Good morning and welcome to the standing committee's meeting for Wednesday, February eighteenth, twenty twenty-six.

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

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

Our first order of business is rule call.

Will the clerk please take the rule?

Mr.

Sharlin.

Mr.

Coghill.

Miss Gross.

Mr.

Lavell.

Mr.

Rose.

Mr.

Mosley.

Miss Salonetro.

Here.

Ms.

Warwick.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

Here.

Six members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is public comment.

I would like to remind all speakers that the rules of council state that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before city council.

Profanity will not be permitted.

Please state your name and neighborhood for the record.

You will have three minutes to speak, and our first registered speaker is Chief Pomay Chakmamia Halahi.

Those that are able to be deconstructed and the environmental protections aligned with STG Eco-Side Prevention and our Stop the Eco Side campaign as a public health and environmental justice necessity across Pennsylvania.

More than one million residents were recently warned to limit outdoor activity due to elevated fine particle pollution.

Not seeing them with us, we will move on to Dr.

Ronald Lynn Miller.

Seeing Dr.

Miller with us, we will move on to Brina Ritangi.

Ratagi.

I'm sorry.

Can I be heard?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Council members and everyone here today.

My name is Brina Ratangi.

I'm a first year medical student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, as well as a social medicine fellow that works in Greater Hazelwood, and I'm a resident of Oakland.

I'm here speaking in favor of the bill that proposes setting a minimum 500 foot distance between a waste transfer station from schools, homes, parks, and commercial zoning districts.

There's a lot of concerns with having a waste transport station located on less than that distance, closer to where people live and work and play and spend times with their families.

There's the concerns of odor, of poor air quality, toxins, noise pollution, and really that affects us in our homes.

It affects our sleep quality and in school, it affects the noise and our ability to concentrate.

And even in our lived environment, like the walkability of spaces, able to play in parks, and that can really disincentivize wanting to go out and get the recommended exercise per day that that really is the standard for preventing the incidence of these chronic illnesses that have really grown in prevalence across the country, such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, obesity.

I've personally done research on the association between sort of neighborhood and built environment and sleep quality, cognitive health, and we see a lot of long-term implications for this too, looking at um incidents of cognitive decline and dementia, which we know affects a lot of a lot of our loved ones.

So I'm here today just to urge that you consider um favorably this bill because it can do a lot of good for our neighbors in Hazelwood and beyond in promoting better health outcomes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sebastian Hinson.

Hello.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Sebastian Himson.

I'm a Pittsburgh native, a first-year medical student at the University of Pittsburgh and also a social medicine fellow working directly with the residents of Greater Hazelwood to address health disparities.

I'm speaking today in my personal capacity as a trainee committed to advancing health equity, and I'm here to urge the support of Bill 2025-2385 prohibiting waste transfer stations within 500 feet of homes or businesses.

Hazelwood is not starting with a neutral baseline.

For nearly a century, the neighborhood was home to Jones and Laughlin Steel Hazelwood Works, one of Pittsburgh's major steel production facilities operating until 1998.

Like many industrial sites of this era, it contributed to significant air pollution and environmental contamination.

The legacy of heavy industry industry shaped both the physical landscape and importantly the health trajectory of the community.

Environmental health research consistently shows that committees with concentrated industrial and waste exposure experience higher rates of various adverse health outcomes, both in the short and long term.

When environmental burden layered on top of economic disadvantage and barriers to health access, those effects compound.

Across the country, including here in Pittsburgh, industrial and waste facilities have disproportionately been located in lower income neighborhoods.

That pattern is well documented in environmental justice literature.

What makes this moment important is that zoning policy allows us to interrupt this pattern before it repeats.

A 500-foot minimum distance between waste transfer stations and homes, businesses, parks, and gathering spots is not simply a planning preference, it's a preventative health care measure.

In exposure science, distance reduces concentration and intensity of pollutants, noise, odor, traffic, and secondary impacts such as vermin.

Buffer zones are one of the most basic tools for reducing community level exposure risk.

My colleagues Brina, who's already spoken, and Pollock will spoke speak shortly, will speak and have spoken on the short-term and long-term health impacts associated with waste transfer facilities.

My role today is to simply emphasize that Hazelwood has already borne generations of industrial exposure and zoning decisions like this determine whether those cumulative burdens continue or are meaningfully addressed.

This legislation does not eliminate waste infrastructure.

It ensures that future sitting decisions incorporate health considerations and prevent additional burdens that fall on communities that have historically carried more than their fair share.

As future physicians working in the city, we are trained to prioritize prevention.

Prevention is not only more effective, it is more equitable.

I respectfully urge you to support the 500-foot setback ordinance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Polak Shaw.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Paul Shaw, and I'm a medical student and a social medicine fellow for the Greater Hazelwood neighborhood.

And I'm here today to speak in strong support of Council Bill 2025-2385 and its 500-foot buffer requirement.

This bill is not just about zoning.

It is about health.

It is about dignity, and it is about whether we are willing to protect residents of neighborhoods like Greater Hazelwood from preventable harm.

Waste transfer stations are known sources of air pollution, noise, odors, and pests and truck traffic.

And these exposures are not abstract.

They translate directly into higher rates of asthma, heart disease, stress-related illnesses, sleep disruptions, and also missed days of school and work.

And as future physicians, we can see these impacts.

Too close to homes, residents cannot escape it.

They breathe it in every day, they live with it, and they raise their children in it.

The 500-foot minimum requirement in this bill creates something essential: breathing room.

It creates distance between industrial operations and daily life, and it reduces the constant exposure, and it lowers the risk of negative health outcomes by giving residents a better chance at healthy air, quieter nights, and safe outdoor spaces.

Importantly, this standard is not extreme.

It aligns with protections already used in cities and states across the country.

It reflects what both public health evidence and common self tell us.

Your environment matters immensely in your health.

In Hazelwood, this matters even more.

As my colleague Sebastian already mentioned, this community has already carried the burden of industrial pollution and disinvestment for generations.

Without strong safeguards, we risk repeating that history.

By passing this bill, the Pittsburgh City Council can affirm that economic development and environmental health are not in conflict, that both can and must coexist.

We urge you to support this bill and protect the health of current and future residents of Greater Hazelwood.

Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Ann Macher.

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, hi, my name's Carrie Ann Major.

I'm a Lincoln Place president.

Um I've been a lifelong president of Lincoln Place, and I know Hazelwood very well.

My parents are from that area.

I am in favor of the bill.

I feel that Hazelwood has suffered enough with all the industrial waste that has taken place with the mills, etc.

Um everyone before me has mentioned all of the health reasons, all of the noise reasons, all the pollution.

And so I just rather than reiterate everything that everybody's already said, I just want to make sure that you know that I am in favor of this bill to protect neighborhoods, to protect people, and to protect the dignity so that you're not living next to trash.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Diane Schenck.

Hi, thank you, Council members.

I'm Diane Schenck.

I'm the owner of Delamato's Market, a grocery in Delhi located at 5414 2nd Avenue in Hazelwood.

We are 350 feet from the recycle center owned by Republic Services, and I'm speaking in favor of the 500-foot buffer zone.

Behind my store and between us and the recycle center are two homes, both occupied by elderly inhabitants who have lived there their entire lives, and whose parents lived in those homes before they were born.

Within 500 feet of the recycle center property, you will find many homes, along with multiple businesses, two churches, a city senior center, and a public workstation.

This part of the city is full of people who live and work there.

We provide access to fresh, healthy food at reasonable prices, create a positive social space in the neighborhood, and grow wealth by sourcing as much as possible from local farmers and producers.

We've been successful financially, socially, and developmentally in this food desert community for 10 years.

Right now we're nearly finished with an expansion and renovation project funded by a federal infrastructure improvement grant, a state local economic development grant, and our own personal investment.

We and our neighbors know well that the recycle center has always struggled to control a large rat population, and that they are noisy with compaction thumps regularly shaking our windows.

We hear and see the constant recycle truck traffic going past on Second Avenue along with 18 wheelers, construction vehicles, and commuter traffic.

Second Avenue is already a dirty, dangerous street with constant dust, debris, noise, and trucks.

Placing a solid waste transfer station at the recycle center will greatly increase this negative environment, attracting an increasing number of rats and other pests and continuing to degrade this riverside neighborhood.

Delamados Market increases the quality of life in the Hazelwood community.

Over the time we've been there, we have seen a steadily increasing effort to rebuild this neighborhood.

From Hazelwood Green to Gladstone residences, from Propel School to Hazelwood Brew House, from rehabilitated homes to brand new housing and a youth football facility.

We are all doing our part to be good neighbors.

Please protect this community from solid waste transfer stations, spreading trash, smells, noise, truck traffic, and rats in the community by enacting the 500 foot buffer zone.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lori Kolczynski.

Hi.

I am Lori Kolczynski, the general manager of BFI Waste Services of Pennsylvania, a local subsidiary of our public services.

We are the owner of the recycling center in Hazelwood, in the only permitted transfer station in the city.

Locally, we've been a partner of the city for over 30 years, and nationwide Republic Services operates 246 transfer stations.

The city's roadmap to zero waste outlined the strong need for a transfer station within the city and further highlighted Hazelwood to support literature instead of raising businesses for station within the city.

My title is chief.

It's a step and go to step towards clean and the restoration of liberty for marginalized communities.

We want and demand more meaningful inclusion, an opportunity to create generational wealth for our lineage.

In fact, we are systematically not even considered when development happens in this city.

We are often just left out of the conversation.

If we are not at the table when these important conversations are happening, then how can you say you have true community input?

This city is being run just like Trump is running the White House, knocking buildings down indiscriminately, and building what you decide and being necessary.

Under the guise of urban renewal or urban redevelopment.

To me, it seems we now have a New York mindset.

Any consideration when it comes to traveling and parking.

We're making a long term and cost you $45.

This is not the Pittsburgh, we know.

We the people want our city back, according to the city's own home rule charter enacted in 1974.

Just take these two short years ago.

You've taken an oath to support protect and defend the Constitution for the United States.

Public servants are considered officers of the peace, not officers of oppression.

Instead, we need you to cultivate and empower and enrich our communities by giving those who wish to do so the feet at the table.

Not expecting that the pool ourselves up our bootstrap.

You must acknowledge a decade of different veterans and ill can see policies and depredation.

I call for the council to stop making shady deals and start planting shady tree.

Colonize PGH.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Are there any special speakers wishing to come to the podium?

Good morning.

My apologies for neglecting to register.

My name is Sonia Tillman.

I'm the executive director of Hazelwood Initiative.

I am here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning text amendment to the Pittsburgh Code, adding definitions and parameters around the waste transfer station.

I want to start by recognizing that improving the efficiency of our waste transfer system is an important and legitimate goal.

Those concerns are real and they deserve thoughtful solutions.

At the same time, we must be clear-eyed about the potential community impacts of large-scale waste transfer facilities, including significant light pollution, increased traffic poor air quality, those things that have been previously mentioned by the speakers before me.

These impacts are not minor inconveniences.

They directly affect quality of life and neighborhood stability.

As a city, it is our responsibility to solve the current logistical challenges without creating new harm.

Efficiency cannot come at the expense of residents' well-being, especially in communities like Hazelwood that already face disproportionate venomo environmental burdens.

That means establishing clear criteria in advance about where these transfer stations can be located.

It means prioritizing appropriately zoned industrial areas with sufficient buffers from homes, schools, parks.

It means providing certainty for both residents and environmental service providers through transparent standards.

This amendment is an effort to be post both proactive.

This amendment is an effort to be proactive in designing a solution that will support operational efficiency while protecting the well-being of our residents.

We should not allow the private market to determine location solely based on what works for them logistically or for financial reasons.

Public infrastructure decisions must be guided by public interest standards, standards including health, environmental equity, and long-term neighborhood stability.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Mary Bridget Bartol, and I was born in Greenfield, and I live in Hazelwood on the seventh floor, a hazelwood towers, which gives me a beautiful view of the city.

Not people, not bars, not dancing in the streets, just lights.

Till I went to Youngstown where it was cleaner.

Slit on our sheets.

Four of us would have to help my mom shake it.

We many of the mill workers in the 80s didn't get their pension because they died of black plung.

This garbage and stuff, it's equal, e.

coli.

It's it's E.

coli that you're putting there.

We got enough with the rats that are this big down.

We're riverfront property.

So why the mayor's on the page, and you're not we're gonna clean up around the river.

We're gonna make a situation where the river is prosperous.

I wouldn't go swimming in it because when I did, I hit a refrigerator.

And who else knows what else is in the river?

But these are not baby mice.

This has been a big problem for many years in Hazelwood.

And trash.

Trash in homewood.

Pennhills just got quite a bit of money to get new sidewalks and streets.

We don't.

We're like the lost hazelwood.

Right now, we can't get across the street because everybody's going to South Hills, and the trucks are coming in for H green, Hazelwood Green.

It's a joke over there.

Three o'clock till six o'clock, we have more traffic than downtown, which used to be where the traffic would start.

We don't want this.

We got people that are 62 to 95 in the tires.

They like to go for walks with their dogs.

They like to walk down to Diane Del Mano store.

The Holy Cross Church is down there.

We it's picking up down there.

Why would you come in and put garbage there?

And if it's day, there's so many days the seniors can't go out, cut the COPD and first alerts.

Pittsburgh is not known still as a clean city.

It's pretty dirty here.

I spent 34 years in Hollywood, Florida, and we had a clean city except the beaches.

We had to clean.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, City Council.

My name is Katherine Burke, and I'm a resident of Hazelwood.

Some of what I'm saying is uh repetitive, but it is worth repeating.

Uh about a year ago, a friend of mine who was getting his PhD in some kind of scientist science uh courses, uh did air quality in the neighborhoods around Pittsburgh.

I talked to him about it, and I asked him about Hazelwood, and he said Hazelwood had one of the worst air qualities in the whole city of Pittsburgh.

And Pittsburgh is for starters not uh known for its air quality.

So uh I'm concerned about making this worse by having uh waste transfer station in Hazelwood.

Uh another problem is 2nd Avenue, which is already highly congested and backed up, and it will be worse if we have all those trucks coming in from around the city to go to this uh transfer station.

Um it gets dangerous to cross, and uh it's just a big problem.

Uh that brings us to noise pollution uh with all the trust truck trucks going through the city.

Uh and we already have quite a bit of noise pollution with in set second avenue.

Uh I'd also like to address the issue of um uh the smell of the waste transfer station, the garbage um stench that comes from uh tons of garbage that will be permeating our homes.

Uh hazelwood is a red residential area, and it it will uh affect people where they live.

Uh also the rats are a big problem because we live by the river, and that's only going to get worse with the race uh waste transfer station.

Um I don't know if the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, and the Steelers have been notified about this waste transfer station because they are have all these new facilities on Hazelwood Green, and they're going to be affected by this uh waste transfer station.

Uh I hope they're um apprised of the situation.

Uh so my major feeling is please don't bring the uh waste transfer station to Hazelwood.

I understand, I believe it's McCree's Rocks that wants the the this uh station and uh hazelwood doesn't want it.

We don't want it forced on us.

Uh why not give it to McKees Rocks who really wants it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, my name is Yvonne F.

Brown.

I have a book here.

I'm gonna just hold it up so you can see it.

In there is called autobiography of black Chicago.

In there, he talks about, you know when I get to I said about how you let Tim Stevens speak in dark complex people can.

And I can, and you may think I'm just saying this, but in this book, it actually talks about the black people that weren't allowed to go into different places.

But they even had the club only yellow people could go.

I want you to understand this has been years, and you need to get this book.

Any black person that's listening, get this book.

This has history.

It has the people from Chicago.

This is in Chicago.

Also, I I will I'm please um try to get this book.

It's written by Dem C D E M P S E Y Travis, T-R-A-V-I-S.

And for the young doctors to be.

You remember when they tore the building, that hotel downtown.

Well, you know, I live at the top of the hill.

So I was worried about the dust.

I went to Norfree Heights and stayed all day long.

I'm trying to let that dust settle.

Okay, I came home at night about 12 o'clock at night.

And when I stepped out of my car, it was like a fog came over me.

It was dust still in the air from that morning.

I couldn't breathe.

I now have asthma.

I didn't have asthma before.

I ended up going in a hospital because I had a bleeding issue.

But when they're talking about them little fine particles, I'm telling you, I felt it when I stepped outside of my house at the top of the hill.

You could feel I couldn't breathe.

I want you to understand that these people who live there and have been living there for years have come down and asked you to please consider them.

Not this company that wants to come in.

If they've been living there for years, the same way with Panther Hollow.

He's saying that there's buildings that says that it was built in 1919.

One of the older senior citizens live in.

They come to you because you make the decision of whether we live and die.

And knowledge is power.

So I gave you some knowledge about the dust in the dirt.

So please listen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Oh, good morning, special agent sunshine, the missing child, Cerese Taylor.

Lord, please help me trust you the way Daniel did.

The title of my message today is Unshakable Faith.

Daniel's faith was unwavering.

He trusted in the Lord.

He trusted the Lord.

He trusted in the Lord, sustained him when he was taken into captivity and sent to a foreign country.

As I was abducted and sent to this foreign country.

Donald Trump, if I'm not from this country, why am I being held in captivity?

They have taken my passport, all of my identity, tried to destroy it, but somebody knows who I am, where I'm from, where I came from, where I'm going, why I'm here, all of that.

Said in the pursuit of justice, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

What are some things that matter?

Identity theft fraud, insurance fraud, computer fraud, illegal conservatory ship, illegal guardianship.

Taking place right in our government.

Some of y'all involved with that.

The wisdom for today comes from Proverbs 2216.

He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich both come to poverty.

Gifts, stolen gifts, stolen inheritances, stolen trusts, like the cultural trust that Pittsburgh stole from me.

That's my trust that was stolen.

Is it not?

Line saying, please, so you all can be destroyed immediately.

Think it won't come?

Yes, it will.

Everything y'all stole from me.

Plus 20% more for my patience, for my diligence, for my unwavering faith to continue to stand on his promises, to supply me with all of my needs, through his riches and glory in Christ.

None of y'all's, nobody else's.

Whoever's lying saying they have uh conservatory ship over me, I want their head.

Whoever I'm in a false marriage with, I want their head.

Do you understand?

Who's stealing my mail?

Your head belongs to me.

Anybody's mail you steal.

Their ancestors coming for your head.

In Jesus' name.

I'm gonna continue to pray.

Please uh research privacy, privacy of communication, privacy of personal data, privacy of thoughts.

That's AI.

Research that learn what it's about in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, counsel.

I I stand before you.

I am a resident of the Hazelwood, greater Hazelwood community, have been for decades.

Even back when we had the steel mill.

That was decades.

So I want to reflect on that.

And how it affected our community in a really bad way, even till this day.

The uh pollution that was coming from our steel mills that our people had to suffer from all those years.

We want to say, and I and I and unapologetically, like we don't need nothing extra coming in our community that's gonna hurt the people.

We had that already.

We had that.

We don't need that again.

Okay, and I'm not gonna sell my soul to nobody.

Nobody.

You hear what I'm telling you?

Because I don't have to.

So I say all that to say that we had enough of pollution.

We had enough of it.

And we've been in this community for a long time.

I have been in there over 40 years.

I have seen my grandparents, my uncles who came from down south.

The people in the community suffer a very long time out here in our community.

So I want y'all to take in consideration.

If it was your community, would you allow it there?

Because we love ours just like you love yours.

And I don't feel like the people need to continue to be sick.

Why our community?

That's the question.

Why our community?

Why not yours?

Why not yours?

So take in consideration, please.

Um, what the people of the community is asking for.

Thank you.

That's all I got to say.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers?

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

Our first committee is the Finance and Law Committee.

We have deferred papers.

Deferred paper bill number six.

Resolution authorizing and directing the mayor, solicitor, director of planning, and director of the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to 204K of the Home Rule Charter to provide appropriate notice and terminate the contract with Sasaki and Common Cause Consultants per Article 3.2, termination of the agreement.

Motion to approve brief discussion.

Is there a second?

Brief discussion, Councilman Cockle.

Should we read the other bills as well?

With it.

That's if yes, your bill, we can certainly do so.

Bill 7, resolution authorizing and directing the mayor, solicitor, director of planning, and director of the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to 204K of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter to provide appropriate notice and terminate the contract with HRNA advisors in urban AC, LLC, per Article 3.2, termination of the agreement.

Thank you.

So just to give council an update.

The last four weeks ago goes so fast, but uh last time we spoke of this, we decided to hold for four weeks.

Um requested for Chief Gilman to go out and try to, you know, bird dog some funds so we don't have to use the taxpayer money.

We all I think collectively agree that we overspent for the comprehensive plan as it was.

So as true to his word, uh, you know, Chief Gilman has gone out and really beat the bush, and I feel like he's having some success.

Uh I don't want to get ahead of him.

But I will tell you he has had some success.

Um however I want to provide him another four weeks to kind of solidify leads he's been working on and hopefully garner those monies where we get that entire money, I believe somewhere around two million dollars back into our general fund.

So therefore the ultimate goal remains the same as to save our taxpayers the two million dollars that's still out there.

Um but I would I'm gonna make a motion to hold for four more weeks, and then at that time we'll bring Chief Gilman to the table and he could you know give us a full report on what he's you know gathered and um maybe we could have Yvette as well uh join us, the new planning director, and she could maybe speak more to the direction that she wants to go in and this new administration.

And by then I think we'll all be ready to make a decision on this and uh you know move forward whether we get full refunds on that two million or whether we have to use a portion is still unseen.

But uh I'll let Chief Gilman answer to that when when we have them at the table next time.

But I promise to be to the point where we can make a decision at that point.

So with that, I'll open it up to any other conversation or I'll make the motion after conversation.

Is that more proper as to where we're I heard a motion to hold for four weeks and we can discuss?

Would you like to do that?

Yeah, let's do that.

Motion to hold for four weeks.

So I think that's a good question.

Second discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of a four-week hold for bill six and seven, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bills will be held for four weeks.

Thank you.

Bill 16.

Ordnance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordnance is Title II, Fiscal Article V Special Funds to add a new chapter 239 fleet vehicle fund to create a fleet vehicle fund to fully fund the City of Pittsburgh's fleet needs and establish the purposes for which monies in the fund may be used.

Uh motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah.

So um so just to quickly recap, so um the the purpose of this bill is to establish a fund that would where we would be putting in 20 million dollars a year into our fleet uh starting with the 2027 budget and every year thereafter.

Um obviously that would be a fund that would be voted on every year by council, right?

So, you know, council would vote on whatever the amount, the final amount per year that would go in.

Um I've had some discussions with the administration uh with Chief Werner, and uh I I would like to give them a little bit more time to look at this.

So what is um what they are looking at is the number, sort of that baseline number.

Now, of course, the 20 million a year, we have been told numerous times at post agendas and whatnot uh by um by our department directors, OMB, the equipment leasing authority, et cetera, that that 20 million a year really is the bare minimum that we should be investing in our fleet annually over the long term to kind of keep our fleet in in um good working order so we can you know serve our residents and and do the work that we need to do.

Um however, you know, I am not the expert in those numbers.

Uh so if there are, you know, if there are numbers that need to be reconciled between perhaps let's say the ELA and department heads or whatever about what vehicles cost and all this kind of thing, I'm more than happy to to give the administration the time that they need to look at that.

Um I do want to underscore that, you know, we have heard from our controller that in order to that to get our fleet up to a hundred percent, you know, uh of all of our vehicles kind of w in within their their reasonable life cycle would cost up um more than 200 million over five years.

So that would actually be like 40 million dollars a year for the next five years.

So obviously 20 million is a lot less than that.

Um but again, the conversation is ongoing, but but whatever number the administration comes back with as the number that they think, you know, will keep us where we need to be.

I am definitely, and I hope that that members here will agree that we will want that number to be confirmed by our fire bureau, by our EMS Bureau, by our DPW department, by our equipment leasing authority, by OMB, by procurement, right?

So that that is a that is a universally agreed upon number by all the folks who depend who who do our budgets and who also you know depend on these vehicles to do their work.

And regardless, um I think it is important to remember that no matter what the number, if we are going to maintain our fleet in a reasonable way so we don't run into situations like we've had uh over this winter, um, and that we are running into, you know, with our garbage trucks and our fire trucks, et cetera, et cetera, uh, that we are going to need help from our outside partners, whether that be corporate partners or nonprofit partners, and uh all and and or uh we are going to really need to re-examine our budget priorities, right?

Because the fleet, literally every single thing that we do at the city, every single service we provide from you know, public safety, public works, parks, even finance, right?

Even even the finance team needs cars to go around and look at look at properties and do and do work like that.

Um so every every team across the board uh needs vehicles.

And uh anyway, so with that, um, you know, happy for any further discussion, but I also was gonna motion to hold for an additional four weeks so that the conversation can continue.

Further discussion, um, and then we can circle back to the motion to hold.

Councilman Conkell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I want to thank you, Councilman Warwick, for for taking this, I think our most pressing need as a city is our fleet at this point.

Um I'm glad you're giving the administration time to you know examine as to the amount that you set forth.

Having a trust fund, I think is going to be essential in the end.

Uh, whether it what that amount is, you know, we'll determine that as we move forward and see what the administration and department heads come up with.

But you also point out correctly, it's much bigger than fire police and EMS.

It's you know, it probably makes up half of our fleet.

But um, but I want the public to know we call it an emergency ELA Equipment Leasing Authority.

We purchased a vehicles meeting uh maybe about a week ago or so, and uh, you know, we're quickly moving.

We we haven't gone so far as to purchase vehicles yet, but determining what we need, where we need it as the most essential needs.

Those monies are limited and tied up to certain things like EMS and and uh but but uh but we're moving on that and you know we're moving in the right direction, and I think bringing the attention to it is as we've been doing for five or six years.

I feel like it's finally getting its you know place at the table that's so well needed, and that's in part thanks to you.

So okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Um I'll just say for my part, I um I would love to get to a point where we kind of like our fund balance, you know, like we we know we can't we cannot legally dip below 10 percent, but our goal is always closer to 15 percent, if not more.

Um it would be great to have that, those numbers in this, maybe not baked into the bill, but like baked into the bill, this is the absolute minimum.

And then our goal being, you know, I had heard so 40, 40 million, I had heard 31 million per year.

Um, and then perhaps maybe a look back period, because this is a short-term, admittedly, like it could become a long-term issue, but if we do it right, it's a short-term problem that then becomes more sustainable over the years.

So is there at some point where we need to establish a look back period um, or if not a look back period, sort of an ongoing maintenance of the um of the trust fund to ensure that it's not um one put into a corner and forgotten about in 10 years, and two um that there is an you know a recurring um assessment that you know, aside from the controllers audit that says that that asked the question, is this the right amount?

Is this something that's still needed?

Is this you know, whatever, um in the long term?

Because once it's in code, it's it's hard to it's hard to remove trust funds once they're in code.

But uh and maybe it is needed in perpetuity, but I think uh wrestling that with that question would be helpful you know in the next couple of weeks as well.

So I'm happy to be part of that conversation.

I don't have to be, but wanted to bring up some of those thoughts that I had.

So um happy to open it up to second round or have the motion and then discuss.

Okay.

Yeah, oh sorry, so motion to hold four weeks.

Second second discussion on the motion to hold for four weeks.

Seeing none, all those in favor of a four-week hold for bill sixteen, please indicate by saying aye.

Bill be held for four weeks.

Uh that brings us to new papers, Bill 105.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant payable to CLIO Consulting in full in final payment for the remaining cost or historic survey of the Beachview District in an amount not to exceed $5,000 over one year.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 105, please indicate by saying aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 106.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of a single payment in 2026 to Benjamin Mayhew and his attorneys, Phillips fraud shell LLC at a cost not to exceed $60,000 in full and final settlement of litigation filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common, please.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 106, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 107.

Bill 107 resolution authorizing the mayor and the city solicitor on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a professional services agreement with the law firm of Fisher Phillips LLP in connection with issues involving labor disputes cost not to exceed $60,000 over six months.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of Bill 107, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 108.

Resolution amending resolution 130 of 2025, which amended resolution 603 of 2024 by authorizing the mayor and the city solicitor on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a professional services agreement with the law firm of Fisher Phillips LLP in connection with issues involving labor disputes by increasing the approved amount by 275,400 for a new amended total cost not to exceed 485,400 over two years.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 108, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 111.

Resolution to authorize and direct the incurring of non-electoral debt through the issuance of a series of general obligation bonds of the City of Pittsburgh in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $56 million, $20,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

I mean talk to you about that.

I think we'd be fine.

Absolutely.

Welcome.

Please introduce yourselves.

Good morning.

Jen Gula, Finance Director.

Kyle Welks with Davenport Company, the city's co-municial advisor.

Kristen Erickson and with the law from Clark Hill and Bond Council.

Morning, Matt Stzinski, MAS Financial Advisory Service Co-Municipal Advisor.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming.

I figured I'd have to table.

I mean it's just $56 million.

If you could just go through the um what we're looking at here.

Oh, most certainly.

Director Gold, do you want to start though?

So certainly.

So this is basically the $56 million that we're using to fund the capital budget for 2026 that you all approved and voted on at the end of 2025.

So and it's just for those projects that are listed in the capital budget as bond as a revenue source.

Thanks for going over that.

And I won't ask about each individual project.

Or do we have a like a sense of how much each of those projects are funded?

So are you just solely looking at the rates and what we're doing here?

Well, thanks for the question.

So the answer to your question is out of the entire capital project, uh 2026 capital projects under 20, 112 million dollars, I believe.

Uh 51 million is funded with bonds.

And the um David Hutchinson and Brendan Kotikia look at that list of 112 million dollars worth of capital projects and discern which of those projects have the longest useful life.

Um we don't want to issue 20-year bonds for projects that are going to uh be re uh have to be rehamped or reconstructed uh in less than 20 years.

So we look at those projects typically our bridges, building facilities, street improvements that have reconstruction to uh aspects to it.

I don't want to speak for Director Hutchinson, but that is their role in determining and reconciling out of that hundred twelve million, how much should be issued by way of bonds and have a 20-year useful life.

And that comes up to $51,200 this year.

Uh the debt resolution has a slightly higher a dollar amount, and we do this every year because of the vagaries of the local government unit debt act.

We have to have some flexibility in how we move principle around.

But as we mentioned the council in prior years, we won't issue a dime more than necessary to fill the bucket which will uh of bond proceeds to fund 21, I mean to fund $51 million, $2,000 worth of projects, except the cover cost of issuance, which we have some detail on for you today.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

So last year we we did something different that we haven't done in a while, uh which was we didn't we went out to you explain that we went out to market.

Sure, sure, most certainly.

As I remember, like we went out to market without slightly different.

Without uh initial agreement on what the what the rate would be.

It was a method of sale.

So are we doing that again or not?

So last year, for the first time um in uh the history that I'm aware of, the city of Pittsburgh went to sale of its of its bonds by way of a uh competitive sale.

Uh I'll just go back in time and say historically the city had been using a method called the negotiated sale, in which it prior to the sale it would select a syndicate of underwriters, and those underwriters would then go out and leave one here.

Okay.

And um the uh investors would apply uh submit orders and we would try to drive those under those underwriters to sell the bonds at the lowest possible interest rate.

Now keep in mind that's a select group of underwriters.

We chose local firms, we chose minority firms, the administration gave us guidance as to which firms it would like to use.

And those and that had been done primarily going back decades, uh, for a couple of reasons.

One, the city's uh bond rating was weaker, and therefore it required more uh communication between the underwriters and the sales force to the investors, and the city's financial profile was weaker by way of things like Act 47.

We have uh concluded that the city, by way of the improvement in the city's financial profile and the city's bond rating, that we'd like to attempt to do a competitive sale.

Typically the Securities and Exchange Commission Commission suggests that if you have a general obligation pledge, which is the highest pledge a city can uh can pledge in terms of its repayment of the bonds, and the city has a bond rate, a high bond rating, a high quality bond rating, and it's uh a reasonably sized issue.

A credit like the City of Pittsburgh should be attempting a competitive sale.

And the difference being no different than how you competitively bid a street project or a building improvement.

We send out a notice of sale and we let every broker dealer in the country bid on your bonds.

So it's a more competitive environment to sell the bonds by allowing all the broker dealers in the country to try to purchase your bond for this virtually the same, we'll call cadre of investors, but they are competing on day at day to get that to get those bonds and sell them to investors.

The great news is that last year we received 10 uh bids from broker dealers, which was a very healthy execution of the competitive sale.

Fortunately, the winning bid happened to be PNC, which knows the city well, had served as uh prior uh underwriter on negotiated sale.

We were delighted to see them.

And their performance in terms of selling the bonds was at a rate slightly lower than we had been seeing by way of the other method of sale, the negotiated sale.

So it is our recommendation to use the competitive sale again this year and um allow broker dealers from all over the country to submit bids.

And we find the marketplace currently by way of the cities again, financial performance and the uh current uh we'll call it sentiment in the marketplace for these bonds, then we think we'll get good execution again by way of this methodology.

And again, it's no different than how the city will call it competitively bids for other projects.

So we think it's a really good solution, and we think this SEC, as I said, has leaned heavily into seeing more competitive bids for credits and issues like this.

So we're uh recommending it again.

Okay.

In thank you.

In the uh competitive bid process.

Are there one rate or are there multiple different?

It's one we still have rates for each maturity.

We have a separate rate for each maturity, and then we aggregate them, and the winning bid is the aggregate is the lowest aggregate total interest cost.

So it's still the lowest interest cost, which wins the bid.

What was that?

So even though there's multiple, it was about four percent last year.

And so it's fixed for that entire 2.0.

Uh it wasn't 4.0, but we can get you the exact number.

It was in a basic, it was was within a basis point of stacking like 4.0.

Well, it was um 20 24's number.

4.04% was what we call the true interest cost, which is the effective that was 25.

That was last year, that's correct.

What was 24?

It was right in that range.

I mean, we've been fairly close in terms of the overall interest rate for the last two or three years where it's been in the four percent range.

Okay.

Do you have 24s?

I only have a four, it was a 420.1 too, yeah.

Oh, good.

And the year before that was a 421, and the year before that was a 425.

And Matt also mentioned this with the competitive sale.

What we saw is interest rates vary.

And so you're gonna get a market interest rate depending upon the day of the sale, whether it's competitive or negotiated.

But the other advantage of the competitive process is the pricing execution or the the spread that the underwriters put on the interest rates was much tighter than it had been previously with a negotiated sales.

So it kind of resets the pricing for the city's bonds as a whole on a going forward basis.

And it was the lowest TIC you've seen the last five years, meaning interest rate.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

Uh Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Matt Chair.

I'm trying to get um my camera working and everything.

Can you see me?

My um camera yet.

Not see you, we can hear you.

Okay, we can see you now.

Appreciate it.

Um thank you, Councilman Wilson's questions.

Um your answers answered some of mine, but um I feel like we also need to keep in front of us um a kind of total debt costs.

Um, and I apologize, I don't have the packet in front of me.

So could you um remind us?

I think you you will both remember that I can ask this every time we are asked to vote on a bond.

Um, what is our total um principal and interest obligations should like now, and what does it increase to if we uh vote yes to authorized this bond issuance?

Mr.

Laux?

Yep.

Council permanent person, um, in answer to your question, so our total existing debt service right now, and this is principally in an interest, is about 645 million dollars.

Um that's spread importantly over basically the next 20 years, and so that's not an annual payment.

Um as you'll recall from prior discussions in your budget discussions as well, you have a debt cliff coming up as a city, and so you're going to free up in the range of about 30 million dollars going from fiscal year 2026 to which we're in right now to fiscal year 2027.

Um so if that gives a little bit of perspective.

Um could you could you frame that then in terms of our annual burden for principal indebt currently?

Yep.

So in 2026, you've got an annual payment of about 78 million dollars in that range.

And in 2027, even when you layer in the new uh roughly 50 million dollars, your annual payment is gonna be about 46 million dollars.

And so you're still, even after this issuance, gonna see a nice decline between this fiscal year and next fiscal year.

That is welcome news.

So again, just to for the public, right?

Like this, like let's say 2025.

We literally paid 78 million dollars of our revenue out in bond payments, debt payments.

But even if we vote yes today.

I think I would say our 2026, is it 2026 or would it be 2027?

It'll be 2027.

It's only 46 million.

2027.

2027.

Yep.

All right, so we're projecting for 2026 to have to pay 78 million, but even if we vote yesterday, we get we're expecting somewhere around the 4%, we hope, um, rate on this competitive sale.

And um we'll be able to do these $51 million of new capital projects, and next year our bond payments should drop to 46 million.

That's correct.

Great.

All right, so that's really welcome news.

And I I do this every year, I think, or every time we've had to vote on a bond, that my first year on council was either in December of 2013, or maybe it was 2014, when we were looking at um bond payments.

So we're in a much healthier shape in terms of debt and revenue.

So I guess that's what is also making us have a better bond rating.

Can you question us like how are we rated?

What do we rate it on?

So you have three credit ratings.

Two of them that we use on a routine basis on uh your new bond issues are standard and poor's and fitch.

Those are both in the double A range.

They've been moving up over the last several years, reviewed uh roughly a year ago with good positive results.

Um and so those are strong investment grade credit ratings.

And so as Matt was talking about, that is an important uh factor in your ability to go out and sell these bonds competitively in terms of is the marketplace is looking at the city of Pritt Pittsburgh, obviously a very good name, but the fact that you have those double A credit ratings when you go out to investors, these broker dealers are bidding on the bonds that makes those bonds more liquid, more attractive, easier to sell for them, that results in a lower interest rate and more competition uh for you.

So in simple answer to your question, um, two double A range credit ratings from standard poor's and fitch.

Um we do have a Moody's rating in the high A range that we just haven't needed to use because the others have been good enough, certainly to access the credit markets in a very cost effective way using standard poor's and fitch.

Right, and then uh rating agencies are um looking at what when they decide that they're giving us a double A.

So they're looking at four major credit factors.

They're generally speaking looking at the economy, finances, debt, and management.

So those are kind of the big four food groups, if you will.

Um clearly we talk a lot about the finances of it.

Um fund balance was mentioned, that's a very important critical piece of it, structural balance, your debt levels, which are within your policy is a very important that you as a city do.

Um the overall economy plays into it uh a fair amount, about 30% of the credit rating is tied to economic factors.

Uh we tend to think of those as not directly within your day-to-day control.

It's things like income levels, unemployment levels, uh, but those are things that have been uh trending in a stronger direction over the last several years for Pittsburgh.

So uh the four major food groups, if you will, economy, debt, finances, and management.

That's wonderful, that's perfect.

That's all I need to know.

And I think that's the all the public needs to know for um for this issue.

So I thank you for your answers.

That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilperson Charlotte.

Uh you know what?

Actually, all of my other questions just got answered by the previous question, so thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Cockell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um my thought is competition is good, and I think you've proved that, you know, going back to last year.

And when you're dealing with the type of monies that we're talking about here, uh half a percentage point is a big, big deal.

And uh you know, the reflects as to our debt and and uh what we have.

This may be a no-brainer question.

I think you answered it is with Councilwoman Gross and about the four major groups here, or factors I should say.

Um, the economy.

When the market it's no secret to markets been killing it, right?

Over I don't know how long, but but it's doing really well.

Does that factor in to the actual interest rates that we're shopping for?

Kyle, if you don't mind, I was just gonna mention well, it doesn't necessarily obviously interest rates in the we'll call it the stock market.

We have some in interaction between the two.

Where it's helped the city the most is probably in the pension fund in terms of the performance of the pension fund and the improvement in the pension fund, which when we think about debt, we also think about liability and the pension being the one of the largest liabilities the city has.

So the improvement in the pension funding really helps in terms of the overall credit quality of the community as well.

That's probably the best correlation.

But of course, as stocks do well and employers do well by by way of the stock market, or in other words, individuals do well, yeah.

There's income tax, right?

You know, that that uh accrues to the city by way of wages and by way of uh profits to these uh companies and growth in the companies.

That's great.

Uh yeah, I'm all for you, market you know, shopping around getting the best deal you can get for the city of Pittsburgh.

That means you know, money back in our pockets of our taxpayers.

So that's that's really great.

I did notice like you know, our principal balance is higher than our interest owed for 2026.

That's a good sign by 20 some million dollars.

And that's that's great.

Because I know a recent bond that we took out too not too long ago, we're paying more in interest than we are have having principal.

So um I'm glad to see that overall number, at least for 26 is you know, on our side of things.

Um the other thing was you know, you know, our debt payment is gonna go from 78 million from this year down to 46 million for how many years now?

Next year, projected next year.

For the next well, depending on future issuance, of course.

Uh, we can continue.

Yeah, borrowing money.

Yeah, if if you were to borrow no further monies, your annual debt service payments would be about 46 million dollars for the next five, six years.

So and then declining thereafter.

Uh but as you in add new issuance, your principal and interest payments are going to be adding to that total.

So as future issuance come online, that forty-six million will go higher.

Right.

The good news about this um issuance, and it's been true of the last couple three years.

The city will actually pay more in bonds off in 2026 than it issues in bonds.

So you're scheduled to retire 50 plus 55 plus million dollars, and we'll issue 51 million dollars worth of bonds this year.

So the debt actually is lower in aggregate at the end of 2026 than it is at the start of 26.

Yeah, that's that's great.

I think we're we're on the right track.

So um, so that's good to hear.

Um, everything else was kind of covered.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for letting helping me make sense of the whole thing.

But uh yeah, you say it in a good easy manner that I'm able to understand.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 111, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good to see you all.

That moves us on to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

So moved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of invoices, please say aye.

Aye.

Invoices are approved.

That moves us on to P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of P cards, please say aye.

Aye.

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

Bill 95, resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the director of the Department of Public Safety to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Office of the State Fire Commissioner for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the fire company and emergency medical services grant, any amount not to exceed $20,000 to purchase trauma bags.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 95, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 96.

Resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of the Department of Public Safety to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Office of the State Fire Commissioner for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the fire company and emergency medical services grant any amount not to exceed $9,336 for training and certification of members.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 96, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to public works and infrastructure committee chair chaired by Councilwoman Salonetro.

Bill 102.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way, and construction phases of the Smithville Street Reconstruction Project, and providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $9,890,000 in increase of $620,000 from the previous resolution, reimbursable at 80% and a municipal share of Commonwealth incurred costs not to exceed $45,000 or $2,000 decrease from the previous resolution.

Is there a motion?

Um motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 102, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 103.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a supplemental agreement or agreements with C DR McGuire Inc.

for project design management services and reviews in connection with various City of Pittsburgh projects to add funding for the preliminary engineering and final design phases, increasing the total not to exceed amount to $4,064,876 and 91 cent and increase of 1,266,407 and 21 cent from the previously authorized agreement reimbursable at various rates depending on the project.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 103, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 104.

Resolution amending resolution 634 of 2025, authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with land force to conduct urban forestry programming in an amount not to exceed $50,000 over a period of four years for new not-to-exceed amount of $465,500 over a period of four years.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 104, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 113.

Ordnance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 1 Administrative, Article 7, Procedures, by adding a new chapter, Chapter 174 of Right of Way, Accessibility Needs Inventory.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Council per Council Member Warwick.

Yes.

So this bill we put together following, you know, this very large snowstorm that we hadn't seen a snowstorm like this in about a decade.

And of course, in addition to the heavy snow, there was kind of like a deep freeze for a number of weeks.

And so what ended up happening throughout the city was that snow piled up, whether it piled up just by by being by the snow that fell or piled up by being pushed, you know, by our snow plows.

But what ended up happening in uh many, many places around the city was that our rights of way uh for pedestrians, disabled folks, transit riders, etc.

were completely inaccessible.

And you know, we we heard from uh wheelchair users who were stuck in their homes for weeks, and um it just uh all in all, and and I I do want to preface this by saying this is it was a once in a decade storm.

Um these issues are always something that we should think about, but you know, move to the back burner or maybe not considered as often when you have snows that come and melt, and so within a day or two everything's clear anyway.

But that's that's not what happened this year.

And um, but it really did kind of you know pull the blanket off of off of uh a long-standing problem.

And um, so you know, it is a complicated problem.

Uh it is not a problem that can just be addressed by one department, right?

So it's an enforcement issue for uh for you know folks who are not clearing their sidewalks that you know property owners are responsible for clearing their sidewalks.

Ums need to be cleared, crosswalks need to be cleared, curb cuts, uh, you know, we need to make sure that our curbs are clear in high priority areas like schools and hospitals and and you know rec centers and churches and and things like that, where we um have sort of our more vulnerable folks, seniors, kids, folks with disabilities who need to have access to the fronts of those buildings.

But it is a monumental task, and so the first step, and I was inspired by Councilman Charlin's bill that we'll look at later, is that you need the data, right?

You need to know where all these places are.

Um, and uh in order that we can prioritize as a city, whether that be via enforcement or whether that be uh DPW going out or whether that be contracting to have snow removed, you know, all of these factors.

You need to know where.

So you can't just say to a DPW, you know, to our DPW divisions, go out and make sure every bus stop is clear.

That's not that they need to know, right?

They need the information.

So which but just like we do with our streets, right?

We do the main street, but but but with our streets, we have you know, we've evolved over many years a system, right?

So you do the main streets first, the emergency routes, and then you go, but maybe you do some hills, you know.

So so there's a system that we have put in place based on years of doing streets.

But we just, you know, here in Pittsburgh, um, you know, we have been uh a very car-centric city for a number of decades.

And um, but this storm and and you know, in last winter was bad too.

We didn't see quite the freeze situation, but you know we don't know if these storms are are gonna happen more often, but um, but we should have a plan in place uh for when they do, and that plan starts with gathering the data and knowing, you know, being able to prioritize because you can't just say make sure every sidewalk is clear in the city, make sure every curb cut is clear in the city, it's just not feasible, right?

So figuring out the high priority areas and then um and and that is that feels like a city planning job to me, right?

It's because it's it would involve working with other partners, our departments, multiple departments, etc.

Um at any rate, I do uh I'm happy for further discussion, but um I my plan is to is to hold for two weeks so that we can talk with um with city planning and and figure out how this might work.

Uh but um at any rate, so thank you.

Further discussion?

Seeing none.

Yeah, so motion to hold for two weeks.

Second.

Again, discussion on the two-week hold.

Seeing none.

All those in favor of holding Bill 113 for two weeks, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Bill be held for two weeks.

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

Defer papers, Bill 2025-2385, ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title IX, Zoning Code, Article 5, Use Regulations, Chapter 911, primary uses to add a definition for waste transfer station and standards associated with the use.

I'll refer to the bill sponsor.

Thank you.

Um yeah, thank you everyone.

Uh so I do have a motion to approve um motion to approve discussion.

Thank you.

Yeah, second.

Apologies, yeah.

Thank you.

Um right, so thanks everyone.

So I do have a small presentation.

We obviously had a number of speakers today.

Um, so right now, let's see.

Let me get to my oops.

Um there we go.

All right.

So uh just uh so the current uh waste transport and waste transfer station discussion in in the city.

Um I think we've all heard a little bit of this already.

Uh currently there is no uh municipal solid waste transfer station operating in the city of Pittsburgh.

Um it's a conversation that we have been having for a while.

Currently, our environmental service drivers m um are driving our non-recyclable municipal waste uh directly to the landfill in Imperial also in Monroeville, so that's about 20 miles.

So that's a lot of miles being put on our vehicles, right?

It's a strain on the vehicles.

Uh driving into the landfill is also a strain on the vehicles.

And um there, and you know, it has been acknowledged by our environmental services teams, our litter management folks that that we could potentially benefit uh by having a waste transfer station in the city of Pittsburgh, right?

So that our trucks don't have to go as far to unload.

Um but uh there really isn't any guidance in our code on what a waste transfer station is and where it would go.

Um so you know, it's obviously critical that we find ways to meet our need for operational efficiency, but we should also be able to do that without negatively affecting the health and well-being of our residents.

So that is where this bill comes in.

Um so it it puts a um a limit on how close a waste transfer station can be to homes, businesses, schools, parks, um, um among other things.

Um and it should also be noted that we that we do in in the city have we're not in the city, but we there is at least one uh fully functioning operational waste transfer station uh within five miles of downtown Pittsburgh.

So that's that's an important thing to keep in mind.

So uh this map is showing our current GI zones, like where a waste transfer station could go.

The blue is where it couldn't go, and the overlap is sort of that that barrier.

So the overlap shows places where you're gonna have communities that are right on the edge of that GI.

And of course, communities, as we've heard from lots of our folks who've given public testimony, you know, communities that border these large industrial areas tend to be um uh lower income communities, uh more marginalized communities, and and with um some of our more vulnerable residents.

So this map is just to show what is the pink is an area where waste transfer station could go if we decided to build one.

And again, you know, keeping in mind that there are at there is at least one existing waste transfer station uh within five miles of the city.

I would argue that you know there's still a question mark as to whether we would even need to build one in the city, right?

Like we're a city that's moving away from industrial, you know, industrial activity in our city um in our city limits, and and um, you know, but that that is that is for a future discussion.

Um just to kind of clarify what a waste transfer station is, right?

So the idea is that you would bring municipal solid waste, put it in large containers where they would sit, and then when those containers are filled, they would then be brought out with with larger trucks out to the landfill.

So these are just some pictures I got off Google of the types of containers that you would see you know at a waste transfer station that would then be brought out to the landfill.

So very large, right?

Significantly larger than the size of a of a typical garbage truck.

So all right.

So what are some of the community impacts of a large-scale waste transfer station, right?

Excessive trash and litter, light pollution, noise pollution from uh increased traffic, obviously, lots of large trucks coming in and out, loud noise, um, air pollution, odor from waste, and of course, um rodents, you know, roaches and and and other pests.

Um let's see.

All right, so um did want to talk a little bit about the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection standards for waste transfer stations.

So I I am of the opinion that the 300 foot barrier between homes and businesses that the PADEP puts on waste transfer stations in the state is uh harmful to communities.

That is too close.

Um we can we'll I'll show you some images uh in a bit about how close is close, right?

What does that look like?

Um 300 feet, uh, you know, Chicago has 800 feet, Detroit has it at 500 feet, Madison Township PA has it at 750 feet, uh Bushkill Township PA has it at 500 feet, right?

So this is not unheard of that um cities and cities in Pennsylvan and municipalities in Pennsylvania would um put more stringent standards, right?

So the state standard is sort of the the minimum, uh but but municipalities can certainly um make those standards more stringent if they if they choose.

Um so this is just you know, we've talked a little bit now.

How did this come to be, right?

Um this came to pass, of course, because in the Hazelwood community, uh the state uh decided with I I will say I I think it's important to note no community outreach, right?

No community outreach.

The state DEP decided to um give a permit to a a facility, not a facility, a facility that is not a waste transfer station, right?

It's uh it's a recycling center, um, but um back in 2019, and the state gave this permit without any input from the community, without uh city council or the mayor's office being present, so really without any meaningful discussion.

Um now that permit is currently under consideration to be transferred to the current owner of this facility.

So that's kind of where you know I know that folks have have uh spoken, some some at council have spoken with Republic Services, so that is where that is.

And I just wanted to give, let me see.

Okay, so this, these are just some.

Now, this is not a waste transfer station.

Let me be clear.

This is a recycling center, okay.

So um, and and you have heard from some residents uh uh about what it's like, and also I do want to note that at the Planning Commission uh where this bill did get a positive recommendation.

We had about 50 residents turn out, and um uh 15 or so testify in addition to the folks who were here today.

So this is just a uh a picture of the a recycling center, and the reason that I'm showing it is because this facility was the prior owner, this was was permitted to be a waste transfer station.

So this is what it looks like today.

This is not municipal solid waste, this is recycling material.

And as you can see, it is out in the open, it is on the ground, right?

And we've heard of you know, issues with with rodents and whatnot, which is not surprising when you see um the nature.

This is another picture, all right, right here.

Um, you know, again, just material out, right?

This is out on the ground.

Um this is to show uh how close this is to homes.

So it's pretty close, right?

Um I mean, uh you know, 300 feet, I I mean 500 feet would also be close.

Let's be clear, right?

500 feet would also be close.

But you know, in our zoning code, we cannot zone something into impossibility, right?

Um, so so there are certain restrictions around that.

Uh and this is just a picture of the community.

So as you can see, the facility that we're talking about, again, that sort of sparked this whole conversation in general about waste for transfer waste transfer stations around the city.

You know, this facility that the state thought would be a good spot, apparently for a waste transfer station.

It is not a waste transfer station, but is right here, and this is where it is in proximity to the neighboring community of Hazelwood.

Um, so um I think that I I guess I I I would hope that the state would re-evaluate now that they have environmental justice reviews and things like that that they did not have uh back at the time that the original permit application went in.

Um but I would say that um not only does this bill protect the Hazelwood community, protects any community that is in close proximity to uh a GI district that could potentially have a facility of this kind.

And I I think that it's also a good bill just as a template because there's all kinds of other things that we know, you know, whether it be data centers or or any other kind of like large industrial, you know, things that might be put near homes and in communities that uh that we have guidelines around that, right?

And uh so that that would be something I would sort of make a nod to our to our city planning folks and our zoning folks um just to think about.

So um, and then you know, as far as public comment, you know, we have heard from oh I oh yeah, I did want to say I've got here, so in addition to I've got about 20 emails, letters, right?

Now these are both to the DEP combination, city council DEP, right?

But I got about 20 letters, um, letters from the former mayor, uh from state rep Arian Abney, we've heard from medical students, social workers, um, uh pastors, um, the heads of churches, uh our local um food bank, um neighborhood groups, our local RCO um businesses we've heard from our local market in Hazelwood, uh, we've heard from the owner of a flower and plant shop, we've heard from auto body shops, um uh we've heard from environmental advocates, and of course, um we have heard from residents.

So this bill really is, you know, obviously sort of ground zero for this is Hazelwood, but this is a bill that is about protecting the entire city and any community that abuts a large industrial site like this.

And and I would definitely encourage council members to also you know think even beyond waste transfer station, like what else?

You know, what else are people talking about putting in communities these days and next to next to our our homes and businesses?

You know, we're trying to grow Pittsburgh and make it uh a livable city, a place where people want to move to, and um, you know, this is a this is you know a larger conversation and also a conversation we should have with our county partners as well.

So that's all for me.

I'm happy to um oh oh, and I do have an uh an amendment by substitution.

So I guess I'll leave it for further discussion here and then thank you.

Further discussion.

Councilwoman Salonetro.

I want you to go back to that uh first slide where you showed the pink potential where it could go.

Is that the McKeys Rocks uh no, no?

So the so the facility, and actually that was another letter that I got.

There is a facility, so there was an article about this in the news, and a f an existing waste, we do not have a waste transfer station in City Pittsburgh, right?

Right.

There is an existing full service waste transfer station in McKey's Rocks, and they reached out when they heard about this.

And and by the way, this uh from my conversations with environmental services, this is a waste transfer station that we've never even talked with, right?

So, you know, I don't, you know, we don't do that.

That's uh that's for the administration to figure out, right?

That's for DPW to figure out and and procurement, but um, but there this is certainly not you know, putting one in Pittsburgh is not the only option that we have.

Okay, yeah.

No, I'm going to.

That's all.

Okay.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

I need to I'm sorry, yes, yes, yes.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So motion um to amend by substitution.

Second.

Discussion on the amendment.

And I can just quickly so this came from the uh planning from the planning commission, um, and it is a recommendation to amend to clarify uh what a waste transfer station is that it is not a recycling center.

So we did not want to, you know, when you have like say small um composting um facilities or things like that in neighborhoods, we didn't want this bill to interfere with things like that.

So this is specifically for municipal solid waste that is not being recycled in any way.

Further discussion on the proposed amendment by substitution.

Seeing none, all those in favor of amending bill twenty-three eighty-five by substitution, please indicate by saying aye.

All right.

Bill is amended.

Any further discussion on the bill as amended.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill twenty twenty-five-2385 as amended.

Is there a member online who would like to comment?

Seeing none.

Um, all those in favor of bill twenty twenty-five-2385 as amended, please indicate by saying aye.

All right, aye.

Opposed, abstained, affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to Innovation Performance Asset Management and Technology Committee chaired by Councilwoman Gross.

The Firm Papers, Bill 41, Ordnance Supplementing, the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title One Administrative, Article 7, Procedures by adding a new chapter, Chapter 173A, housing data dashboard.

Motion to approve for discussion.

Second.

Discussion.

I'll discover the sponsor.

Uh yes.

So thank you, Councilwoman.

The uh planning department did get back to me with some recommendations uh for things that they'd like to change in this bill.

They're relatively minor um and things that I think we can work on, but I do need um a little bit more time.

They they only got back to me yesterday.

And I would ask for a one-week hold uh so we can pass this next week.

So um I'd like to motion for a one-week hold.

Second.

Discussion on the one-week hold.

Seeing none, all those in favor of holding bill 41 for one week, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative or bill be held for one week.

New papers, bill ninety-seven resolution amending resolution 147 of 2025, which added funding for maintenance services related to the Falcon Red Document Scanning Station by authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Finance to extend the agreement with OPEX Corporation for equipment maintenance services and associated software licenses at a cost not to exceed $28,000 for a new total not to exceed 164,686.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill ninety-seven, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to intergovernmental and educational affairs committee chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Bill number 98 resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Public Safety to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of receiving grant funds for the purpose of receiving grant funds for the assistance to firefighters grant in the amount not to exceed $158,712 and 72 cents for fire apparatus vehicle training.

The grant requires a match from the City of Pittsburgh any amount not to exceed $95,871 and 28 cents for this stated purpose for a total project cost not to exceed $1,054,584.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 98, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 99.

Resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and a Department of Public Safety to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the Port Security Grant Program any amount not to exceed $96,931 for the purchase of protective vehicle barriers for waterside events.

The grant requires a match from the City of Pittsburgh any amount not to exceed $32,310 for this stated purpose for total project cost not to exceed 129,241 dollars.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 99, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 100.

Resolution adopting plan revision to the City of Pittsburgh's official sewage facilities plan for 7872 through 7874 Susquehanna Street at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 100, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 101.

Resolution adopting plan revision to the City of Pittsburgh's official sewage facilities plan for 179 Steuben Street 20th ward at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 101, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That is us our standing committee's agenda.

We do have meeting announcements.

Next week, council will hold their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 24th, and their standing committees meeting on Wednesday, February 25th, both at 10 a.m.

To register to speak at these meetings, please fill out the sign-up form on the council meeting webpage by the deadlines.

You may also call the clerk's office at 412-255-2138.

Is there anything else from members?

I just want to say this is one of those unique times where we have uh first day of Ramadan, first day of Lent, and the lunar new year all happening at the same time.

So for anyone who might be celebrating or observing any of those, um, want to wish um uh everyone an easy lent and easy fast and a very joyful lunar new year.

Yes, Councilman.

Would the councilwoman like to mention the Ramadan celebration?

Please, by all means.

Okay, so we are along with Council Member Warwick.

Um, we are hosting our second annual um uh IFTAR dinner here at the City County Building in the lobby along with the Turkish Cultural Center.

And in the past, I know we've traveled to their site, but last year we had our first one here at the City County building in the lobby.

Uh it'll be March 12th, starting at 5 30.

Everyone is welcome.

It was really, really joyful last time, and I encourage everyone to attend.

So, you know, thanks to Council Member Warwork and partnership.

Great.

Anything else from members?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion to um approve the minutes and adjourn the meeting.

So move all in favor?

Meeting is adjourned.