approof way to make sure that this budget passes, regardless of whether or not the mayor uh vetoes the budget.

So residents will see a 20% tax increase.

Does it stop there?

We don't know.

Uh we don't have a clear plan on how this tax increase will improve the lives of Pittsburgh.

Just like we didn't have a clear plan on how the the you know adding personnel would improve the lives of Pittsburghers.

I still get the same complaints.

I still get the same uh issues that affect my district.

I've had the honor to work in the past few years here to work on some uh some programs that you know does seek to improve government, and I felt that that was the most fruitful uh conversations and and ways that we can really um serve Pittsburghers the best.

And you know, I'm looking forward to the next administration on how they can expand those conversations uh with each department, how we can improve services.

I've explained how I have different opinions on the gap here.

I'm not gonna go through that again, but you know, at the um at the end of these comments, I just want to make sure that I recognize that I do feel like we are taking the easiest path.

With all due respect.

We're taking the easiest path.

This is why people don't trust government, is why people don't trust their elected officials.

Uh there are several several uh several ways that we could improve the trust of Pittsburgh's and to attract new Pittsburghers.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

All right.

So third row.

Council Councilwoman Warwick, followed by councilwoman Smith, followed by Councilman Coghill.

Yeah.

So um at any rate, uh the hardest job I've ever had was actually managing the pop stand up at Bud Hammer.

But this is definitely the second artist.

Um I just wanted to just quickly, just for some numbers for the public.

So um uh what a 20 percent you know got this from our um budget director.

So again, currently per 100,000 of value of property value, assessed property value.

Currently you're paying $806 a year.

A 20% increase would raise that to $967.

So that's $161 more per year.

Per year.

It's important to note is 77,000.

That's the median assessed.

And again, this is your assessed value.

So just for an example, I looked up the house I live in on again, real estate.allegheny county dot us.

And that's I want everybody to do that, right?

So I looked up the house that I live in, right?

Um it is assessed at 60,200.

Because I live in it, I get the homestead exemption.

So that is minus another 15,000 off that assessed value, right?

So that brings the assessed value down to 45,200.

So for me, right, like based on that, it will be just under an additional.

So with a 20 percent increase will be just under an additional $80 a year.

Now that's for my family.

I know you know everybody's different.

Everybody's property is different, but again, I really encourage folks to look that up.

So real estate.allegheny county dot U.S.

Um.

Yeah.

And you know, as far as the the administrations, I you know I am a believer that we are equipping the incoming administration.

You know, regardless of where you were in the electron, right?

We are equipping the incoming administration to make you know, whatever reason it is the way you voted the way you did, right?

If you wanted to see change, we are equipping the administration to make the changes that you know, residents voted to see, right?

By voting to to for a new administration.

And so that that is how I look at this.

I really do, is that as council we are sort of doing what we can right here to make sure that they are, you know, that they can hit the ground running.

So I'll leave that at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Smith.

Thank you.

Um just to that, Councilman.

I do think I keep saying I think we do need to raise taxes a little bit, but I think you're saying that as if it's a small amount, but the reality is it's that in addition to the county increase, in addition, addition to the PPS increase, and in addition to their utility increases.

So it's all that.

It's not just this amount, it's all those amounts together.

And that's the part I'm that's the part I'm struggling with.

Because I, you know, I and I know you I know you care, so I'm not I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say say anything more than that, uh, because I do know you do care about people.

But for me, it's it's knowing that we have so many people hurting.

But um I want to know and I also want to say that we keep blaming this on Mayor Ganey, and you know, he's no fan of mine, and vice versa.

But I will say this that this has been going on for years.

You can't blame it on one administration.

And we can't blame it on the incoming administration.

So I think it's just it's the it's the situation we're in.

No, this budget's not great, but I think it's not great because he didn't want to raise taxes on people.

So I want to I want to give him that credit where you know that's important to the people.

But I I do think that the and I want to see the new administration come in.

I did support the new administration.

I want to see him be successful.

I want to see him do things that um the people want to have done.

But they don't want to do they don't want to have it done and be and their own household suffering from it.

You know what I mean?

So they want to see things done, but um they think that they're they're they want us to be responsible with their money.

Um but I do want to know, did we get a legal opinion?

Because I did ask last week about whether or not we're getting one.

That's my understanding that you we were supposed to have one before today.

Do we have that?

A legal opinion on this tax increase.

Because if not, I'm gonna call for one right now.

I was told that we were going to get a legal opinion by today for this vote to say whether or not this amount of an increase is legal.

Do we have that legal opinion?

I did request a legal opinion on the issue of whether or not our revenues can exceed two percent.

I did not receive that formal legal opinion back.

Okay, so I'm gonna make a request.

I think we should hold until we get a legal opinion.

Or are they here?

Can they come to the table?

I mean, they're supposed to be watching our meetings all the time.

Is somebody here?

Anthony Bylon, I believe is online.

Anthony Bylin, assistant city solicitor here as parliamentarian, thank you.

Could you answer that question?

Is it legal for us to raise taxes by this imp this percentage?

So that would be that's a legal question rather than a parliamentary question.

Um our acting solicitor is on call today to respond to legal questions.

I can uh I would recommend that the council call for the acting solicitor.

To come in to speak to a legal question.

The parliamentarian would only be here to speak to a question of parliamentary procedure.

But you are an attorney too, and you could speak to it.

The parliamentarian will not speak to legal questions.

That would be uh legal request.

Can I please have somebody from anyone?

Have the acting solicitor.

Yes.

Could I have the acting solicitor come to the table, please?

Thank you.

Thank you for watching.

So in my uh personal opinion, um, having had this conversation with the law department, having looked at our code, we absolutely have the legal authority to do this.

I really want to hear them say that.

Okay.

At the table.

Okay.

On record.

Are you s are you done, Councilman Smith?

Yeah, I'm waiting for there's there's Madame Clerk is getting what uh no.

Well, they work to get someone from law here.

I was going to move on to the next speaker.

Yeah, oh yeah, I'll wait until they come.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh so that takes us to Councilman Cockio.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um first well, I want to say to my colleague and my good friend, Councilman Charlotte.

You have nowhere to go on New Year's Eve.

I want you to come out with me and the family.

It's reported in the paper how single I am.

That's funny.

Um you're you're welcome to come along with me and Kelly and Lisa and all, okay.

So yeah, just uh some summing things up.

I just want to make a couple other points.

Um yes, this is a tax on the property owners of the city of Pittsburgh.

Yes, it seems like it's going to pass.

Um But if you're a renter in the city of Pittsburgh, don't think you're immune because you're not, because anybody know everybody knows any landlord is just going to pass this savings or this this tax on to you.

So I just find it so ironic that we champion affordable housing affordable housing.

Yet we're this is a uh increase in in rent to pretty much everybody across the board.

You will see it eventually because they're not going to shoulder the cost for you.

They're gonna point the fingers at us and say, look, pay more taxes, you're gonna pay higher rent.

Just want to make that clear.

Um I do agree with councilwoman Warwick on this needs to be depoliticized.

You know, when this comes up every four or five or ten years, it's a political football.

There's no question about it.

So for the sake of future council colleagues that are sitting at this table, um, I would love to see that come to fruition during my tenure here, where whether it's this tiniest little bit of increase every year, that it takes it out of the hands of the politic political gamesmanship.

No question about it.

So I'm all about that.

Um so what that looks like, presented.

Yeah, that's yet to be seen.

So again, lastly and not least, um I respect a hard decision on both parts on on the members who are voting for the increase and on the members who were voting for not to not increase.

Difficult decision on both ends.

I would say that I feel like we're being we're fixated on a raising taxes, raising taxes.

It's the only way out.

We'll hear our budget director say it.

We'll hear everybody say it.

But you know what?

It's not the only way out.

I've been saying it over and over again.

There's a lot of ways out of this.

That's the that's the last thing we should do is go to the property owners, and we could do that next year if need be.

So with that, um that's it for me, Mr.

President.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

So we're currently on the amendment that is in front of us.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

No.

No.

Any opposed?

We have three no's.

So the amendment has been approved.

Any further discussion on the bill as amended?

I'm waiting for the legal opinion.

So the motion on the table is to approve.

What I will simply say is since I've been here, um, the work that I've done has been primarily to expand my constituents' ability to live with dignity, stability, and opportunity.

And I believe this vote allows that to take place, and I will have absolutely no problem explaining to all of them how that is and why that is.

After the election.

Any further discussion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

I think we're waiting for legal opinion.

There was never a formal motion made.

Motion to hold for a legal opinion.

Well, we just voted.

Councilman Lavell.

Where's the parliamentarian?

Parliamentarian.

Point of order, probably.

I I believe the chair currently has the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

So point of order.

Could you please tell me if what we need to do to wait for a legal opinion?

It's up to the chair, I know.

You know you need a vote.

Yeah, I I I think we would I would defer to the chair as to the current uh like that.

I guess at this point in the process has a vote has a vote been finalized.

A vote was taken.

The bill was approved.

Jesse is online if we would like to allow him the opportunity to speak to it, but the vote was taken.

Okay, so I the parliamentarians' advice in this case would be to defer to the chair as to whether to allow um additional comment from the motion to submit on the line.

Can I have a motion to rescind the vote while we wait for a legal opinion?

I will allow for additional commentary if our motion to rescind.

That was not seconded.

I will second the second.

All those in favor say aye.

No.

Any of those?

No.

So that motion fails.

So it fails.

Let's do a roll call on that.

To motion to rescind the vote.

I heard ayes and no's vote.

Sure.

We can do a roll call vote.

Mr.

Sharland.

Aye.

Mr.

Cockill.

No.

Wait.

You want to vote aye.

To resign.

I missed rescind.

Clarification, please.

Um.

The question is whether we vote to rescind the vote or not.

So I would it's actually it's actually a motion to reconsider the bill.

Motion to reconsider.

Second.

Roll call vote.

Mr.

Charland.

Aye.

Mr.

Coghill.

Aye.

Ms.

Gross.

No.

Mr.

Lavell.

No.

Mr.

Mosley.

No.

Mrs.

Kill Smith.

Aye.

Mrs.

Warwick.

No.

Mr.

Wilson.

Aye.

Mr.

Strasberger.

No.

So that motion fails.

So the bill has been approved.

However, I will allow for our solicitor if he wish to speak to the deg the legality of what we just did.

Yeah.

Um sorry it was uh Billy.

I was taking care of my kids, but um as I think to solicitor and parliamentarian, Anthony Violence said I was on call, so it took me a while to get on.

I believe the question was whether it was legal to um for the council to propose this tax and under the Home Road Charter, City Council can propose new taxes, which is um this was discussed, I think was council members not all, because it was just asking me briefly, but um couple weeks ago, and that was essentially why the timing of getting the hearing in before the 20th, so then there was enough time to vote on this bill on the 21st to then um have a bill in place for the mayor.

Um law did previously provide advice that the tax could be proposed, the tax increase could be proposed, and then giving a timeline to make sure that we met all um compliance, including the Sunshine Act.

So you gave advice um I didn't see that advice.

Did you uh we're it it's legal for council to increase the to propose this and increase the tax by this percentage?

So the Home Loan Trans essentially says that they can uh city council can propose a new tax hike.

Um there's no language about a specific uh number I believe that would be under state law.

I would have to look into that specifically.

Um but my understanding that this is not illegal.

So I'm curious.

I I would like to know what the state law says.

Uh although I'm obviously the vote passed, but I would like to know um what the state law says when you get a chance to please send that to me.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So just for the record, there were six votes in favor, three votes against the bill did pass.

No.

For the reconsider.

That was for the reconsideration.

Yeah, right.

That vote failed.

I'm just recapping what happened on the on bill twenty-three six twenty-six thirty-two.

That's all for for everyone's clarification.

And can we all have it in writing what that this is legal from the law department?

Do we all have the opinion in writing?

I can work on that and get that to you guys as soon as I can.

Thank you.

So thank you, solicitor.

Um that now moves us on to bill 2466.

And just as a reminder for members, we're going to go through bills 2461, then we're going to take uh about a 10-minute recess to allow our budget office to make sure they're good to go for the remaining budget bills.

Madam Clerk, 2466.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code at Title II, fiscal Article 9, property taxes, chapter 263, real property tax and exemption by fixing the rate of real estate taxation for 2026.

Need a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

Discussion.

Councilman Charles.

So I I apologize because we don't do this often.

Okay.

If we can have a little bit of an explanation of what each one of these, I I know the first one is the tax rate.

So this bill is is what?

So the first one was the pro the tax rate that Councilman Warwick proposed that was that you and Councilman Mosley co-sponsored the amendment to.

This was the original setting of the millage rate.

So now that we've approved the first one, all those who supported the first one should need to vote this one down.

Gotcha.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

No, thanks.

That's that's the clarification I need.

Appreciate it.

Council Wilson?

For clarity.

So you're saying that.

So this front, because I don't have I don't have the yeah, I don't have the full tax here.

So same language exists, right?

We recognize that on the title.

So the first one was where the tax increase happened.

Yes.

And then the second one.

Was the original millage that was sent over as part of the budget?

Which was nothing.

Which was zero.

Well, it's not zero.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, which was the original.

Yes.

Without the taxes.

Yes, yes.

No taxes.

Okay.

What would h so we have two of them?

What would happen if this was approved?

It would be in conflict with the original.

It's interesting.

Yeah.

Okay.

So for for those who supported the first one, you could either vote this one down by voting no, or you could also motion to table this bill.

I understand.

And that would that could also be it potentially a it's probably better route, right?

That's sure.

Okay.

That's probably a cleaner way to do that.

Yeah.

Um I'll entertain a motion at table.

Second.

Motion and table.

Second.

And second it.

All those in favor say aye.

We need a roll call vote for that.

Mr.

Charlotte.

Aye.

Mr.

Congress.

Aye.

Miss Gross.

Aye.

Mr.

Mosley.

Aye.

Mrs.

Cal Smith.

Aye.

Miss Warwick.

Aye.

Mr.

Wilson.

Aye.

Miss Strasberger.

Aye.

Mr.

Lavell Chair.

Eyes nine.

Bill is table.

Watch out for it.

That takes us to Bill 2463.

Resolution authorizing the fee schedule for 2026 pursuant to chapter 170 of the city code.

Need a motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to Bill 2464.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code at Title II Fiscal Article 7, Business Related Taxes.

Chapter 246, Home Rule Tax.

Section 24603.

Declaration and Payment of Tax at subsection D so as to fix the rate of interest on delinquent home rule tax for the year 2026.

Motion to appraise.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Affirmative recommendation.

Ordnance amending the Pittsburgh Code Title II Fiscal Article 9 Property Taxes, Chapter 263, Rural Property Tax and Exemptions.

Section 26302.

Payment options, discount and delinquency penalty.

So as to set the payment, discount and delinquent dates for the 2026 fiscal year.

Motion to approve second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code Title II Fiscal Article 7.

Business Related Taxes.

Chapter 245, Earned Income Tax, Section 24503.

Declaration and payment of tax at subsection D so as to fix the rate of interest on delinquent earned income tax for the year 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Firmeship recommendation.

I'll now ask someone to offer up a motion to recess to allow our budget office the appropriate time to be prepared to walk through the rest of these.

What I would just before that, this this is a question I'm asking.

As you all know, we have our regular meeting scheduled for two o'clock.

It'd be my suggestion we just do it from right here.

That okay, cool.

So motion to recess.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

We are in recess.

Well, now it's good afternoon.

Welcome to the reconvening of our special uh standing committee meeting.

Oh, sorry.

Welcome to the reconvening of our special standing committee meeting.

Um we're still in the finance and law committee, and we'll now pick back up with Bill 2454.

Resolution making appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business of the city of Pittsburgh and for meeting the debt charges thereof for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026.

Motion to approve second discussion, Council Warberg?

Yeah, so motion to amend uh for the new revenue projection.

We have to do all of them again.

Oh, okay.

You want me to go through one by one?

I'm sorry, I'm getting myself in order.

So there's a motion to amend on the table.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

The amendment is in front of members.

Um there are we didn't do a motion to amend.

I just motion to remember 30 of them.

There's 31 at this point.

Oh, one additional amendment that um we prepared after the millage rate was uh updated.

So there is a 31st amendment that uh reflects the increased revenue based off of that.

Okay, let's go one by one because some of these may not survive.

Okay.

Uh number one is to increase the paygo transfer in 2026 to add funding for vehicles and equipment.

It's a 10 million dollar increase to the pago line that is sponsored by council person boardwick.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item one has been approved.

Number two.

Number two is to increase the paygo transfer in 2026 to add funding for small business development uh to the URA.

It's just an increase of a million dollars in 2026, sponsored by Council Person President Laval.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number two has been approved.

Number three.

Number three is to decrease 2026 transfer to the Stop the Violence Trust Fund uh by five million dollars in 2026 only, sponsored by Council President Lavelle and Council Prouncilwoman Teresa Kell Smith.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

And aye.

Aye.

Oppose.

One.

One no.

One no.

Item number three has been approved.

Number four.

Number four is to increase the premium pay budgets for the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and the Bureau of Fire.

It is an eight million dollar decrease increase total in 2026 with a five-year increase of 40 million dollars, sponsored by Council President Lavelle and Council Person Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number four has been approved.

Number five.

Number five is to increase funding for the utilities, including electric, natural gas, and water and the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Administration.

It's a six point five million dollar increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of 32.5 million dollars.

Sponsored by Council President Lavelle and Council Person Strasburg.

Motion gentlemen.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number five has been approved.

Number six.

Number six is to create a vacancy allowance in the Bureau of Police to reflect staffing estimations for 2026 and increase premium pay funding accordingly.

It's budget neutral in 2026 and throughout the five-year forecast.

Sponsored by Council President Lavelle and Council Person Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm voting no.

Thank you.

One no on six.

Item six has been approved.

Number seven.

Number seven is to remove one city council solicitor position in the office of the city clerk and increase the legal fees funding by that same amount.

It is budget neutral in 2026 and throughout the five-year forecast.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

One opposed.

Oh no, sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Just one comment.

One comment.

Sorry, apologies.

I just want to say for this, I'm I'm gonna support today, but I want to do like a one-year test run on this.

Is that fair fair?

I mean, I know that's not an official thing, but just to see how it goes.

Sure.

I think that's fair.

All right, thank you.

Seven has been approved.

Number eight.

Number eight is to move six thousand dollars in funding from the Department of Innovation and Performance to the Office of the City Clerk to align with funding for spreadsheet software.

It is budget neutral in 2026 and throughout the five-year forecast, sponsored by Council Process Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number eight has been approved.

Number nine.

Number nine is to remove one public engagement specialist position in the office of the city clerk.

It is a $77,342 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of $396,604.

Sponsored by Council President Lavelle and Council Person Strasburger.

Motion.

Second.

Discussion?

Saying none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

Number nine has been approved.

Number ten.

Number ten is to remove non-personnel funding for the Mountain Patrol unit in the Bureau of Police.

It is a $140,200 decrease in 2026.

Sponsored by Councilperson Strauss uh Warwick.

Motion to approve.

Second.

With discussion, Councilman.

Yes.

So this, you know, I again I think we've talked a lot about the horses.

Um since since we talked last, I have talked with the um uh I forget the special deployment division of the of the police about uh the horses and you know my my view is has been that if the horses are solely exist as show horses and and not as working horses that I am I'm not interested in them.

They have said that they are more than willing to help out um with some of our crowd control issues in Southside.

In fact, they we plan on having them deployed on New Year's Eve.

Um I do think that we need better parameters around them, but I would like us I I would ask if we could strike this amendment.

Um I I it is something that is is important to my district if they are used properly and if they're willing to be used, um, which is not you know has not always been consistently the case here.

Um but I uh I do see the value in having them.

Um but I I do see the value in having them, but only if their role is to, you know, we're we're in a time where we're raising taxes and all the other things we're talking about, only if their their role is is useful.

So I I would either ask us to vote this down or strike this.

I'm not sure what correct protocol would be.

Um but that's that's kind of my my view on that.

And I didn't talk to members about this beforehand, and I I apologize for that.

I've been a little preoccupied with with as we all have.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Smith.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I just I feel like since we just increased taxes, then this could it could be included in the new revenue.

But um I do want to say that I think that they do a lot in the community, but there's also the draft coming, and that's what they usually are used for crowd control, and I think with something of that magnitude coming to the area, you don't want to have to only rely on the counties um efforts because they also charge.

Um so I think that it would just be better for us to have it here locally to have at least for one year, and then you can reevaluate the need or the parameters or reset the parameters.

But I would like to see them on Grandview Avenue.

I would like to see them on Noblestown Road and Short Cheers Avenue.

I'd like to see them in different places.

But I really like to see them in Shannon where the kids love them.

That's what I care about.

Thank you, Councilman Woolwick, followed by Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I just have sort of an interrogatory.

So um, you know, throughout the whole budget negotiations, I know that uh Council President, you had asked uh the departments to submit five percent increase sorry, five percent decreases, right?

Like for for for their departments.

And um I know that we did a police district.

Um, moving the premium pay, but that was a budget neutral, right?

That was like five million that stayed within the police budget by just moving it from salaries over to premium pay.

So I don't actually consider that a cut because that was uh you know, that was just moving money around within the department.

Um what were what were some of the I did not see the letter that came from the Bureau of Police for their five percent.

This this was one of their recommendations.

Okay, so this was a recommendation that came from the Bureau as something that could be cut.

I just want that to be clear.

Yes, there were.

Um I'm just curious what they were.

I mean, I would have to go back and I can go back and find it.

I don't recall all family.

But this was the one that felt doable and not like a severe cut to, you know, quality of life services for residents.

Okay.

That's all.

I just wanted to clarify.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

I'm gonna be in support of uh either striking this or whatever the motion is, but recently um got a lot of uh you know, constituents reaching out saying that they uh think that this is um something we should keep.

And uh honestly, I think this is an administrative thing.

They the new administration should come in and you know this at least allows them to still have it for the for the draft um and and the the work I guess that council person was um talking about.

Uh but you know I also will go back to some of the numbers that I was going over before.

Uh either way you chop it up, there's still gonna be you know some uh amount of money left over at the end of the year from vacancy across the board here at the city.

So there will be some uh some additional funds uh you know, we'll see.

Maybe they'll maybe it will only be seven million, you know, from vacancy across the board, but it'll still be there.

So especially with the new administration coming in, there's gonna they might not be able to fill every position in the city of Pittsburgh.

Uh so there will be some additional funding.

So I think, you know, Karen I said we were to the next year, uh let the next administration um decide that I don't want to get involved with uh I mean I realize there's a lot of stuff going on here that we're messing with uh running government here, but I think uh this one because I recently got some uh there was recent a push to try to keep this, so I want to I'm gonna try and keep this.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Calkill.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um yeah, I'm happy to uh support vote for keeping the amounted unit for now.

You know, they were gifts.

They're gifts, I think, from a couple of the Pittsburgh Steelers and uh beautiful animals.

Um again, to Councilman Charlon's concerned, we don't want them just as a PR, but they are a great PR tool.

They are absolutely great PR tool for especially kids, children, families, uh all walks, all all all ages.

Um they also are very good for control, um, crowd control.

Uh you know, when a 1200 tunnel animal comes walking that you you tend to get out of the way.

So uh so I'm I'm glad to keep them.

I think the real issue is going to be having officers who are willing to come out on weekends and you know, off hours basically, and uh, you know, to not only take care of them, but to, you know, uh to mount them.

So so that's to me is more more the issue, I think with the new recruitment classes.

We'll find somebody and you know, they can actually be used as a uh recruitment tool as well.

You know, there are plenty of many of people out there where they don't have an opportunity to go to Bethel Park Police Department, there is no mounted unit, and um you know, some somebody who was trained or raised on a farm or whatever, um, you know, somewhat of a recruitment tool.

So I'm glad to keep them in retrospect, they're really not terribly expensive.

So um, yeah, I I want to keep them at least until the end of their service and then maybe make uh another decision at when that time comes when they retire, I guess.

So yeah, uh I'll be hoping for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else first round?

Second round, Councilman Warwick, then Councilman Sterling.

Um yeah, so I do also just want to want to remind folks and the Bureau in general that this body voted to cut this last year, and they just defied us in that, right?

And they found money somewhere, which is very odd that there's a a bureau that just finds money that does not come through this table.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

A.

Um also uh to point out that it actually, yes, this is a nominal amount of money, right?

Very little money in the grand scheme of things.

However, the real issue, the real issue are the officers that you know, we have a a lack of officers, and we hear about this over and over and over again about how our our staffing issues, and yet we have a team of officers that is on horse duty, right?

And that is not appropriate.

So either we have those officers or we hire um uh you know, stable hands, which that's even more expense, right?

Now that's not part of this because the offer that's my understanding is that the officers do that care.

But that's time that they are not out on the patrol, that they are not out there making sure that people aren't running stop signs in your neighborhood, right?

That they aren't making sure um, you know, whatever of the various things that we ask our officers to do.

Um so you know, again, this is not about horses, right?

I love horses, I grew up around horses, and I will also tell you that the humane society, when we axed this program last year was ecstatic because they do not feel that this is an appropriate use of horses, taking them into crowds.

It's dangerous.

We saw that happen at light up night.

There was an issue with the horses, and sort of, you know, kind of frightening people and it things escalating.

Um, this isn't about the horses.

This is about the the person power that it takes to maintain the horses, and that person power that is not out actually supporting our bureau in the critical work that they do.

So again, seems like a small amount.

Um this is something that we voted on once before.

You know, uh if it gets struck, fine, but I just want to underscore that that um we already voted on this last year, and the Bureau outright defied this council in continuing and and and we gave them six months, so we defunded six months, right?

So what we did last year was reduce the funding by half to allow them so that we didn't just cut them off right right at the knees.

We allowed them a full six months to figure out like what to do to sort of decommission the program.

The Humane Society reached out, they uh offered to make sure that the horses were placed right and whatever, I don't know, go out in pastures and whatnot.

Um and they were very much willing to help in this endeavor.

And um, you know, the Bureau just decided that that wasn't what they felt like doing.

So I don't know.

That doesn't feel appropriate to me, but uh I'll let I'll I'll I'll let members decide.

This is the principal one more than than the the you know 140,000 dollars, so um councilman Shawna was next.

Um you know, Councilman Warwick, I think you and I are very aligned on this um in principle on you know a department or a bureau um defying what this body says.

I I don't have for city planning too, by the way.

Well, yes, uh I don't I don't really have you know a lot of tolerance for that.

Um and this was something I supported when we talked about it last year.

Again, in our budget briefings, we heard differing accounts from the police and public works on to where the division of labor is for um for these horses.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't want an officer's full-time job to be managing the stable.

Um I think that's something that either we find again, state you said stable hands.

I I don't know much about horses, but you know, some someone's gotta manage that, and that shouldn't be the job of an officer.

So I do want to make sure that that is the case.

But when, you know, and then the other part of public works, again, everyone here will laugh at me, but the um defecation that happens on uh you know when the horses are out, it is someone's job.

It needs to be someone's job to clean up after them.

Um and the police don't believe it's their job.

Public works doesn't believe it's their job.

And I will tell you it is not the Southside clean team uh clean team's job to to clean that up.

So we do need to figure out a better division of labor.

Um and I want to I want to figure that out as quickly as as possible.

Um, moving forward here.

But but I very much agree.

So uh but I I think other members support uh because I think this has been has been helpful for us in their deployment, especially in you know busy busy times on these cars and streets.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Cargo.

Thank you.

Um I I I'll take some responsibility for keeping them on.

You know, Director Schmidt and I, we talked in depth about this many a times.

I know we voted to dismantle the the the uh unit.

Um however, it was difficult to find what we're gonna do with the horses that we do have, you know, and who's gonna take them and who wants who wants their responsibility.

County, they have a full unit, and you know, I think there was some question as to the age of our unit as well.

So, you know, it was not such an easy test to find.

So we decided just to continue to pay for it out of our own budget.

Um and also, Councilwoman Warwick, to your point as to, you know, we voted not to continue this.

You've heard me speak of this before.

We also continue we also uh signed off on and this mayor signed off on to sell the municipal courts building, which is three times the cost just in maintenance is what our mounted unit is.

So um I'm all for selling that thing.

I'm all for getting it out of our hands.

It rightfully shouldn't even be in our hands.

We barely use it.

It's a county's obligation right now.

I'm calling on the county to either take responsibility of it or we sell it.

There's the there are viable buyers for that.

And one of them could be, and I've explored it a little bit, is the parking authority.

We could tear that building down and make a surface lot, and that will generate income for the city of Pittsburgh.

One of those many, many avenues I feel like we could have gone down, or and we'll continue to go down, you know, to um raise our revenue.

So yeah, I'm uh I hope you're as passionate about selling the municipal courts building that we voted down to because yeah, good.

Okay, so thank you.

That's it, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

So currently there's a motion to approve on the table.

There's a motion to strike on the table.

Well, I uh I didn't I actually don't know what the appropriate motion is.

It would be I believe it would be a motion to strike motion to strike number item number 10.

Second.

Motion to strike number 10, amendment number 10.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Item number 10 has been stricken.

That takes us to item number 11.

Number 11 is to eliminate the seasonal labor allowance in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

It's a 425,316 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of 2.2,261,239.

Sponsored by Council President Laval and Council Strasberger.

This is approved.

Second.

Discussion?

Discussion, Councilman Woolworth?

Um, so uh this is one where now that we have you know secured the the increase in revenue.

Um I feel like our seasonal laborers, right?

They this is a very necessary part of our workforce.

Uh they do the clean and liens.

I recognize that some members have said that program has not been what it should be in their districts.

Uh that I very much hope that the new administration is able to come in and rectify that.

Um, they also handle things, you know, when we have storms in the summer and and and whatnot.

So um I would motion to strike uh this amendment.

Second brief discussion.

It was seconded.

So we do have discussion, Councilwoman Smith.

And then Councilman Wilson.

I know Councilman Moses wanted to show you.

I do want to say that I did start this program when it was, you know, under the previous administration.

And actually the new administration is bringing in Dan Gilman, he was one of the co-sponsors who helped with it.

So I think that he would probably know how it should be operating, and I bet he would do a great job.

That's all.

Councilman Wilson.

Okay.

Thank you.

So this is a vote we already talk.

It seemed like most were in favor.

And I think this is something where you know I was against the 30 percent increase for the taxes immediately jumping to that before telling the public what what we would fix in our own home.

And I thought this was an effort that we could all be uh aligned with in terms of coming to the public and saying, well, here's what we're doing to clean up our house here because we added a hundred new DPW workers this past year.

And uh, you know, they're full-time workers.

They have benefits and we can rely on them to you know it's a good job.

We can rely on them.

They're not being cut in this budget.

We can rely on them to do uh the work.

Um and now that now that the money uh we actually uh voted number one increase payoff transfer for the equipment, which was you know due to the since the tax increase we went right to the tax increase, so that's the reason why that would happen.

And now um all the stories I hear about workers not having uh weed whackers and and lawnmowers uh now are this is coming from the full-time staff.

I'm hearing that there's full-time staff.

Just they're not able to do the work because they don't have the equipment.

So now the full-time workers would have I would I would imagine we buy some weed whackers and some and some uh lawnmowers here, they could be out there doing some work.

So I uh I said I see no reason why we can't make this cut and uh show the public that we are uh also uh making sure we're uh making those remedies here in-house uh and showing them that we're we're committed to um you know right size in our workforce.

Thank you, Councilman Mosley.

Uh yeah, I just want to reiterate that I was a no on this on Thursday um just because of the exemplary work that uh Division II has done.

Um, you know, not only to address the vacancy, blight and abandoned properties throughout District 9, uh, but also the psychological impact that is had on the residents.

Um you know, I have residents to come to me on a regular basis thinking uh my office would really, you know, the true kudos goes to the second division uh for addressing um the blight abandonment uh and vacant land um that they had thought had not been addressed for some time that now they feel is being addressed, so now I remain um uh a no on this, so I just want to reiterate about position from Thursday.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I'll Councilman Collike.

Yep.

No, I just wanted to also say I'm I'm uh in line with Councilman Wilson here.

Just because we got a tax increase and new revenues streaming in doesn't mean that we can just go ahead and buy everything on the shelf.

And and this is one of them.

And we do have a fully staffed public works division, and I don't see why there's any reason.

This is a great many, many, many people in my district use this in their who are part-time workers and have gotten phone calls on it, but bottom line is we still have tough decisions to make.

Uh you know, we raise 20 percent taxes, but you know, that's just gets us kind of staying above water.

So this is one of the areas that you know, I don't I just don't feel it's necessary.

So I will be voting yes or no on this.

I'm trying to figure that out.

So the motion there's a motion to strike on the table.

So if you want to keep it, you will vote no.

If you're in favor of getting rid of this, you will vote yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilwoman Short, I mean, Councilwoman Woolworth.

Um I also want to note that uh, you know, mo very importantly we have the draft coming.

It's a three-day event, but you know, that's gonna be all hands on deck in a major, major way.

So in terms of needing additional workers, I feel like that.

I don't I don't know.

That may it just seems to me that if we are operating with these workers at the moment, that it seems unwise to to cut folks who are doing a significant amount of work, whether it's clean and liens, cutting weeds and debris, filling potholes, or you know, coming in for the draft.

And if they're not working as effectively as they should be in certain divisions, that is absolutely something that needs to be addressed.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross.

I think I'm gonna ask our budget director a stupid question that I should know the answer to, but we're keeping a lot of information in our heads all the way, so I can't actually spit it out.

If for our seasonal workers in any department, like parks and rec, so peop we hire up like lifeguards in the summer, that's a good example.

That they're budgeted, doesn't mean they need to be hired.

Correct.

So if there is no use for these 15,000 hours, we talked about how many hours it was last year last week, which is about a full-time equivalent of seven and a half employees.

Um they're just not called in.

Correct.

All right.

So um I feel comfortable budgeting for it.

Um you know, and we still have the budget open for the next five weeks.

Maybe we can find out a better sense of how like what what are the workloads like would are we gonna blow three fifteen hours in like those three days?

You know, fifteen thousand hours in those three days.

I don't know.

Um but so I think that's a really good question.

So I'm comfortable just leaving it budgeted.

Um and if we find that that we don't need those kind of you know, they're called seasonal hours, but you know, you you can consider them like optional extra hours for the 2026 budget year.

Um so I'll just leave it there.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Um that we've budgeted for doesn't mean those those checks automatically go out.

And it's not either and neither is it like keeping jobs or or cutting jobs either since they're just purely seasonal workers.

Are you just for the camera?

Yeah, the budget director is nodding yes.

That is all correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's all I have, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

So there's a motion to strike.

It has been seconded.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

No.

No, no.

No.

No.

Wait, wait, three and aye.

Three no's.

Oh, budget is strike because aye.

I'm an aye.

I'm okay.

Okay.

Right.

There were three no's.

So to be so number 11 has been stricken.

That takes us to number twelve.

You mean number two?

Number eleven has not been stricken.

It was stricken.

There were three who voted not to strike it.

They'll have the program, yeah.

So the amendment to remove was stricken.

But the program will stay.

Yes.

Got it.

Got it, got it.

No, I'm not sure.

Double triple negative.

Yeah.

It was stricken from here.

So the these positions are.

Sorry.

Number 12.

Number 12 is to remove funding in the Bureau of Police for the Rockwell lease in 2026 only.

It is a decrease of 425,390 dollars.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number twelve has been approved.

That takes us to number thirteen.

Number thirteen is to decrease funding in the Department of Innovation Performance for Computer Devices.

It is a $500,000 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of $2.5 million.

Sponsored by Council President Laval and Cost Strasberger.

Second.

Discussion, Councilman Goku.

Yes.

You know, when I came into office eight years ago, I was floored by the amount of money that we spend in technology and data and software and you name it across the board.

So uh I'm for with upkeeping this strike, upkeeping this uh for not continuing it.

And I'll ask you how I'm supposed to vote on this when the time comes, but you know, so uh yeah, I think it's thank you.

That's uh I I would like to still get rid of it myself, yes.

But I'll let other members speak.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion, Council Wilson?

We're on twelve?

Thirteen.

Well thirteen.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But we vote what was the vote on twelve?

Rockwell lease for police.

Which one of us in Rockwell?

It's the it was combine combine.

Five, no one forget it.

I would some reason I thought those were related to the the horse.

Okay.

Sorry.

No comment.

Okay.

So all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

13 has been approved.

Number 14.

Number 14 is reduced fundings for training and conference sponsorships in the Office of Management and Budget.

It is a 42,750 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of 93,750, sponsored by Council President Lavell and Constrasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

14 has been approved.

Number 15.

Number 15 is reduced funding for cleaning, landscaping, and litter can sensors in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

It is a $255,000 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of $1,275,000 sponsored by Council President Levell Constrasburger.

Second.

Discussion.

Discussion.

So this was like a contract that we don't need anymore.

Is that right?

There's a handful of contracts that DPW does not use anymore.

Got it.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

15 has been approved.

Number sixteen.

Number sixteen is to swap out one associate project manager for one project manager in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Facilities.

It is a ten thousand eight hundred fifty dollar increase in twenty twenty-six with a five-year increase of fifty-seven thousand sixty-four dollars sponsored by Councilperson Warwick.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Number sixteen has been approved.

Number 17.

Number 17 is to add one transportation demand management coordinator with funding beginning in March of 2026 to cover costs once the grant expires in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

It is an increase of $69,475 in 2026 with a five-year increase of $425,829 sponsored by Councilperson Warwick.

Second.

With discussion?

Yeah.

So I wanted to clarify on this.

So we have a choice, right, to make, and I am sort of leaning one way, but not, you know.

So this there is a uh CMAC grant that's congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program, right?

We have, if I hope I explained this correctly, we have an employee who is employed on that grant, right?

Um however, the the funding specifically for their role runs out in March.

So we have a choice.

I but there is some remaining funds on the grant, right?

So we have a choice.

Either we can fund that role using the the the funds that remain on the grant, but that means less programming, right?

Like that means less of the work being done with the grant money.

Right?

Or we can do this, which is to fund them out of the right.

Is to fund them separately.

Does that does that make sense?

So there's the grant.

We can we can you know that money could be used for you know whatever with the the additional work, or it can be used to continue to fund the position.

Um for me, I'm more inclined to to the for the work.

I'm like the point of the grant is to do the work, right?

Like the ultimate point of of the grant is to improve the you know congestion mediation.

You know, it's basically the idea is to like reduce the amount of traffic in the city of Pittsburgh.

Um but I'll I'll I will leave it up to members on a yes or no, and happy to answer any questions I can.

I got as much info as I as I could from um from the department, so in gross and councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

I'll just say again what I said Thursday, but I think um we for a long time didn't have enough traffic engineering, which is basically what this is, right?

But it's more focused on congestion and moving like big crowds around, right?

And um I think that we paid a price for that um because it's that we weren't able to have large events.

We weren't able to kind of host big celebrations as well as effectively.

And then we've invested in it.

I think we've seen the payoff.

We continue to have large events hosted by the the convention center and now of course the upcoming NFL draft.

You know, we had kind of like progressively bigger and bigger you know, annual events like the remember Bassmasters, I think was one of them, right?

That was a big deal, and so we've been hosting progressively bigger events.

And so I think we do gain back.

Um maybe not in a direct, easily to connect way by having these capacities.

Like the flip side of that is saying we don't want to handle a big event badly.

Um so I I think it's great that this was grant funded up till now, and then it seems to be grant funded, I think I understood through March.

Um but like continuing the funding until more grants could be obtained or something, I think seems like a good gamble, right?

So that and I I do want to give a shout out to Domi because you know, I've been sitting here now for over 10 years and Domi didn't even exist.

So they've grown from a apartment from zero to like a hundred employees, I think.

And but they also bring in a tremendous amount of outside funds.

I think I was just told recently by the director that we had like five years ago we had four projects in the TIP, right?

Which is our Southwest regional funding from the state.

And now we have 46.

And those are the things that we vote on where we're getting 90 percent state funding into a capital project.

This position isn't directly related to that.

But it is housed in Domi.

And I think Doming has done a like a more than respectable job bringing in far more funds.

Um, you know, uh a nine to one match to the dollars that we put in.

So I I I'd say we can take a gamble on this.

We could always revisit it in January if we get better or different information.

So again, I'm gonna I think it's it's good to keep it.

So if this is a cut, we'd have to do the same thing.

No?

Wait.

This this adds it to the budget.

So this is adding it to the budget.

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm I'm clearly starting to lose track.

I'm trying to focus.

I've got some like mint tea, I'm trying to focus here, but I keep getting confused.

Okay, so this one is adding to the budget.

I'm inclined to support it.

That's all I have, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

Uh Did I hear sorry, quick interrogatory?

Yeah.

No, it's wrong.

Did you say the positions funded till March?

So so the positions funded on a grant, on a CMAC grant, right?

The position itself like runs out, but there's still money left from the grant from the original grant that can be used to continue to fund the position.

That means though that the you know sort of the tangible work, there's less money for the for the work that's being done.

If we fund it with remaining grant funds.

Right?

But the grant for the actual position runs out.

March.

Okay.

Yeah, that's uh that's another thing I want to Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So uh I'm just going to keep it.

I'm inclined to keep it, but I understand for the sake of making cuts, we're here.

And and it's that's also I I get that too.

So just for the sake of um trying to be consistent as possible here from I know when we voted on this.

So we vote on Thursday.

Thursday.

All right, Thursday.

And uh is it still Thursday?

So this is um Yeah, I was supportive of ten uh sixteen because I I definitely believe that you know workers we have, we should uh treat them the best we can.

The 17 through I can't um anyway, there's the the next few that um either add a position or um swap a different position for some other title.

I I definitely um especially this one since it goes on until March.

I want to I'm probably I'll I'll be voting no on ones where we add positions.

Uh I'm gonna leave that up to the next administration.

I'm my my uh hunch is that they will be opening the budget and making some some different changes and also they're gonna run the government and and uh in each department and I mean if they you know if they see that this is you know something very important to keep then um you know I'll be supportive of that so uh just stating that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Woolworth?

Just to clarify that this this is the like there is a person in this position now.

Just to be clear.

Right, it's not a new position.

Yep.

Okay.

Any councilman Calgary?

Yes.

I I guess I'm just not clear what this person does.

I you know I've heard help coordinate large traffic.

I mean yeah, directly like cones or I've got a one second.

I've got a one second.

I got an email.

Yeah.

Sorry.

I'm just looking through because I got I I knew that folks wanted oh, here we go.

Here we go.

Here we go.

So the transportation demand management refers to the set of strategies and policies designed to reduce impacts of vehicle congestion and the reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel through policy directed at mode shift implementation.

TDM supports broader goals including congestion reduction, climate improvement, economic development, and public health.

The TDM coordinator position was initially funded through a CMAC grant administered by Pendot and housed within DOME.

Do you have to overseas management of transportation demand management program and its implementation?

Oversees public facing data inputs for trail detours, road and bridge closures, and other emergency events, administers grant funded programs and ensure compliance with reporting and funding requirements, planning team member of future vision zero outreach programs, conferences, and events, manages bike parking program maintenance and installation support vision zero projects throughout the city.

This is a very long list.

This is a very long list of things.

But what's the position pay?

What are we paying out of the grant?

I should say.

So the extension of the position.

Oh, I guess yeah, go ahead.

So this would add $69,700.

Um that is with salary and benefits for three quarters of the year.

With three quarters of the year with salary and benefits.

That's up from March to January is what you're figuring, right?

Yeah.

So it's what a hundred thousand dollars then, I guess, as far as uh annually if we decide to keep this position.

A little over a hundred thousand dollars?

I mean it the it would add to the like you want to know what their their total.

I'd like to know if we benefits, what what it would cost us annually.

That's what I'd like to know.

Not just from March to January if we decide to keep this person moving forward for years to come.

What's what's the it would be about ninety-three thousand.

$93,000?

Yeah.

They make about $92.

Yeah.

Okay.

And the person that's in this position is a city employee currently, correct?

Okay.

So it was somebody that we moved.

Was was also was a city employee before this position was created.

That I don't know.

It's a grant it's a grant position.

Yeah, but I mean when we received a grant, was it a current city employee that we moved to this position, or did we bring somebody in?

I have no idea.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Um yeah, I'm not gonna vote for it today, so um I'll figure out whether that's an aye or no.

It'll be a no.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

No, no.

Any opposed?

No.

Three no's the number 17 passes.

That takes number 18.

Number 18 is to add one inspector three to the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

It is an eighty-six thousand dollar three hundred eighty-seven dollar increase uh in twenty twenty-six with a five-year increase of four hundred and forty-two thousand seven hundred forty-one dollars.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Okay, thank you.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Eighteen passes, number nineteen.

I'm sorry.

I I want to vote no on that one too.

I apologize.

Three no's.

Eighteen.

Sorry, nineteen.

Nineteen is to add one operations coordinator in the Department of Public Uh Works Bureau of Administration.

It's an eighty-six thousand three hundred eighty-seven dollar increase in twenty twenty-six with a five-year increase of four hundred forty-two thousand seven hundred forty-one dollars, sponsored by Councilperson Warwick.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilman Woolworth.

Okay, so this one, so again, this is just to just to reiterate for folks.

This is one that I created, right?

This was no request, right?

But um we had a post agenda about litter.

We had the um uh you know, we had our DPW team, our environmental services team, the Clean Pittsburgh Commission, and uh the sort of you the consensus among all those folks was that in order to get a handle on the litter situation in the city of Pittsburgh that we need someone who is dedicated to managing that.

And um that that person also would you know run the Clean Pittsburgh Commission would help coordinate our our nonprofit partners, would help, you know, all things around um cleaning up Pittsburgh.

So again, I recognize the the desire to let the incoming administration make these decisions.

I just you know, when we as council have these kinds of conversations and we get this kind of advice from our from you know the folks doing the work and these are issues that are important to us.

Um it is important, I I think for us to um act on their recommendations and um so that's what that's what this is Councilwoman Smith, Councilman Cockhead, then Councilman Wilson.

Just briefly, I do want to be supportive of this, but I do think that we had a huge increase in DPW's uh budget overall.

Not sure what was the total percentage that went up last year.

And because they're doing less work.

I mean, there a lot of it went to Domey.

They're not paving roads anymore.

That's Domey.

They're not putting speed bumps or anything, that kind of stuff.

That's dome.

You mean an increase from twenty-four to twenty-five?

Is that what it was?

I don't I don't you tell me what are you asking me?

There was a big increase in in DPW's budget overall last year, especially in the administrative cost.

Do you want me to find it?

Do I have the mean an increase from 2024 to 2025?

Yes.

Okay.

It's gonna take me a second to pull that up.

I'm I'm not I'm not not supportive.

I'm I want to make sure that we're keeping an eye on the cost at that's estimating the Bureau of uh department that's doing less.

The Bureau of Administration in 2024 was budgeted for sixteen sixteen million two hundred and fifty thousand in twenty-four.

In twenty-five, it was decreased to twelve million three hundred and forty-five thousand.

No, so in the operation stuff, I have a a line item.

Uh I'll find it.

And it said it went up like thirty-six percent and for the administrative cost for DPW.

I pulled up the owner department on Russian myself.

Okay.

Okay.

DPW.

That was that was uh public safety that I gave you.

Uh DPW, it increased by one million dollars from twenty-four to twenty-five for uh DPW admin, went from thirteen million to fourteen.

And how about for the coming year?

The Bureau of Administration for DPW uh went from 14 million in 25 to 19 million in twenty-six.

I just think that they have a lot of administrative cost in not doing a lot of most of that is it's a $3.9 million increase for water to bring our water uh allocation up to $8.5.

Yeah.

No, it wasn't payroll.

All of the increase was for the water bill.

You're just asking for payroll.

Then it is a uh a decrease of $100,000.

Uh I'm gonna find it because it was it was the $30, I think it was the 36% increase.

Yeah.

Yeah, over the yeah.

I'm gonna find it and I'll send it to you.

But I do want to I'd want to start pay attention to that increases, especially as I said, they're doing less of the work that not that they're not working hard, but it a lot of that work has now gone gone to DOME.

I just want to make sure we're paying attention.

Councilwoman Smith.

Okay, that's it for me.

Okay.

Councilman Coggill.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

President.

Uh this too, I don't see this as a necessary position.

I really don't.

I mean, you know, I I'm all about litter picking it up, cleaning up my district.

I could tell you I don't need that person because I know where every illegal dumping site is.

I know where every trash thrown area is, and we clean them up on a regular basis.

So um with public works has been bolstered up over the past four years, as we know.

This is a public works position.

Um not I don't feel uh new hire somebody to tell us how to get trash unless this person's carrying a bucket, a broom, and a dustpan, then um I'm not interested in hiring it.

So thank you.

Any further discussion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

I mean no, sorry.

Two no's 19 passes.

I'm even three no's 19 passes.

Number 20.

Number 20 is to swap out one program specialist for one operational performance analyst in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Administration.

Is a $36,453 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of 190,002 increase sponsored by Councilperson Warwick.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

I no.

This is 20, right?

This is number 20.

Yeah, no.

No, I'm a no.

Two no's.

Number 20 has been approved.

Number 21.

Number 21 is to correct the 2026 first year lifeguard allocation.

It is a 169,000 dollar decrease in 2026, sponsored by Council Person Strasburger.

Motion approved.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

21 has been approved.

Number 22.

Number 22 is to move the 311 team from the office management budget to the Department of Innovation and Performance.

It is budget neutral in 2026 and throughout all five years of the forecast, sponsored by Councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve two.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

IMP from the back to IMP.

Okay.

Thank you.

I apologize.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I don't see the report.

Number twenty-two has been approved.

Number twenty-three.

Number twenty-three is to move the Office of Equal Protection to the Department of Law.

It is a budget neutral move in 2026 and throughout the five-year forecast, sponsored by Councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those say and fa all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Number 23 has been approved.

Number 24.

Number 24 is to eliminate the Chief Economic Development Officer position in the Office of Management and Budget.

It is a 155,000 914 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of 797,377.

Uh sponsored by Councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Discussion.

So my understanding that 22 and we're down to 24 now and then we're until 30.

Have been due to communication from the new administration.

Correct.

Okay, thanks.

Councilwoman Gross.

I was just gonna ask the same thing.

So these were not on Thursday's agenda.

No, these were these were these are from the these are suggested amendments from the incoming administration, but a member had to sponsor them.

Right, because you usually that happens in January.

It is their intent to also reopen the budget.

Actually it's still open in January.

So it wouldn't be reopening it.

Let me so Chief Well, incoming Gilman.

Nominated did send me a message that he did want to convey it.

I apologize.

I probably should have done it at the beginning.

I was going to do it at specifically when we got to the actual mayor's line item, which I think is number 27.

Um but what they convey and they wanted to convey to council was this amendment sets up the office of the mayor for mayor elect O'Connor to take office on January 5th.

Without these amendments now, many of the employees would not be eligible to start on day one.

This budget reflects a reduction in the budget compared to the mayor's office in 2025, including a reduction in the number of budgeted positions in the mayor's office by 11 positions compared to 2025.

The O'Connor administration intends to reopen the budget in January and make cost cutting measures and address position position needs in other departments across the city, but by the current but by the current council process is not able to complete those efforts during this budget process.

The O'Connor administration is committed to budget transparency, cost-saving measures, investment, and key government services, and working collaborative with all of council on these efforts in January 2026.

Okay.

So I I mean these were just put in front of us on the yellow paper.

I don't even think they're in our email or anything.

Did you?

I didn't know.

I know.

I apologize.

So yes, for the public, I don't catch every email on my email inboxing.

If you want us to catch attention, I apologize.

So like one of these, like number seven just as like re well, I know we haven't read 27 yet, but it says like reconfigure the mayor's office personnel.

But it's a little just like it's it's mayor's office is a line item, so it's just a change in the dollar amount.

But those people would be able to start like day one.

Yes.

Another one is like splitting the combined director of finance and city treasurer position into two positions.

But again, for the record, even if they're not approved, they still go on to payroll, I believe.

Is that true for directors?

Because this number 30 is like a director level position.

Again, we haven't read it yet.

When when a mayor nominates a director of a department, they do actually go on payroll, yes?

Budget director?

I I believe so.

I'm not a personal.

I'm not sure.

I mean, I'm I'm pretty sure that's how it's been in the past.

So even if council votes no, then they would just like go off payroll.

But they do go on payroll even after the when they're not just nominated.

That's definitely how it was for Director Bay in city planning.

So if we can use that as an example, that sounds right.

Yeah.

I don't know if any other members have any experience with that.

I don't remember.

Um Chief Economic Development Officer.

Moving the Office of Equal Protection doesn't really add positions.

We already just approved moving the 311 team.

So there's there's a lot of that is budget neutral.

Is there since there's seven items, maybe eight or nine that are kind of just like brand new to us like right this second.

Um can you give us did you do the arithmetic?

Is it significantly adding?

So because the mayor's office, many of the positions were eliminated from the 25 budget into the twenty-six budget, it is an increase uh specifically in the mayor's office by 1.7 million dollars.

And the total salary there this should be in your packet.

Um I don't know that you care about that though.

But it it would come in.

What part what package is?

I know.

It's a very deep in our yellow is the list for the mayor's the mayor's office new structure, all the positions.

Gotta get it.

So you're saying that it what I heard is that it's not actually what I heard is that it's not actually an increase over the 2025 current budget.

But it is an increase over the proposed 2026 budget.

Absolutely since the 2026 budget had really decreased the mayor's office.

But that it but that's not all nine.

The other n eight proposals aren't about the mayor's office.

So it wasn't I wasn't asking specifically about the mayor's office.

That's why I was I'm able to give you that one.

Um let me see if I can quantify that real quick for you.

Uh it is an increase overall though.

Are you looking at some can I ask a question?

Can I just add a little bit of clarity for my previous question where Councilman Gross is looking for some?

So for the administrative cost that I was talking about before.

Just go I just asked if I could just clarify something.

Councilman Gross has the floor.

Yeah, no, I thought we should still looking for something.

I apologize.

No, I'm not looking for something.

I asked Pete a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

After that, I want to say something.

So again, just while he's looking, some of these items are we can see that they're budget neutral.

I also see one that is negative six hundred and forty-one thousand, but maybe that's for five years.

Let me just double check that I got everything.

Uh I have Kirsten just pinged me that it's an additional nine million dollars over the five-year forecast.

What about one year?

1.8 million increase in 2026.

And over the 2026 budgeted.

Yeah, 1.8 for 2026.

But not what was cut from the 2025 budget to the 2026 budget in these nine things.

Probably more than that, I think.

Yeah, so it went from 39 positions in the mayor's office down to 14.

Yes.

And this would bring it back up to 27 positions.

So it would still be a decrease of 12 positions in the mayor's office.

Got it.

Okay.

And that's kind of and and the other ones are kind of a wash.

Yeah.

So again, I'm just trying to get like since there's nine new items.

Some of them are a wash.

Some of them add back funds that were allocated in 2025.

But it looks like it's increased over the 2026 proposal.

I think I understand it.

Okay.

All right, I'm following along.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I'll wait to a tell.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

If not, all those in favor say I.

Oh, sorry.

No, that's okay.

Um I I don't have the exact figures here, but I believe that the incoming mayor administration's um staff did the calculations and it was roughly a two million dollar decrease.

This proposal, these proposed amendments was roughly to $2 million decrease from the 2025 budget.

Right.

Thank you.

So I'm just gonna pretend like I still take it.

So wait, that thank you, councilwoman.

That's that was kind of my point.

So rather than comparing it to the 2026 budget proposal, if we compare it to the current 2025 budget for those positions, it is actually net lower.

Yes.

That's what I heard.

Okay, I appreciate it.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

Item twenty-four has been approved.

Item 25.

25 is to move the chief operating officer out of the office of management management and budget and into the mayor's office.

This is a budget neutral move in 26 and uh throughout the entire five-year forecast, sponsored by councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, 25 has been approved.

Number 26.

Number 26 is to move the business diversity team out of the mayor's office and into the office of management and budget.

This is budget neutral in 26 and throughout the five-year forecast, sponsored by councilperson Strasburger.

Could you just tell us where it's being moved to?

The Office of Management.

To be the Office of Management.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I keep missing that too.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh number 26 has been approved.

Number 27.

Number 27 is to reconfigure the mayor's office through position swaps and creation of new positions.

Uh it is an increase in 2026 of 1,75,621 and a five-year increase of $8,185,309.

Sponsored by Council Person Strasburger.

Motion 8.

Second.

Any discussion?

Saying none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Number 27 has been approved.

Number 28.

Number 28 is to add one uh development public liaison in the Department of Permits Licenses and Inspections.

It's an eighty thousand two hundred five dollar increase in twenty twenty-six with a five-year impact of four hundred eleven thousand one hundred and ninety-three dollars, uh sponsored by councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Yeah.

What exactly will they be doing?

Helping with just developers or helping it residents.

Okay.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That was number 28.

28.

Okay.

28 has been approved.

Number 29.

Number 29 is to add one community engagement specialist to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

It's a 93,000 eight, uh $93,046 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $496,719 sponsored by Councilperson Strasburger.

Motion to approve second.

Discussion, Councilwoman Warren.

I will say for for this one, and again, I don't uh, you know, just looking at the name, the title.

This seems like a very wise position to add for the Department of Parks and Record.

Because you know, that department I feel like we can really be expanding.

What this is wonderful department.

They do amazing work, right?

Um I know that there has been a change coming in, but I think that making sure that this department is deeply embedded in our communities, in all of our communities, is important.

So just from the title alone.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

29 has been approved.

Number 30.

Number 30 is to split the director of finance and the city treasurer positions into two separate positions, one director of finance and one city treasurer.

There's a 159,007 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of eight hundred and thirteen thousand nine hundred seven hundred and ninety-six dollars over the five-year plan, uh sponsored by Council Purst Strasberger.

Second.

Oh, discussion, Councilman Warwick.

Just interrogatory.

Councilwoman, do we have uh just to understand?

Because I I know it's sort of traditionally been two and one.

If if there's if we have any insight into why, I mean the rationale for this one.

I do expect to have one.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, I didn't know where that was directed.

Go ahead, Councilman.

Sorry.

I know I don't have any clarity either on the rationale.

I know that there has been a precedent for these two positions being two positions rather than one in the past.

Oh, there has in the past.

Okay.

All right.

Um I I do want to say just with these, you know, it does it feels a little weird.

I'll say this, right?

From my perspective.

It feels weird to be doing this, right?

It feels very weird to be sort of telling us doing this like preemptively, however.

I do think that, you know.

And again, this is me personally, right?

Like as a gesture of look, this is an incoming administration.

At the end of the day, we are all here to make this city work.

And if this is something that makes the incoming administration feel like they will be able to hit the ground running, and we know that these are likely changes that they would make in the first two or three weeks of their administration anyway, right?

Like these are changes that we would be seeing anyway.

Um, if it's sort of like a favor that we can do, at least I that's how I say from my perspective.

I don't want to, I'm not speaking for anybody else.

But so that is that is why it feels very weird, but I am supportive of all these amendments.

Yeah.

Councilman.

I sorry, when I say it feels weird, it feels weird doing things for an administration that is not yet in office.

That feels uncomfortable to me.

Speaking to people that are still here.

It feels uncomfortable to me, but um, but I am supportive because of you know, if it adds three weeks to their ability to get moving, you know.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Just for the record, um, this position was split until Paul Ligger retired, and then Margaret Lanier, who was the treasurer, was given a director's position.

Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I will say it would be great to be very well.

Let's be able to have some sort of discourse.

Um at the table for this just because this is like a I don't know.

I since I've been here, it's been it's been like this.

It's been uh it's been one position.

Uh and then how much does the Department of Finance director make?

It's right here.

Let me look that up.

I will say I hadn't spoken to the next administration about this uh item.

But uh I did have some ideas about the Department of Finance was we good the like a director of real estate might be something that I don't know.

In 2026, the salaries 132, sorry, it went up and then went away.

Um995 dollars in 2026.

So this is more the salaries ain't benefits there.

So the treasurer would be making more than the finance director, is what you're saying.

I have to look at the details.

No, it's one for the nine increase.

Yes, I'm assuming this is just the increase for just one of the changes is also the the treasurer will be 114,000 uh forty-six dollars.

I don't watch the option.

1146.

Okay, and then the other one is to bump up the finance.

Yeah.

And that would make them equal.

No.

The the difference because the position is so one of the differences is they were both fully funded out of the general fund now.

Currently, um that position was 85% funded out of the general fund, and 15% was out of the three taxing parties trust fund.

The director will be paid at the standard director level, as most of the other directors paid at, and the treasurer is at more of an assistant director level.

Oh, who's being paid at the assistant director level?

The treasurer.

Okay.

I didn't know much about it.

I'm sorry.

Councilman Gross.

Thank you.

So it sounds like the director of finance would still be a mayoral appointee, which would need a council vote.

If the treasurer is at a salary level of an assistant director, is the treasurer proposed to be a not director level without city council approval.

It just feels again.

This is one of the things that feels so strange.

Like this feels really blind.

Like the council person who sponsored these bills can't really speak to them because she's just received them from an incoming administration, but the incoming administration isn't here to like speak to them.

And so it's like we have blindfolds on which is you know a little unusual.

So no one can answer that.

There's no one that can answer that question.

I do not know if the treasurer requires approval by council.

If we're uncomfortable with it in January, I guess we can also change it because point of clarification.

I think the chair said that the incoming administration intends to open the budget in January.

But the they don't need to do that.

Any of us can motion to amend the budget in January.

Sure.

Until the first week of February or so.

You have five weeks to after we come back, and the new mayor is sworn in.

There are five full legislative weeks where any one of us can motion to amend and have a vote on the budget.

It's not for the the remainder of the year that is not true.

Council can't just motion to amend the operating budget.

It has to be it's a special process that the mayor has to request it.

It has to be officially open, all those kinds of things.

But it's basically still a working document in January.

So we are a little blindfolded here and kind of working on just taking a leap on these, but um we can always change them back in January.

So we'll say that.

Motion to hold.

Yeah.

Can we do that?

Can we hold it until you guys can't?

I had I had a comment prior to that.

Is that okay?

Councilberg?

Sorry.

Huh?

It's okay.

Um before we join anyway made a motion.

I just wanted to say I yeah, basically agree with what councilwoman gross just said.

I feel like it is the incoming administration's prerogative to ask for and seek approval for the reorganization of um the administrative positions, not only in the mayor's office, but as they see fit.

And yes, I agree.

It's a little bit of giving the benefit of the doubt prior to having them at the table explaining it to us.

Um I guess I'm comfortable with that only as long as we all work as working diligently just to get to the point where we can pass the budget, work diligently to be able to get answers to the question first thing in January, and be able to ask the tough questions of the incoming administration themselves and bring them to the table so that we can do just that if we if we disagree after the fact.

Um we can just certainly have a non-prerogative then to change it as we see fit.

Um and I actually just as we were speaking, got a text from a member of the new administration.

Um second read this here that the treasurer would be they would envision the treasure being treated as an assistant director level and would not require council approval.

Um it was previously prior to the positions actually being split apart as was noted.

Um it was previously treated at a deputy director level and not confirmed by council in the past.

So hopefully that answers some of that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Smith.

Yeah, thank you.

So I thank you for that explanation.

But I I don't want to delete it, but I think that's the only option, right?

Is either delete it or wait.

But it seems like it's a lot of money, and everybody seems to have a lot of concerns.

And I understand that's the administration.

That's what we and that's what their prerogative, and that's the exact way we got into this place position in the first place.

We thought we're gonna give Ed Gainey his first budget, which included 200 positions and did uh you know some things like that.

So I'm just saying I want to work with administrations too.

I won't be here, but I I like working with people like that, and I do think we should, but that's how we got in this position in the first place.

So I just want to keep in mind, you know, when we're talking about the budget.

We need to be separate.

I mean work with them, but our first priority is to look out there for the public's interest.

That's it.

Thank you.

I'm gonna hold it.

If you want to hold if you want to delete it, you can delete it.

But any further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

One abstention.

So one more.

Oh, I forgot we have a 31.

Sorry.

Um so this this is the this one was just updated uh after the bills that were passed earlier.

There's additional amendment to 2454.

It is to increased revenues based on the updated millage rate of 9.67 mills.

It's a 28,353,115 increase uh to the revenues in 2026 with a five-year increase of 139,763 and 800.

Let me start over.

139,736,842 increase over the five-year forecast for uh revenues.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Councilmember Wilson.

Yes.

Uh this probably is something you probably can answer here.

But does this when this is uh calculated, does this take into account uh uh all the properties that don't pay?

Yeah, so this is it's it's I'm sorry, not nonprofit.

I'm saying like literally like properties that go delinquent.

So this comes from a revenue of core cast that we work with from the Department of Finance that takes all of that into account.

It only increases it what by what they would expect to be able to collect based off the millage rate.

Okay, thanks.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

31 has been approved.

That so bill 2454 has been amended.

Any further discussion on bill 2454 as amended.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to bill 2455.

Resolution fixing the number of officers and employees of the city of Pittsburgh for the 2026 fiscal year and the rate of compensation thereof and setting maximum levels for designated positions.

Motion to approve.

So sorry.

What am I looking at now?

2455.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Oh, oops, no, not capital.

Okay.

Sure.

So there is also amendments to 2455.

These are all the same personnel related amendments that you just voted on in 2453, because 2455 says personnel levels and um how much you pay each of those people.

So the changes that were just personnel related in that one are also listed here.

And I will say that every single one of these except for number five had passed previously.

So if you want to go through them one by one, we can, or if you just want to take them as a group but eliminate number five.

Um let's take number five independently.

Yep.

Motion to amend.

So yes.

So first we need a motion to amend bill 2455.

So motion.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

No idea.

Okay, the bill has been amended.

You have the amendment before you.

Thank you.

Councilman Worldwide.

So motion to strike item five.

No, we just want to take that one separately so we can approve it.

Because every other one in here has already been approved.

Effectively, it's this it's the exact same positions that we approved in 2454.

Right, but item five we struck from the last or sorry, the seasonal worker amendment we struck from the last one.

Okay.

That's why I want to take it separately.

Oh, got it.

Understood.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh number five is to eliminate the seasonal labor allowance in the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Operations.

It's a 425,316 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of 2,226,000 261, 239 decrease over the five-year forecast.

Motion.

Motion to approve with discussions.

Second.

Discussion.

And then motion to strike.

Right.

Second.

Yes.

Right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Then you have to say what you're striking.

Oh, item five.

Motion to strike item five.

Item five.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Oh, um.

Yeah, opposed.

One opposition.

Item five has been stricken.

Any further discussion on the bills?

As amended.

If none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Bill 2455 has been approved.

That takes us to Bill 2453.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2026 Capital Budget, the proposed 2026 community development program, and the 2026 through 2031 capital improvement program.

Motion two.

Second.

We also have amendments to Bill 2453, which are also in front of members.

These were also all preliminary preliminary approved on Thursday.

Sorry, it's getting late.

So can I have a motion to amend?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any um any discussion on the bill as amended?

If none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Bill 2453 has been approved.

Bill 2456.

Resolution authorizing City Council to approve intra-departmental transfers throughout the 2026 fiscal year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Bill 2456 has been approved.

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.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Affirmative recommendation on bill 2451.

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 depayment of the cost thereof for the 2026 fiscal year.

Second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Bill 2452.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 2462.

Resolution authorizing all city departments in conjunction with the Department of Finance to enter on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh into a facilities usage agreement or agreements during the 2026 calendar year for the purpose of permitting groups to rent city-owned facilities for recreational and community focused activities in individual amounts not to exceed $10,000.

Motion approved.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Affirmative recommendation of Bill 2462.

That takes us bill twenty-four sixty.

Resolution authorizing the city controller to accept updated financial system account strings and pay invoices for those contracts whose funding sources shifted from the Office of the Mayor into the Office of Equal Protection in the 2026 operating budget and five-year plan.

Second with discussion.

Discussion.

I don't understand what this is.

Whose bill is this?

This is um this is one of the budget bills because the uh because the Office of Equal Protections was moved to a different cost center.

So now we need to just update the line items in which the contract is pulling from.

Didn't we just do that as one of the mayoral that's just the personnel move?

That was the personnel move.

Yeah, so this and so who sponsors this bill?

Who sponsored this bill?

This bill is not from Mayor Ganey.

It I mean it it came over with their omnibus package of Bucky Pills.

Okay, did okay, got it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Affirmative recommendation on Bill 2460, Bill 2459.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh for the administration of certain 2026 PAYGO funded projects and programs and providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $675,000.

Motion approve.

Second.

Second.