Good morning and welcome to the pre-agenda interviews for Wednesday, April 1st, 2026 for the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.

Will the clerk please read the title of the bills?

Bill one excuse me, Bill 159 resolution informing City Council of the appointment of Charles Fisher as a member of the board of directors of the public parking authority of Pittsburgh for a term to expire April 10th, 2028, serving the remainder of the term for a seat previously held by Kim Lucas.

Thank you very much.

So I am I will turn the floor over to you to introduce yourself and to um and to offer brief remarks.

Thank you.

And I also my ministry is in District 9, where uh council member Kahari Mosley is our council member there.

I'm grateful for the opportunity that the mayor has provided for me to serve the City of Pittsburgh in this role on the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.

It's a great opportunity for me to offer my service back to a place in the city that which I've called home for the past seven years.

Thank you.

Having previously served on the Pittsburgh Parking Authority prior to switching and serving on Pittsburgh Water Board, I can tell you that it's a it's a great organization, it's a great board.

So I you know I'm grateful for your willingness to serve.

And uh with that, I'll turn it over to Councilmember Warwick to ask any questions she might have.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I guess just um sort of off the top, you know, uh you know, why why the parking authority?

What what is it about the parking authority board that that interests you and it was an opportunity that was presented to me as I've asked for um Mayor O'Connor and his staff as opportunity to serve the city.

Having lived in other major cities across the country or more specifically on the East Coast, we found that this to be a opportunity that would most align with my experiences and also bring different perspectives that may not have been already been available here in Pittsburgh.

Okay.

Um so you know, in Pittsburgh, we have you know, we we have an issue in Pittsburgh of too many cars, right?

Far more cars than can if can fit, you know, whether it be parking in our neighborhoods or parking downtown or parking in Oakland, right?

Far too many cars uh to fit in the space that we have.

Um I'm curious if you have any thoughts about ways that the parking authority can um help to sort of disincentivize driving when you don't need to drive, right?

So that so that folks aren't driving, you know, it's uh well I'll let you answer the question.

At the time I don't have an exact answer for that question.

It's a interesting um challenge that the city now possesses.

And I look forward to working with members of the authority to have a better understanding of how the authority has addressed said issues in the past and how I could bring my perspective from previous places to resolve that situation.

Okay.

So one issue that we well.

So from my perspective, it there it seems to me that we should be sort of there there's this culture, this you know, in the and it's across the United States, right?

It's not just here.

Um but there in this sort of like car culture that we have.

There's this notion that parking should be free, right?

That that you know it is frustrating to people when they have to pay to park.

Uh but I think that, you know, one of the solutions to this issue of too many cars is that, you know, you just like you can't leave your personal belongings in the street, right?

Like you can't use the street for storage of other personal belongings, right?

The the the street, the right-of-way does not belong to drivers.

And uh so the answer to that, in my opinion, is to you know, increase the cost of parking.

Like if you want to drive, especially in areas where we have ample transit options, which aren't many in Pittsburgh, by the way, right?

Like, you know, our our our transit is uh lacking in many ways.

But there are places like downtown, like Oakland, um, where you can get there without bringing your personal vehicle, especially as a commuter, right?

Um some other examples are um, you know, we see people, for example, and this is something in my district.

So I'm district five and I have uh Shenley Park as part of my district, right?

So and we see lots of people parking in Shenley Park all day and taking up all the parking so that even park users don't have, you know what I mean, can't find parking in Shenley Park sometimes and sort of like around the oval and and desirable areas because people are parking there for free and then walking over to Oakland to go to work.

Right.

Um I mean the way I look at it is is it's it's hard to make change, right?

It's hard to put in new meters because it's very unpopular, right?

It makes people mad when you meter parking that used to be free, or you increase the cost of parking that used to be free, or you add parking on Sunday where it used to be free, right?

And um and we're always getting folks saying, oh, well, could my church have an exception or could my you know what I mean?

Could we get and it's and for me the answer is no, right?

Like park, you know, we charge for parking because it's in the public right-of-way, and that's you know, that's what we need to do.

Um I'm curious about your thoughts just as to the to the board or a board in general, like if you've ever served on a on another board on sort of the ability of the board to drive that kind of change and how that might work.

I'm not even sure how many people are on the parking authority board.

It's five of us.

Five.

Okay, so it's a pretty small board, right?

So it feels like that's a board that the smaller the board, the easier it is to make the change, right?

If you have a uh common goal.

Well the Pittsburgh Parking Authority is a low-cost alternative for parking here in the city, for one.

You're also you also address a number of uh the culture of the city where driving one's own individual car is part of the culture of the of the city.

So how do you how do you acknowledge that well as well as making a solution that makes the most sense for the city as well maintaining a space, maintaining of opportunities not to charge for the sake of charging, I don't believe.

But if we recognize that it's a and nor should it be used as a deterrent to put meters up so people will stop driving cars, but we also recognize that the more cars that drive, that also changes or alters how uh the roads and other conditions of neighborhoods are also also are affected.

Um I don't have uh all the answers, but I but I do agree with you to an extent that meters on the street are just part of a changing environment of a of an urban environment.

That's not any different than any other city or many other cities across this country.

So that yes, that may be a change of culture and change of understanding in the city of Pittsburgh, but it may be a necessary one uh as we continue to have this culture of people driving.

I mean, there becomes multitudes of other solutions.

You talked about public transportation and the like.

We're not yet at the city to address those, nor is that the responsibility of the park authority either.

Okay.

Well, I don't think I have any other questions, but that's that's all for me.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Well, I'll pick up where we left off there and just say um, you know, acknowledge that the park the Pittsburgh parking authority and the city, I think are for the first time since I've worked at the city, which is about twelve years, um, embarking in some policy changes that are then driving culture shift, which is painful.

It's hard to it's hard to see culture, it's hard for people to go through a culture shift.

And by that I mean with uh um with uh uh uh uh bill or you know, policy allowing for ticket by mail.

Um we see you know, people who are accustomed to, you know, when they're parking illegally or they overstay a meter not getting the ticket on their windshield, but then you know, a couple weeks later getting it, and that's a change.

But also um purple loading zones, right?

Ticket by mail there.

Cameras that are automatically ticketing people.

Um the one hand, that means uh changing behavior to know that you can't park in a bike lane and then get away with it anymore, because there's gonna be a like a 24-hour day camera there.

There are certain parking lots where if you haven't paid, even if it's before, you know, you're accustomed to parking before the meter started or the enforcement started, now it's a 24-hour day camera and you're gonna get ticketed.

Um, you know, even if you're pulling over for two seconds into like uh an illegal space next to a crosswalk to pick up your kid, like you're gonna get a ticket two weeks later.

So it's painful, and we're getting the emails and it shows.

Um, but probably necessary because there are reasons for that, right?

There are reasons why we don't want people to park next to a crosswalk.

It's for safety for the pedestrians and um my you know, part of my um underlying kind of ethos when it comes to public serving the public, and I know the council persons as well, is everyone should be able to travel safely through the city regardless of the mode of transportation.

So um, those two are butting up against each other.

My question for you is have you in your experience led an organization through sort of a culture change or a shift, and how have you navigated that?

What can you bring to the board um to help ease that or grease the wheels a little bit?

So, yes, change changing of culture is uh responsibility of in every organization one works in if you're wanting to make change, usually for positive change, not just to address a challenge.

Well, to address the challenge, but not to disturb what's going on, but to make something different.

I mean, I've pastored churches in the past and I've also worked in other organizations, such as a seminary and um working to build a culture of understanding so people have a the best understanding of why some changes are necessary, or not for the sake of change, but also for the change of enhancing the organization and other things that we are involved in as well for the betterment of all people.

Great.

Thank you.

Last I'll say is um I know it's the desire of many to finally be able to tackle the issue of people forced to park on the or feeling they're like they're forced to park on the sidewalks, which is um pretty rampant across narrow streets across the city, not every street.

Um, you know, they do that because they're afraid of their cars getting rammed into or their mirrors getting taken off.

Um it's a challenge.

There's no easy answer, but at the same time when that happens, not only does it diminish the ability for people um of all users, but especially those using wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, pushing strollers to be able to safely get through.

It's like it's a violation of the ADA, right?

But um but it's also it wears down on people's sidewalks that they then have to replay pay to replace.

So uh no easy answer.

But if you and the board are able to figure out a way to tackle that, especially in areas close to even starting out close to health centers and hospitals and schools and daycare centers and places where you know, you know, people need to be able to access as a starting point.

Um that would be a huge benefit to the city, in my opinion.

So yeah, thank you.

Anything further, Councilmember Warwick.

Okay.

Well, um, I don't see any members joining online.

Thank you very much again for your willingness to serve.

It's a great board, it's a great leadership team.

I think you'll enjoy your time there, and um, we're really grateful for for your time here today.

Having exhausted the business of this pre-agenda interview, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Good morning, and welcome to the standing committees meeting for Wednesday, April first, twenty twenty six.

All council meetings will be live streamed on the city's website, and for guest speakers, please do not turn off your microphones.

Our first order of business is roll call.

The clerk please take the role.

Mr.

Charlotte.

Mr.

Clark Hill.

Miss Cross.

Mr.

Lavell.

Mr.

Mosley.

Miss Salametra.

Here.

Miss Warwick.

Here.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

Here.

Six members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is public comment.

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

Profanity will not be permitted.

Please state your name and neighborhood for the record.

Zachary, I apologize.

Okay, now let's try.

Okay, perfect.

Sorry.

Um I believe that these measures create a good framework for the use of the city's resources.

Um this is just uh from a pure budgetary standpoint, like it's better that we don't need to waste money on things for an agency that is federally funded for the next four years.

Um treatment and access to city services.

Um at a lot of county council meetings recently, people have expressed concern over um people not accessing services because they fear that information is going to be shared with ICE.

Um I think that passing these ordinances is all of them is going to create a very strong framework for what we're wanting to do with the city.

Um I just wanted to speak from a personal note today.

Um these ordinances could have a major role depending on the role of the Supreme Court decision that is being heard today regarding birthright citizenship.

Um if somehow that goes in the way of overturning the 14th Amendment, I don't personally see it, but it theoretically could happen it's all the way up there.

These ordinances are going to play a significant role even larger than we can possibly imagine given the current state of affairs.

Um I want council to remember that we need to work together.

Everyone here is involved.

We need to have all address all these concerns.

We need to address both our resource limits and have proper enforcement mechanisms in place.

We are not in City Council is not an arm of federal arm enforcement.

We are city council is bound to the people of Pittsburgh.

Um these ordinances they promote public safety.

You're fostering more trust.

County council already passed the a similar ordinances.

I would advise city council to speak along and follow on here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is McKenzie McFarland.

We have McKenzie McFarland with us.

Not seeing them, we will move on to Nicole Norman.

I am here to speak in support of the ordinances 2026, 0286 through 0289.

I'm also the CEO of Las Hermanitas Immigrant Resource Fund, a public charity that helps immigrants afford the costs that are associated with immigration.

First and foremost, I'd like to thank those of you who co-sponsored this legislation.

It makes me proud to know that our elected representatives realize the importance of rack of acting proactively rather than reactively.

As someone who has worked in immigration law for the past few years, passing this bill is very critical.

This bill neither ricks risks the loss of federal funding nor does it make us a sanctuary city.

It does not violate federal law because it does not prohibit sharing immigration status when required by law for criminal investigations.

It only prohibits voluntarily conducting civil immigration enforcement, which is not required by law.

These ordinances provide that the rule of law will be adhered to, which is something that every Pittsburgh resident should want.

That being said, I understand the need for balancing national national public safety without sacrificing human circ human security.

Those who oppose this bill may consider it to be anti-police, but I implore you to reconsider because not passing this bill is dangerous.

Earlier this year, a former ICE attorney and ICE Academy instructor Ryan Schwenk testified before Congress to bring awareness to the perils of ISIS operations as they exist today.

He testified that there was a secretive order that cut 240 hours of vital classes from ICE Academy training, which includes firearms training and the limits of officers' authority.

They eliminated the legal instructions for use of force, which means ICE cadets are unprepared to make split the second decisions about what they can and cannot do in life in real life or life or death situations.

That is not the same expectation that we have for our police officers.

To fill their ranks of ICE officers, they have abolished the academic and practical tests that determine if they can even safely and lawfully do their jobs.

His testimony has corroborated what I have personally witnessed in this area as a legal observer with multiple organizations.

I have personal personally witnessed a ICE in Castle Shannon cover a man's head face with a hood and violently throw him into a white van.

This is behavior you'd expect in Russia, not in Pittsburgh.

Supporting ICE's current tactics for civil immigration will have a catastrophic effect on our local businesses.

We have seen this happen at Mexican restaurants such as Las Palmas and also international grocery stores.

Without these international businesses, what would the strip district look like?

I can't imagine.

Pittsburgh has always been a welcoming city to immigrants.

That is our history.

These ordinances preserve our history while protecting the future of Pittsburgh and generations to come.

Pittsburgh has always stood for fairness, dignity, and the rule of law.

These ordinances do not weaken our city, they strengthen it by using by ensuring our resources are used responsibly, our residents are protected, and our values are upheld.

I urge you to stand on the side of constitutional protections, public safety, and our shared features.

Please vote yes to these ordinances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tanisha Long.

Good morning, Council.

I'm here today to speak in support of the ordinances that would limit city cooperation with ICE.

I come here as someone who works with the abolitionist law center, a law firm that has recently won a massive Supreme Court PA Supreme Court decision and fights for the rights of incarcerated and formally incarcerated people.

I also come here as someone who bartends on the South Side and has witnessed firsthand ICE agents taking people into custody and refusing to show warrant.

I also come here as a citizen of Crafton Heights and someone who has seen neighbors taken from Crafton by ICE agents.

I come here as someone who, like most of you, have seen the video of Pittsburgh police officers not only cooperating with ICE agents, but offering assistance when it was not asked for.

We cannot control human intent, we cannot control morality, we cannot control human behavior.

But what we can control is what this city chooses to stand for, the beliefs it expouses, and the policies that it sets forward.

And that is the job of council.

The job of council is to make sure that every resident, every employee in the city of Pittsburgh understands that there are limits and there are laws.

We are not an arm of the federal government.

We are not here to provide extra resources to the federal government.

And with the budget that the city has before it, we can't afford to give another dollar to an agency that has more than enough.

We cannot afford to give additional resources, and we cannot afford to spend time having to assure citizens that our officers are not agents of the federal government, that Pittsburgh police officers will not be working on behalf of the federal government.

And that is what's currently happening.

Even though we have competing messages from police chief Lando and Mayor Corey O'Connor, which says that the city is not working with ICE, but they may step in.

We need to provide clarity.

And we need counsel to be that strong hand that says this is exactly what we will and will not do.

Because it is very clear in the videos that were released that people are more upset when these behaviors are uncovered when these officers' names are released than they are at the behaviors and actions.

I was deeply disturbed to see a city of Pittsburgh police officer offering to detain somebody who is not the subject of an ICE investigation.

They not only seemed enthusiastic, but gleeful to do so.

And these are the people that we currently have employed for the city, and they need to know that there are rules and that they will be enforced.

I also am very excited to see that there is a provision in the bill that would help clarify for citizens what surveillance technologies are being used, which is something that in past council meetings, it's become apparent is not clear.

So right now I ask council to take the not so brave step of clarifying how our city will and will not cooperate with ICE.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rosanna Elena Granica.

Good morning.

My name is Rosana Elena Guernica from downtown District 1, and I'm speaking in an individual capacity today in support of ordinances 2026, 0286, 0288, and 0289, and regulation 0287.

And while I'm going to be speaking from a much more personal place today, as somebody who's a former police law enforcement and technology consultant and has dedicated the past three years to study the rule of law, I strongly support the two last two statements made by my co-residents.

Almost eight and a half years ago, Hurricane Maria devastated my home.

After the storm had done its worst, almost 3.5 million U.S.

citizens were without basic human needs.

The Syrian humanitarian crisis that took place afterwards took an estimated 4500 lives, an estimate because people died faster than the government could count.

I mentioned this because during that crisis, even more countless Pittsburghers stood up and helped country men so far away.

So much so that me and my fellow undergraduates were able to raise a quarter of a million dollars to evacuate almost 300 people who were at death's door and deliver 76,000 pounds of aid that were given out to grassroots organizations and doctors.

Yinzers, who knew very little of Puerto Rico and its people, but felt a strong connection through Roberto Clemente and his humanitarian spirit stepped up to the plate.

In October of 2018, the city of Pittsburgh granted me a proclamation for leading these efforts.

Almost eight and a half years ago.

Wow, how things have really changed.

In Pittsburgh and across the country, Puerto Ricans are a part of the group of people unjustly targeted and harassed by federal DHS agents.

In about a month, I'll be the first in my family to earn a law degree, and the first on my father's side to obtain a bachelor's.

My father could not be prouder.

Yeah, I worry for my father, my brother, and other family members whose skin is darker than mine, who speak with a thicker accent.

And I hope that when they come, the package of legislation you've introduced will have passed so that we can enjoy the day without fear from our local officers, in addition to our federal ones.

The proclamation issued to me described Pittsburgh as a most livable city.

But to me, what makes it livable are the little pieces of Spanish I hear on the bus, the glances of the Puerto Rican flag, sights and sounds I no longer see.

I hope we can start to repair from the damage and pain DHS has inflicted on our community as so many communities across the country.

These ordinances are not only sound public policy and reflect proper local and federal the proper balance of local and federal power, but they also are a first step to getting us back to the city we we once were.

I appreciate your time and being here today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Daniel Delaney.

Good morning, Council.

Uh my name is Daniel Delaney.

I live in Shady Side.

Um I'm a proud member of Pittsburgh DSA.

We're the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Um I'm here to urge you all to support just like my co-residents here to pass the ICE-related ordinances 0286-8889, um, as well as the resolution 0287.

Um Councilmember Strasberger, as a Shady Side resident, I'd like to thank you for co-sponsoring um 0286, and I'm really hoping you'll support the others as well.

Um as some of my co-residents have mentioned, we've heard promises from Air O'Connor that the city would not cooperate with ICE.

Um, but promises are not enough.

Um as mentioned just recently, body camera footage um came out showing Pittsburgh police cooperating with ICE in December.

Um, and that's why we need these binding laws and not just assurances from the mayor.

Um ICE simply has no place in our community.

ICE is an agency that terrorizes immigrant families, separates loved ones from each other, um, and they subject immigrant communities to fear and to violence.

Um all Pittsburghers deserve to move through the city safely without the fear of being abducted by massed federal agents.

I'd really recommend if you all haven't done so yet, um, take some time and go watch the public testimonies about ICE from the Allegheny County Council meeting on March 10th.

Um there were tons of thoughtful, passionate comments.

I think you'll learn a lot listening to them, just like I did.

Um I thought I thought a lot about one of the speakers from that night, a very brave young person.

I think she said she was 17.

Um, she stood up in front of council in that packed room, and with tears in her eyes, she talked about how it feels to be part of an immigrant family right now.

Um how she goes to bed with fear in her heart every single night because she's worried the next day might be the day that her parents are abducted by ICE agents.

So whether you're deciding uh when you're deciding whether to support these bills, um, I hope that you'll think about that young person, and I hope that you'll think about the thousands of immigrants in our city um who deserve to feel safe.

Um please support and and pass these bills.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our final registered speaker is Chief Icahana Helmakina.

Greetings and good day.

My title is Chief Icahana Helmakina on the Grindinka of AirPod and Federal Aboriginal American people.

What he count from days that I just can't make it here.

And why does that mean that I will likely be blindsided by temporary or sustained legislation that may adversely impact many families?

This should never be the case.

All these last minute clans will have long-time effects on the residents and people in this city.

On people suffering, and I'm done with a spike and gas prices due to a war, Congress didn't approve of.

The already expensive food costs are going up, along with every other good and service that people rely on, and that relies on gas as its source of fuel.

You're all absolutely not considering doing the job that you were hired to do, which is to be the voice and advocate for the people that you serve.

In my opinion, you should be ashamed of yourself.

It just doesn't make sense.

Bobby will say, how can you include conscience introduce legislation that increases parking for your constituents?

Parking life going to 250, $100 a day, didn't live nation, just get caught making fun of people who were actually paying touching on the feast apart.

It's an absolutely absurd.

Speaking of upsurd, allowing the USCA that higher sharpshooter without notifying people is egregious to say the least.

Whether it's that in the evening out dark, in the middle of the night, waking people up.

Your officers weren't even online with you.

They went out for the call.

Person with flashlight.

You all have to get on the same page.

This is what these meetings are for.

Public safety meetings are for.

Not to mention your license plate readers that are collecting and sharing data beyond the license plate number, which means they are currently violating people's privacy.

Something more must be done.

Lastly, as this country celebrated 250 years, we are watching the dismantling of the Constitution.

Today the Supreme Court will review the birthright citizenship with the Trump aim to indiscriminately use this rule of law to try to continue to unlawfully extract, remove, and support anyone who has metal out of America.

I urge the council to protect the people of this city and place placing undue burdens on them.

Thank you.

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

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

Excuse me.

Good morning.

My name is Yvonne F.

Brown.

I live at 715 Mercer Street.

That's the high rise up at the top of Bedford with 190 apartments in there.

Um I wanted to say, you know, my daughter's my daughter unique comes down and she speaks.

Now, what she's doing is her own thing.

It's not me.

I know you see her.

She's telling her.

No, I'm not.

It's the way she feels when she came here.

How she feels that you disrespect us.

And um, she's a young person.

I'm older, been coming here for a long time, and I do have my mind made up about the different ones of you, different ones.

And what I think of you, um, I've been praying because I um I do believe hate will eat you up.

And sometimes the way I feel about Jess is really bad.

And that I do when I feel that feeling, I do say, Lord, forgive me.

Take this feeling away from me.

Because we can work together, just like um the gentleman said, if we work together, and then another thing I want to I want people to understand.

When you hear me clapping, I'm clapping to let the people know that I'm listening, because most of the time you're not.

Now, this is the first time I've seen all you halfway looking at me.

You usually are on the phone or the computer, uh, tablets, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to even have them at that table.

And if you have a message that needs to be dealt with, let your aide do it.

He's back there.

Don't let him come in here and disturb you.

This table is supposed to be we're sitting and talking together.

There's a lot of things you will not know that's happening in my neighborhood.

If I don't tell you.

And then I'm telling you, I was sad when two ministers stood up here yesterday and said about how they're the ISIS.

They seem to be in agreement with ISIS.

I'm saying ISIS is breaking the law.

And then the way that they're doing the human beings.

They killed that woman.

They say she has a six-year-old daughter.

Now, the daughter doesn't have a mother.

The mother was not attacking the police.

She was running going away.

Come on now.

If you're killing Americans, you are killing Americans and anybody that's for ISIS or even the ministers.

Hey, God didn't make.

I mean, we're all human beings.

I don't understand how you can even think about the things that are happening.

How they're putting hoods.

They covering up their face.

We don't have their names.

Please.

Um, sorry.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, special agent sunshine, the missing child, Ceres Taylor.

Lord, thank you for using me as a vessel to do your will, not mine.

I return the sender and he voodoo has his curses sent towards me.

100 trillion.

Googleplex.

I return all evil out of sender to go permanently blind in Jesus' name.

And I curse to death every monitoring spirit in the world, including this building, to go permanently deaf in Jesus' name.

I just came to bring a few words of wisdom and to kind of encourage the small business owners who want to uh participate in the draft activities.

The first one I want to bring comes from Isaiah 314.

It says, The Lord enters judgment against the elders and leaders of his people.

It is you who have ruined my vineyard.

The plunder from the poor is in your houses.

A lot of people's houses were stolen by this city.

And now they have to, the people that live in those houses, those families, now have to go.

Because those houses didn't belong to the city.

They belong to the poor.

And they were stolen.

So now the FBI is putting these people out on the street.

Families, children, have to go.

Because of identity theft fraud in our government.

The second word of wisdom I want to bring to you comes from Proverbs 26, 24 through 26.

It says, a malicious man disguises himself with with his lips, but in his heart, he arbores deceit.

Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart.

His knowledge may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the ex in the assembly.

Mosley, what horse you betting on this week.

Gambling will be your demise.

I promise you.

To the small business owners who want to participate in the draft activities, the reason why you're being blocked is because the payroll for the 250 million dollars that will be made has to be paid to corrupt government officials, corrupt police officers, lawyers and judges, librarians, postal workers who steal and block communication.

Pittsburgh Water, the city owes right now $13 million.

They don't have it.

So they have to get it by any means necessary.

So they will not be able to share what they make from the draft with you because of all the debt they have to pay to those they already owe, and they don't have it.

Jesus, please forgive them all.

But whatever your wrath is, bring it with tsunami force in Jesus' name.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, honorable council.

My name is Shalivia Thomas Murchison.

I live at 115 East 11th Avenue in the Homestead Area.

I'm addressing you guys today about a slogan that we would like to put forward in Pittsburgh that we think is very important.

Say no to drugs, okay.

Right now, the development in which I'm specifically talking about is called one homestead.

It is a program that's run by or development that's run by AM Rodriguez, who is stationed out of 100 West Station Square Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1521.

It's head by Victor Rodriguez, Paul Rodriguez, Anthony Rodriguez, and now they have a younger son, David Rodriguez.

They are um funded federally and by the state.

I'm specifically talking about what's happening in my suburb.

These developments that are coming into our suburbs have been packaged to be a um a development that would bring value to our investments in these neighborhoods.

I am an investor in that neighborhood.

I purchase our home, I'm a taxpayer, I'm a grandmother, I'm a homeschool parent, teacher, and I love the city and state of Pennsylvania.

We're asking for uh the council member who controls that district where AM Rodriguez does business to remove your permission to them to do business in the state of Pennsylvania.

We can only do what our power allows us to do.

As far as the people, we can say no to drugs.

That's similar power to you because these developments that they are putting in our suburbs are drug written.

They're filled with drug dealers.

I don't know if you guys ever saw the movie New Jack City.

That's what's happening in Homestead.

I was personally affected by it, and I can't I continue to be affected by it.

And you think because of the color of my skin that I'm I'm with that, and I'm not.

So we're asking for the funding for um PHFA to be removed because that's federal.

We're asking for uh Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon to pull the funding because that's also federal moving from state to state.

The money is there.

There's one project that Rodriguez did in Homestead, it was only worth 14 million dollars.

Don't let the numbers scare you.

If the water company, City of Pittsburgh owes the water company what 14 million dollars, 13 million dollars.

You're allowing them to do that just on a project that's in homestead.

So the money's there.

Okay, so um, I'm gonna let you guys and later on.

I would like to speak with you directly about other things here.

We're pulling the funding is something we can do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do not want to be associated with that.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers?

There being no further speakers.

We will move on to our standing committee's agenda.

And our first committee under finance and law, new papers, Bill 278.

Resolution amending resolution 933 of 2024, which reappropriated federal American rescue plan funding by updating the approved project as outlined in Exhibit A version 10.

Motion to approve.

So with all of our um all of our budget reopener bills, we will need to hold for a public hearing, with the exception of 279, which we will need to um discuss an amendment to that's before us.

So just to kind of preface that, we're not going to read them all at once altogether, but uh we do need a motion for hold for public hearing.

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

Bill be held for a public hearing.

Bill 279.

Resolution amending resolution 838 of 2025, which fix the number of officers and employees of the city of Pittsburgh for the 2026 fiscal year and the rate of compensation thereof and set maximum levels for designated positions by eliminating one district chief and adding one assistant chief in the Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services.

Second with discussion, Councilman Wilson.

Second discussion.

Believe we have Acting Director Price here to discuss this if we if needed.

Mic's off.

Thank you.

I'm trying to compare them side by side.

So maybe you could just say the numbers out loud for us so we know kind of what the change is from what to what.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I I was answering an email back there.

What bill are we on?

I apologize.

We're like we're doing the yellow copy.

Do you have a do you mind?

Yeah, yeah.

Um so the only change here um was in EMS, and um we were changing a position.

We are um adding an assistant um chief to EMS, and we are decreasing um it was the div one division chief.

Okay, so the rest of the amendment is the same.

I don't have my text file with me.

So like in the budget change on the first page, it has like number of police officers, total uniform police, police sergeant, police lieutenant, commander.

So we're even though it's not being amended right now, the amendment that came over a week ago from the administration, is are those increasing the number of those officers?

Um were you talking about the police amendment?

Um no, that would not um no, that would not add to any of these numbers.

Those are s that would be a civilian position.

I'm confused.

Um I think you're referring to um the amendment that came over to um add a head of uh wellness.

Is that what you're referring to?

Well, right there on your seat, it says this the what is in front of me, and I don't have the original text file.

So what is already in legislature is what we're amending.

Right.

The only thing that that we're changing is uh the EMS section from what was introduced.

Yes, that's correct.

Yes.

But what was introduced Oh, I see what you're saying.

It's hard, I know.

So I'm just kind of going backwards.

Yeah.

Yeah, so um what was introduced?

Um there was an error in that it said that uh we were um chief we were decreasing a district chief, but instead uh it's uh we're decreasing a division chief.

Just the name of the role.

No, I don't think that's true because section three, it's it itemizes police chief, assistant, chief of police, commander, police lieutenant, police sergeant.

So these are the same as December 2026?

Yes.

Okay.

So why are they listed here?

Um we just keep uh what was in uh uh the existing resolution and so but like why were they in the existing resolution if there's no change that's how it is every year?

This is how the um this particular resolution is submitted every year.

So like this is how it was in December, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so the only strikeout again, we just have the yellow version in front of us, which means you can't you can't actually see just for the public.

The reason why I'm confused is like there are no there's no indication of of what was before and what has changed.

Oh okay, I see what you're saying.

So yeah, what was in um at the end of 2025?

So if you look at section five, okay.

So what would have been different in um at the end of uh December?

So where it says division chief in section five, that number would have said three, and the assistant chief that would have said one.

Okay, great.

So uh that's again if you're on if you're the public and you're looking at our legislative record, you have to like click on this bill 2026 0279 and look at the like versions.

Correct.

And that's so that's how you would have to do it, because this version isn't gonna show you.

But if you compare version to version, then you'll be able to see it.

So that's really helpful.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me because I can tell I understand the other questions.

Don't have all of the budget numbers memorized.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

And just chairs prerogative, really quickly, just to kind of walk you through where we're going.

There are additional amendments that you have before you that correspond with Bill 285.

So when we get to that bill, we will discuss those additional amendments coming over from the um from the administration.

So for now, we're really just discussing the amendments to Bill 279.

Uh I saw uh hand from Councilman Wilson.

Were there any further for first round?

Second round, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to ask you since um you know it says presented by yourself.

I'm presenting it on behalf of the administration.

Okay.

Is this what you expected then?

Or yes.

Okay.

Um, I I agree it's just a little confusing just to understand what is changed.

So you stated that you know for the public.

But in the future, it would be great just to see the strike out in the addition everywhere.

I'm not so I'm not sure we made this amendment, but in the future though that would be really helpful.

Okay.

Yeah, we'll keep that in mind for the future.

Thank you for that suggestion.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

So we have a motion and a second to amend um all in favor of amending bill two seventy-nine, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Bill is amended.

Further discussion.

We need a motion to hold for public hearing.

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Bill be held for public hearing.

Bill 280.

Resolution amending resolution 841 of 2025, which authorized appropriations, salaries, and capital expenditures of the parks trust fund for the 2026 fiscal year beginning January 1, 2026 by increasing the spend amount by 500,000.

Motion a whole for cable cast public hearing.

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

So I just have a so are these bills that we're is this what we discussed yesterday?

Are we just these are just the bills we're going through one by one?

Yes, these are the bills that um correspond with everything we discussed yesterday.

Got it.

It's a little convoluted, but they're they're all it's all in there.

Okay.

Okay.

So we uh any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of holding bill two eighty for cable cast public hearing, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Bill beheld, Bill 281.

Resolution, amending resolution 60 of 2026 authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Justin Hickox and their legal counsel, Stainland Law, PLLC for a single payment in 2026 and an amount not to exceed 10,000 dollars in full and final settlement of an employment matter.

Motion to approve discussion.

Is there a second?

Yeah, but discussion.

So I just want to um just to for members' awareness, um, this is I believe the second uh payment that we have made, settlement payment that we have made um because of um homophobic language used by our DPW workers.

Um so I just you know I I had a conversation with um our folks at the commission on human relations, and I I think that we need to, and this is something that I I'm I I hope that they'll work on with us.

Um, you know, as far as our training, like our um, you know, I don't know, anti-discrimination training to make sure that um a because a that workers who have been employed prior to when we implemented that training are getting that training, and then also to ensure that uh and not just DPW but all city workers are getting that training uh periodically, right?

Not necessarily every year, but um every two years, just because you know the world changes, language changes, right?

Like the way that that and and so I think that it's important to kind of keep our workforce up to date um so that um and in this case this was between workers, right?

This was one worker, you know being discriminated against by another worker, the other case was a member of the public.

So um I just think that's important that that we're that we're giving that training and making sure that that everybody knows you know what is what is appropriate uh when you are a uh a city of Pittsburgh employee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill two eighty-one, please say aye.

Uh-huh.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 285.

Resolution amending resolution 835 of 2025, which made 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 1, 2026.

So just to as a note, this this umendment adds new budget neutral neutral amendments for senior systems analyst.

And this involves revised amounts to bridge maintenance and gets us to uh over the 10% necessary fund balance in 2030.

So to preface that, we'll need a motion and a second.

Well, first we need to amend.

Motion um to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilman Wilson.

Motion to amend.

Second.

Second discussion.

Would we like our acting director to describe what's happening here?

No.

Okay.

I'm not gonna ask for it unless someone wants to.

I'm not gonna see another.

Councilperson Charlotte, Councilmember Warwick.

Yes, could you could you explain what's going on here?

Um I understand that the point is to get us above the 10% minimum.

Um we're not moving number, like what are we moving to get?

Yeah, yeah.

So in 2030, um, so if you uh put it out to two decimal points, it was actually the fund balance percentage was actually something like 9.96.

So in order to get that over that 10% um fund balance percentage in 2030, um, what I did was um I took 200,000 dollars uh away from the amendment that we were intending uh to add to bridge maintenance in 2028, 2029, and 2030.

So we are still adding funding in each of those years uh for that line item.

But um I believe the amounts were 800 originally 800,000, 700,000 and 700,000.

So we took those down to 600K then to uh 500K and 500K in each of those years.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Thank you.

So and that now brings us to 10.02 percent in uh for fund balance in 2030.

Gotcha.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick.

Um yeah, I um so not necessarily about this amendment in particular, but one thing that and I yesterday I was online, so I'm not sure who all was at the table.

Um, but I I want to underscore, and I did say this yesterday, um, and it's something we can talk about further.

But um my understanding from the discussion yesterday is that funding because of the gift from UPMC, funding was removed from the EMS operating budget for vehicles and then moved to pay-go with the verbal understanding that that would then be used for vehicles, but it is not actually being put into vehicles.

So, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but as as these amendments stand, we are reducing what is officially being allocated to vehicles.

Is that correct?

Um yeah, that is technically correct.

Um, because there was an allocation in EMS's operating budget each year for um slightly under $2 million per year.

And as you mentioned, um due to the uh UPMC donation, um we felt that it was uh safe to completely remove the 2026 and 2027 allocations.

Um and then we moved uh the two million dollars from 2028, 29 and 30 to um the transfer that we do uh for paygo um in those years with the intention that that would be um for vehicles.

Um there is nothing explicitly outlined in that pay goal line that says that they will go to um to vehicles, and we're not actually amending um the CIP at this time, but I mean right now it is our our intention that whenever we um uh we do the CIP for the 2027 operating budget that uh those amounts will be for vehicles.

Okay, so I'm just just I'm gonna just put this out here for us at the table.

I'm not comfortable with that.

Like I'm not comfortable with a verbal, like if we are moving money out of vehicles, it needs to go back into if we're moving money out of EMS because we got this gift, it needs to go back into vehicles.

We have garbage trucks that are breaking down.

Um I I just got you know, I just got word from our teamsters that their folks are saying that we and again I don't the I haven't this has not been confirmed by environmental services, but something in the ballpark of like 17 garbage trucks are broken right now or not in service.

Uh so this money needs to go back in to that is my opinion, right?

Needs to go back into vehicles and and I'm gonna look at that with um our budget director.

And and I'm gonna look at that with um our budget director.

But whether that's ELA, you know, and and also I want to say I am uh and uh you know I'll let other members speak to this if they like, of course, but like um I'm not it is confusing to me the way that some departments have vehicles and they're operating budgets and other departments have their vehicles through the ELA.

It is my strong opinion that all money for all vehicles should be managed by the ELA, like as one group.

And um, I don't know if there's rules that ELA can only do capital or something like that that would prohibit that, but it seems to me that it is far clearer, whether it's police or EMS or whatever, if it is vehicles, we should be, you know, it should all be managed under the same umbrella and through the same process.

So that's sort of a another discussion.

But I just wanted to to bring that up that you know, given the state that we're in, you know, the the kind of promise like, oh, we'll put it in PAYGO and then we'll put it in next year, like we are amending the budget today, and um there are changes in the outgoing years in other places in this budget, and so there should be no issue with you know, if there's vehicle money that we don't need to spend in EMS right now because of the UPMC gift, it should go back clearly into vehicles, um, whether that's today or in the outgoing years.

That's my opinion.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

So my question building on that is the mechanism for 2027 is the budget, right?

Like we will we will agree on a budget that then is like allocating funding for vehicles.

What is the mechanism for to ensure that that happens in 2026?

Um there there isn't currently one right now, like I said, I'm we're just put moving that money in into pay-go for now, but um we're we have to uh uh redo the ELA funding plan.

And I don't and honestly, I don't think that it gets into the out years that far.

So um I would have to check with them.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilwoman war uh councilwoman gross.

We really shouldn't sit next to each other.

We're just so um transferring it into paygoes putting it like parking it in the capital budget.

Yes.

Right.

And so what is the line that it's going to in the capital budget?

Is it like it do we literally have like a line that's just like I'm not unassigned paygo?

I don't think we do have like unassigned payoff.

No, because we're not um so it's in that pay-go line in the operating budget, but we're not amending the CIP um right now.

Oh we will do that whenever um.

We can do that.

Yes.

We leave money just parked in the operating budget in paygo.

And then we can move it to the capital budget whenever we want.

I didn't know we did that.

It seems like it'll be amending the operating budget technically.

Or do you mean um amending the capital budget too?

Well, maybe we can amend to the capital budget every week of our lives.

Right.

And we do.

So is this transfer to the capital budget now?

And if not, why not?

Um well, no, it's not until uh uh those transfers won't be happening until 2028.

So since we're we're not amending the 2026 CIP because we're not addressing any 2026 projects, if that makes any sense.

No.

What does what is putting it into PAGO mean if it's not actually in the capital budget?

So whenever we do the 2027 operating budget, uh I mean sorry, the 2027 uh CIP, uh there will be projects with that additional uh funding added at that time.

So it's gonna sit in operating in PAGA for the whole entirety of 2026.

Well, I mean it's this is 2026.

Uh yeah, uh those those funding uh levels, that's not until 2028.

So there's no money really sitting around.

Oh, this is one of the out years.

Yes, yes.

Oh okay, yeah, I've been confused.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, yeah.

No, this because again, as we said yesterday, the 2026 budget is money we actually intend to like spend, right?

We're proving like the budgetary line items basically, and everything after that in the out years is just projections.

Correct.

That hasn't been voted on yet.

Okay.

No, I'm entirely comfortable with that.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Further discussion?

Councilman Cockhelm.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um although I agree with councilwoman Warwick with most of what she said, you know, specific allocations towards vehicles and I serve on the ELA board, so I I see firsthand the neglect, not not just in our tenures, but yes, goes back decades early.

And I'm uncomfortable withdrawing any monies from the ELA because of that reason.

But I will say, because of the predicament that we're in, we have to look at everything, which is I believe what you did with this with all these amendments, and say, what do we absolutely have to pay now?

What can we put on hold?

What can we refund later?

Um, you know, or just in I've been in that stage in my personal life as a younger person, you know.

So you you you put off what you can put off, you pay what we absolutely have to pay, and I think these amendments reflect that.

Again, I agree with most of what Councilwoman Warwick said.

Um I'm comfortable dipping into ELA just because we got a gift right now, but I understand it because of the predicament we're in.

So I'll support it today.

But um, you know, now that I know Councilwoman Warwick's gonna be joining the ELA board with me, and I will be a steadfast supporter and you know, um lobby for new vehicles and more funding so so the city can run properly all all divisions and all departments.

So I'll support it today only because I believe you you're doing what you have to do.

So thanks.

You have further discussion?

So we have a motion and a second on the amendment.

All those in favor of amending Bill 285, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill is amended.

Further discussion on the bill as amended.

Seeing none, we'll need a um need a motion for uh hold for cable cast public hearing.

Motion to hold for cable cast public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Bill be held.

Thank you very much, Acting Director Price.

That moves us to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Invoices are approved.

That takes us to interdepartmental transfers.

Is there a motion on transfers?

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Transfers are approved.

Next is P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

P cards are approved.

That moves us to public safety and wellness committee chaired by Councilman Coghill.

Bill 286 ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code Title VI, Conduct Article 1, regulated rights and actions by adding a new chapter 630A, non-intervention with respect to immigration enforcement to place certain restrictions on the collection and use of information related to citizenship and immigration status.

Please excuse me, place certain restrictions on the use of city assets, prohibit certain forms of discrimination in city services, and provide for remedies for violations all under certain terms and conditions.

Second, second.

Yeah.

Oh, I'll defer to the sponsor or sponsors.

Yeah, thank you.

So this bill uh serves to um codify what uh what you know our last mayor and our current mayor O'Connor has um stated very clearly is the policy here in Pittsburgh is that our Pittsburgh police and you know will not cooperate with ICE and that no, you know, and that no employee at the city of Pittsburgh uh should cooperate with ICE in any form, right?

For in or I should say in immigration enforcement, right?

In any form.

Um it also uh includes um language that um clarifies that should a Pittsburgh police officer have someone in custody that they will not share information about that person's immigration status with ICE.

Um in addition, it clarifies that Pittsburgh police officers, you know, should an ICE officer, well, or let's say this should a person who is in the street, you know, detaining someone and pulling them out of their car or or whatever they may be doing, a person who is wearing a mask and a you know vest that says police on it or something, that that you know, that that person should um show identification that they are indeed uh a member of the law enforcement agency that they say that they are.

There are a number you know the county obviously passed recently similar language so this sort of works together with that because of course you know the county has oversight over the courts but this is about you know if people you know are detained on the way you know by by Pittsburgh police officers just for for you know run of the mill violations you know their detainment as they are moved wherever they may go to the jail or the court that there will not be cooperation with ICE either so it's kind of like coupled together.

One thing that I want to address because you know I've heard this a lot sort of out out in the you know you know the narrative that you know what about criminals aren't these criminals I would like to remind the residents of Pittsburgh and you know perhaps the American people at large that just because you are detained by a police officer does not mean you are guilty of a crime and that we have an entire judicial system set up in this country of due process to determine whether or not someone is in fact guilty of a crime and so just because you've been you know arrested or detained by a Pittsburgh police officer does not automatically mean that you are a criminal and therefore somehow you know deserving to be to be you know to have your immigration information given to ICE and be and be whisked off to some ICE detention center or be disappeared or whatever which is what we know the federal government is doing to people.

At any rate so you know I I'm very appreciative of my fellow council members my team uh all of our um folks in the advocacy community right you know whether it be um the ACLU Casa San Jose Frontline Dignity um everyone who worked to to help um put this bill together and get the language right so that it is um clear and legal um and uh yeah I I very much hope that uh and and all you know my fellow council members for co-sponsoring and I'm happy to answer any questions and I also hope that we can quickly uh get this moving forward because there are people lots of people in Pittsburgh today that are um terrified to take their kids to school to get on the bus to go to work to you know I mean we we've heard stories of folks not um not taking their kids to the emergency room because they're afraid and while we may you know and you know I feel like there's also confusion for our law enforcement officers because you know there's sort of a policy but it feels a little vague and it's you know and it's like well and you know in this case or that case and this really clarifies it for our own law enforcement officers I have I I have a resident in Squirrel Hill who is a who is a a citizen by the way like a naturalized citizen she's a senior and she she calls me once a week just to ask if I've heard about any ICE you know because she's afraid to go to the post she's afraid to get on the bus and go to the post office in homestead right and she calls me about once a week just to ask if I've heard of any ICE activity and you know so so people because you know she has a she's she speaks with an accent and you know is not white and that's what we're talking about here, right?

That's who ICE is targeting.

And we know that ICE is picking up people who absolutely have their paperwork.

We know that IC you know we know just just recently ICE detained a woman with refugee status so again someone here completely legally and then just a woman with um intellectual disabilities and then just let her out just dropped her off an hour away from her family didn't tell anybody didn't do anything and and just you know she was found uh deceased at a at a bus stop here in Pittsburgh so you know this is very real and uh so it's very important that we we we make it clear as a city that um we are a welcoming city and um our public safety is here to keep people safe and not to terrorize people and um while we may not necessarily be able to do anything about federal agents who come into our city to terrorize to terrorize our residents we certainly can make it clear that we are not going to participate in any way in that activity and uh and that and that when people call our public safety department that the city of Pittsburgh is here to help them and they should not feel worried about

uh intellectual disabilities and then just let her out just dropped her off an hour away from her family didn't tell anybody didn't do anything and and just you know she was found uh deceased at uh at a bus stop here in Pittsburgh so you know this is very real um and uh so it's very important that we we we make it clear as a city that um we are a welcoming city and um our public safety is here to keep people safe and not to terrorize people and um while we may not necessarily be able to do anything about federal agents who come into our city to terrorize to terrorize our residents um we certainly can make it clear that we are not going to participate in any way in that activity and uh and that and that when people call our public safety department that the city of Pittsburgh is here to help them and they should not feel worried about calling 911 right so and and getting the help that they need so anyway uh that's all for me now happy to answer any questions thank you thank you further discussion councilman cockow seconds thank you madam chair so um I really appreciate your efforts here uh and I know that the Latino community that I have a large population appreciates your efforts over the past couple weeks I met with Guillermo from uh Pittsburgh Hispanic development corporation and for those of you who don't know it's it's a wonderful corporation they actually teach immigrants how to set up everything to start a business and they I've been to over a dozen ribbon cuttings for PHTC and their businesses um he's probably over 60 businesses that have started now from people who came from a different country and they set mostly South America all those businesses are suffering right now I will tell you across the board you know nobody wants to come out in the Latino community and for for good reason you know they're they're living in fair right now so that affects everything across the line with what PHDC does.

I also met with Missy and Gabriel Missy and Gabriel are the owners of Los Palmos the grocer who had three people pulled out in my district on Pioneer Avenue swept away um one of those persons was here for 18 years managed three different facilities missing Gabriel businesses throughout the Pittsburgh area they uh um they swear to me he didn't have anything as much as a parking ticket and that's really disturbing I will tell you you know um because there's a lack of communication obviously the federal government doesn't communicate with us or the city of Pittsburgh I guess or anybody but but I was asking them I felt like they knew better anyway is was it some one of them did one of them have a criminal record what was the reason so apparently they're just pulling people over now it's apparently it's uh it's a numbers game and to meet a quota and that's very fearful in my district uh you know not only do I have a huge Latino population but we have a huge refugee population too who are also living in fair they don't know you know they yes they're here legally but you know um they still uh are living in fair because they have accents basically so I also met with Monica Ruiz Monica Ruiz Casa San Jose Monica does wonderful work she is building in my neighborhood the three story beautiful building for her headquarters PHDC is also headquartered in my neighborhood Beachview and so is Los Palmos.

It's all their hubs so we are the central location so I meet with them on a regular basis to discuss the challenges and and you know more recently than not there's been an uptick in you know ice agents taking people off the street and everybody's living in fair nobody's coming out nobody's spending money the taco stand in Beachview that's usually you know dozens of people at any given time including this this early uh or even even in even in the morning or sitting there waiting.

So you can see it's hurting our population it's hurting our vitality it's hurting everything about what we're representing.

Again I meet with them on a regular basis.

I wasn't meeting specifically about this legislation but I did bring it up to them because in the past each of them have expressed to me that you know um they don't want attention.

They don't want to be have the spotlight put on they don't want the press writing about it today which obviously that's going to happen either way at this point.

I got a mixed bag from them on this legislation I will tell you uh you know so um I won't tell you which which is which but I was hoping that we were going to be able to talk about this further or hold it for a week because I'd like to circle back with them.

I could tell you one person on this list and we could talk offline about was um favored the county's verbiage versus ours.

They thought it was more protective for the Latino community.

And I thought, you know, we had a week or two to discuss, talk and come to uh whatever conclusion we come to.

So uh I I think we got the email this morning from the law department, the opinion.

And I and I honestly have not seen it yet.

So and there is that aspect.

You know, what's what kind of legal positions are we putting our police officers in in the city of Pittsburgh?

So I was hoping for an answer from the law department on that.

I I didn't review it.

I'm sure somebody here has.

But um so I'm not fully engaged with that.

And I do want to circle back with the leaders that I know in the community that represent, you know, the people in my district before uh voting on it.

Um yeah, and I I really wanted to go over with you the county's version versus ours.

I feel two of the three that I spoke to preferred that language.

And again, I apologize.

I thought we'd have time to talk about it, maybe amend it.

So I'll stay in today, and uh you know, maybe we could talk this out coming up till Tuesday.

Okay, thank you.

Further discussion, Councilmember Charlotte.

Thank you.

Um and if Councilwomarick, if you'll indulge me, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to this.

That's okay.

Um I I I just I feel very strongly um, you know, uh it's tough for me to gather some of my thoughts on this because I um we're in a situation now where we're we are we're frankly preempted and and sort of powerless in this you know uh terrible organization coming in and harming our residents and looking at us as as what we can do to help.

And I'm I'm thankful that this is uh, you know, I I wish this was a bill that was strong enough to tell ICE they can't be here.

That's not something we have the power to do.

Um, you know, so I I I think this is the this we're looking for what are the things that we can do?

What how do we control what we can control here?

Um so I thank you for doing the the work on this.

You know, I a couple of years ago, before this was um as prevalent before ICE was was amped up like it was, I had a a neighbor call me and they were complaining about work that someone was doing on a property across the street, and I was like, okay, put in a through one, put it in a uh um a complaint to PLI.

They were building without a permit, and they were like, I don't want to do that because I don't think the people that are working there are documented.

And I was like, oh that's an angle I I never really considered.

I was concerned about you know building a shoddy building.

Um so we checked with PLI and and PLI said we don't like that's not something we consider, we can we're concerned about making sure the property is built properly.

With this, does it and if you'll Madam Chair, if you'll allow uh interrogatory, does this also prevent PLI, you know, any does this work for all city employees?

Yes.

Good.

Okay, that's something I wanted to make sure.

Again, I we don't we don't do that.

Um, but it doesn't hurt to have belts and suspenders on you know an issue like this.

Um you know, I again I I want I think we all as a body have been working to try to restore some of the trust in public safety and um and build that back.

And then when this agency comes in, it it really degrades the the trust that people have in public safety.

Um so again, I I can't I just I feel very strongly that this is the right thing to do.

Um I wish it I wish we had power to go further.

Um we don't, but you know, I I think this is a good first step.

So um, yeah, if I could be added as a co-sponsor, I'd appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

I did just want to add, um, you know, that there's there there is this concern that has been floated about you know, federal like what what could the feds do to us if we do this?

Could they pull our federal funding?

Um and I think you know trying to do trying to legislate and operate um in a way that tries to predict what this federal government is going to do is like trying to run a business based on like what uh your uh a toddler is gonna do.

Do you know what I mean?

Like there's no you you you can't we I mean they're off the rails, right?

So, you know, we need to do what we need to do for our city and our residents.

And you know, if the federal government I mean, they could do anything, right?

We've seen it.

We've seen it in Minneapolis.

They could come and start um executing residents in the street, right?

There's that so it is our duty as the council to protect our residents in every way that we can.

And so that's what this bill is about, really, and just ensuring, you know, making our residents understand that no matter what the feds are doing, we are not participating in that, and our job is to keep residents here safe.

That is the job of our public safety department.

It has absolutely nothing to do with uh what whatever ICE's prerogative is with any one detention.

And um also there was some talk about a uh I don't know, some consternation about about maybe it was like zone three police not help, you know, not helping an ICE officer who was trying to detain, you know what?

These ICE officers are armed to the teeth.

And if they were pulling somebody out of their car at a gas station and that person was struggling and they were having trouble doing what they were trying to do, they could have let that person go.

If they were struggling so much that they were in some kind of fear for their own per they could have let that person go.

It's not the job of our police department to help them do their dirty work.

So anyway, that's all.

Thanks.

Second round.

Um I think we're on third round, so councilman Coghill, third round, and then um if there's no one else, I'll make some remarks.

Thank thank you, Madam Chair.

So uh I I also did want to mention a couple things.

I I am very comfortable with the mayor's uh policy on this, but I do believe we need to convey it to our police officers better.

I I think that there needs to be better training there as to what they can and what they can't do.

And let this be one small example of the difficult job that our police officers have out there to make judgment calls and split second decisions regarding possibly their life and their livelihood.

So so the training there I think needs we need to ramp that up.

I I did want to note also that in my meeting with Missy and Gabriel from Los Palmos was State Senator Fontana and State Representative Jessica Benham, who both represent the Beachview neighborhood that I represent and where I'm from.

And uh it was very constructive.

Uh, you know, I will tell you the number the the two biggest things are number one, of course, is the fear.

You know, people they don't want to come out, they're they they don't want to come out to buy food, they don't want to come out to buy anything.

They are managing within their community, I will tell you, but uh but businesses are all hurting because of the fear.

Secondly, uh, you know, the biggest thing is a driver's license, a legitimate driver's license is um, you know, they have international driver's license, they have um certain states and certain cities have driver's license that they give.

We do not.

There is a bill in Harrisburg that uh representative Benham is working on.

I think that's the best thing we could do is help uh promote that.

We're going to Harrisburg shortly.

Maybe we could, you know, make that on our rounds.

Um but having a driver's license and the fear of driving, if you know, if you're in an accident, um, you know.

So those are the two biggest things, but I did want to note that my two state representatives are fully engaged with me and the community.

And I wanted to let the immigrant community um, you know, they know I'm a staunch supporter of theirs.

Uh, you know, the the three leaders I mentioned here, organizations, they know I'm a staunch supporter.

And um, you know, we we we we feel for them.

We really didn't have any couldn't really give them any good answers, you know, other than push state and just hope for a climate change.

But so okay, uh that's it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I um I wanted to say that I I really appreciate the work of uh the co-sponsors here and um particularly council member Warwick and her team.

Um it's nice when there are disparate efforts to start working on bills and then we can all join up and work together on this.

I know we had engaged and started working on this with some advocacy groups and then got teamed up together.

And um I think what we have here in this bill is really a really strong bill and really thoughtful.

And um to me, it's about making Pittsburgh a it's it's it's codifying what we say we are, which is a welcoming city for all, right?

You should not fear going to school, going to work, going to the place of worship, going to the emergency room, or utilizing a central city services because of fear of detainment, um, whether or not you are uh doing things the right way, you know, showing up to your court hearings, um, your your immigration hearings or or whether you are simply going about your day.

And you know, when we have this kind of um this this level of uh ICE activity in our communities, detaining people with impunity, regardless of who they are or why they're here, whether they're seeking refuge from a dangerous regime in another country or escaping a natural disaster and they're here for refuge and they're fearful about going about their day and they're fearful about um reporting actual crime that happens, it makes everyone less safe, right?

Um it's about tr this is this legislation is about trust and allowing people to feel safe accessing our city services or calling 911 when it calls for it.

And I do want to be clear, obviously we've all said it, we all know it, that SINEs can do relatively little to stop federal agents' behavior.

We just don't have much power.

And we also very frustratingly can't compel Congress to pass legislation that offers a clear path to citizenship.

But what we do have control over is our own employees and our own budget and the activity that they do and they don't engage with.

So for me, um it's just such a moral imperative, right?

As long as families are hiding in their homes, as long as people, including children, are detained without due process, with impunity, when children are being detained, when people are dying in custody without due process, when neighbors are frankly being treated as less than human.

Um as long as people are being bullied on the proverbial playground, none of us is safe.

So I feel very strongly that in this moment in history, we can't allow the fear of federal government's power of the purse or any other power they might have to engage in preemptive capitulation.

We have to do this.

So I'll leave my remarks there.

Any further discussion.

Uh council, I'll go to Councilwoman Gross and then return to fourth round, Councilman Coggle.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um again, I want to acknowledge that we all put many um we all put many weeks of work into this.

I think I first met with my staff on these topics, probably like some of you, in January of this year, when we saw um the events that were so shocking to so many Americans in other cities.

Um so we we have really we followed the legislation that's been happening that has successfully passed in other places in Pennsylvania.

Uh we did work with as many of the people who were able to make time while they were also doing the work of defending our rights and our our neighbors' rights in the streets and also launching many trainings about citizens knowing your rights.

I think both Councilman Lavelle and I mentioned this to our police um uh new chief of police and new public safety director when we were having a discussion with them, interviewing them here at this table, that it would be, I think, helpful for the for to do what still isn't here.

There's still more work we can do, right?

To to kind of distribute information to the citizens about what are their rights vis-a-vis law enforcement.

Um and we've seen some of the partner agencies that reviewed this all of these pieces, these four pieces of legislation.

Um host training programs in the city.

There was one recently near um my district that had a thousand people in attendance.

A thousand residents being trained on their rights with law enforcement.

Um we also know that just this past weekend there were 15,000 people right out in front of this building.

Um, I think really standing up for what it means to be a citizen and the um rights that we have come to uh value as citizens.

And so I think all of these pieces try to uh within within our jurisdiction, right?

Some places and some of these pieces, it clearly differs to to the extent permitted by state and federal law, right?

This is where we're saying we do have some jurisdiction and where we don't.

So again, it was um uh thank you to my colleagues and especially Council Warwick's staff, um, thank you to my own staff.

We'll get to the other pieces next, um, for figuring out kind of how these pieces fit together and what are really exploring kind of what are the things that we can do.

And I think we're seeking in these pieces to just do the things that we are able to do as local government.

So again, thank you all.

That's all, madam chair.

Thank you.

I want to take this moment to also thank my staff for their work on this.

Forgot to say that.

Uh Councilman Calcounter.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I had forgot to mention I've been meeting regularly with Congresswoman Summer Lee, and her office was representative there too.

She had two representatives there.

She's very much engaged with us in you know with the difficulties of that that the immigration community is going through.

She has an office right in the same neighborhood where all these uh leaders reside.

Um and I did also want to add, although we didn't have answers for them, and there was no real things that we substantial things we can do to help the community.

Um I think they just felt really good that you know on the state, federal, city uh level, that we were all there just to hear just to listen and just to hopefully comfort them a little bit and just to let them know that you know we're in their corner and uh you know um praying for them.

So that's it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

Um seeing no further discussion.

All those in favor of Bill 286, please say aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

One abstention.

Thank you.

We'll move on to um would the council sponsors prefer to read Bill 288 and 289 together or together, please.

Bill 288, ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code, Title VI, Conduct Article 1, regulated rights and actions by adding Chapter 630 B, prohibiting immigration enforcement and city owned or operated spaces and amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code Title V Traffic Article 1, Administration, Chapter 503, Enforcement and Control by adding Section 503.21, prohibiting immigration enforcement and city owned or operated spaces and bill two eighty-nine ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code Title VI, Conduct Article 1, Regulated Rights and Actions by adding Chapter 630C, protecting community spaces.

Motion to approve second, thank you.

Discussion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so we endeavored to make these two pieces kind of um support the last piece, which is to further define um kind of how we use our city on properties, right?

And so both for public areas like parks and uh private areas, like think of um a non-public space being like the inside of a DPW facility, right?

It's not a safe space, it's not where citizens can just walk in, there's moving vehicles and there's you know heavy equipment, etc.

But also, you know, even within this building, there are areas that you know you cannot get in without a pass where you are buzzed in.

Um and we're just being clear, but we have some like three or four hundred facilities across the city.

So we're just again codifying that we're not going to be leasing these out for federal enforcement staging, right?

So this has been happening across the country where there are places where um cities have allowed uh basically a federal law enforcement staging, uh where troops are and materials are and equipment are, and we're we're not going to do that here.

I think this is part of the non-cooperation.

Um then secondly, in those areas, again, to the extent that we're legally allowed, you would need if you were federal law enforcement to have a uh a warrant to enter those areas.

So again, it is it is not it says very clearly to the extent that state and federal law allow.

It also says very clearly that in when there's an action, a law enforcement action, um, these rules kind of don't apply.

So if someone is being pursued, whether it's immigration or it's FBI, right?

If there's if there's a chase, if there's a struggle, um, then unfortunately we don't um have the authority to say no, you can't be here.

Um so we've tried to draw that line again, we've had it reviewed by our partner organizations and the ACLU.

Um and uh I feel like this is a good companion piece.

So the 287Gs are specifically about law enforcement um acting as agents for immigration, and that was in Councilwoman Warwick's bill.

This more pertains to our um buildings and facilities.

Thank you.

Further discussion on the bill.

Council President Laval.

Uh so I I appreciate Councilwoman Gross's explanation.

So I I appreciate Councilwoman Gross's explanation.

However, and I'm going back and trying to read it now.

That's not how it reads, if I'm if I've read it correctly.

It doesn't read that we're going to prohibit the leasing of city owned spaces.

It reads that we're literally prohibiting.

Hold on.

I'm trying to go back, I apologize.

Staging.

Prohibiting immigration enforcement in city owned or operated spaces, which we cannot do.

So if if you're in the city owned park, we cannot prohibit immigration from being in that park.

Are we on 288 or 289?

288.

Thank you.

The intent is that it's about staging for sure.

So here's the way I even if it's not an official lease, like I can't just as a city employee, which we're technically not, but a city employee couldn't just allow ICE to be informally using like my office.

So it's not that just that leases are prohibited prohibited.

But like so, this this actually does happen in law enforcement if you didn't know.

I once, as a citizen, well before I ever ran for office, had our our city vice department ask if they could like camp out on my third floor of my house to surveil.

Yes.

Yes, this is a real thing, right?

And so we don't want our federal law enforcement to be approaching our employees and asking for the use of our city-owned facilities.

So you're right.

I misspoke when I said it, you know, it it doesn't just prohibit leasing.

Um, but we also don't want to authorize our employees to allow law enforcement, federal law enforcement to be you know informally using um our facilities.

And I think I think that's fair, right?

I actually didn't say yes to that to the vice squad in the city of you know the pol Pittsburgh police uh decades ago.

But there were um there was a a lot of uh known kind of drug activity within the view of my third floor of my house.

Um I was, you know, my neighbors and I were very distressed about it.

It was one of those, you know, problems where you have a lot of uh we had uh uh criminal activity to the extent that it people were being threatened.

It was, you know, it was uh it was a dire situation on our street in Bloomfield, many it was 25 years ago.

Um but uh so this is the kind of thing that we're saying should not be the city of Pittsburgh, the city of the council of City of Pittsburgh is gonna codify that we're not gonna allow that.

Thank you.

Um I don't disagree with what I believe the intent is.

My concern is actual wording in the bill itself.

And there are parts as I'm reading through it, like there's enforcement prohibited.

It is unlawful to use city-owned or control property for the purposes of staging, conducting, or assisting federal immigration and enforcement activities.

The latter part where it says assisting, absolutely, which is sort of the intent or the goal of the prior bill that we all equ we all voted on to pass, which is we control what our employees do, we control how our facilities are used, but other wording in here where it says you will not federal law cannot do this, we actually can't control that.

And so my my concern is potentially passing a bill that says to the public if you step inside this building, you are protected when in fact that's actually not the case.

Um I just struggle with signaling to the public one thing when that's actually not enforceable.

Um to Councilman Coghill's earlier point, we did get unfortunately it wasn't actual legal opinion.

I read it as we sat here.

Um but it's 746, I think it was this morning.

We did not get a legal opinion, but we got an opinion, we got a message from the law department simply saying it would take us three to four weeks to really dive into this and figure out the minutia of the changes that needed to be made.

For me, I'd feel more comfortable holding these two these two put specific bills so that we could indeed, if we're going to pass them, pass something that we know is legally defensible as opposed to some of the language in here to me, we absolutely cannot defend or cannot control, but we're signaling to the public that we can.

I think that's slightly problematic for me.

May I my response to the right?

Absolutely, thank you, Madam Chair.

I I I absolutely hear your concerns.

And we heard these concerns from the law department when some of us were in executive session about them last week, and they hadn't really had a time to dive through them.

And I will admit 289, 288, and 289 are definitely above and beyond what some of the language was in the county bill that recently passed.

Um so this might have been some of the places that Councilman Coghill uh was referring to.

And you know, we are um I think it's as uh an elected official and as um someone who's got the res I think we have the responsibility to respond to what our residents want.

Um I wanted to put this language out there.

Um again, I think it's our job to defend our constituents, and um I do think it's our job to protect their rights to not being surveilled or to being fearful or to be able to enjoy city property.

Um is this a matter of debate?

I think it's still probably I will definitely admit that.

So I would support uh at least a one-week hold on these two bills and see get give us all a chance to read them more carefully.

Again, they do go beyond what was in Bill 286.

Um and so I'm I'm perfectly comfortable.

Um I'll motion for a one-week hold.

We can continue discussion.

Motion motion for to hold one week.

Second.

Discussion.

I see councilman cog hell.

No, I I just wanted to say to you, you're absolutely correct.

This was the portion.

I want you to talk to Howard from PHDC.

And he will explain exactly what he means to you, and I think you would two will be on the same page.

And yeah, so thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Motion on the table is a one-week hold for bill bills two eighty-eight and two eighty-nine.

All those in favor of a one-week hold, please say aye.

Aye.

Bills will be held for one week.

Thank you.

That moves us to public works and infrastructure committee chaired by councilwoman Salonetro.

Deferred paper, Bill 203, resolution authorizing acceptance by the City of Pittsburgh of the dedication of two city-owned parcels, 49 S500 and 49 or 296 located in the 29th War, 7th Council District at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 203, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers, Bill 276.

Resolution amending resolution 240 of 2025, effective sub April 17, 2025, entitled Authorizing the Mayor and the Director of the Department of Public Works to Enter into an Agreement or Agreements or the Use of Existing Agreements between the City of Pittsburgh and Pashak plus MTR for the professional geotechnical remediation plan and engineering services at a cost not to exceed 415,170 by increasing the total allocation by the amount of 26,257 and 50 cent for a new not-to-exceed amount of 441,427 and 50 cent.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank Chair.

I just want to mention that I really appreciate seeing the city continue to work with Pashik and you know, part of the reason is they're in my district and they've invested a lot in East Ohio Street, especially on our own property.

And they are uh continue to contribute to that street as we work to um you know continue to work on all the issues that are on that street.

So but I really appreciate uh the work that they do for the city, but also just like how we continue uh to partner with this local company.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 276, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 277.

Resolution authorizing the director of the Department of Public Works on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into certain permanent and temporary construction easements in order to advance the stormwater management and noise control improvements to Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Firing Range Project at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Oh, sorry, whose committee jumped in.

Sorry about that.

Motion to your approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Councilwoman Gross.

Sorry to jump in.

So many of you have heard lots of testimony, and roll member news stories, and um certainly um residents of District 7 have some of whom have been telling the city about the disruption that this firing range causes for more than 30 years.

And I want to acknowledge Councilman Calkell has worked with me when he was here public safety to kind of go around and try to find alternate sites for either an outdoor and indoor firing range.

This site has been here for a very long time.

These bills are um the beginning of work to do sound mitigation along this outdoor firing range, which is again for the record the only outdoor firing range in a major urban area.

Um and um every other city our size does not have an outdoor firing range inside of it.

Um secondly, I just want to remind the public that not only is this facility outdoor and causes um significant um sound uh impacts, negative impacts to the neighborhoods that can hear it.

It is now there's a new county recreation facility going in, like a literally a stone's throw right next to this outdoor firing range, which is uh a new bike path, rail to trail bike path that will be connecting from Aspenwall on the north shore of the Allegheny River all the way across the Allegheny River and then literally right in front of this facility, which is now in a fairly isolated area um on a hillside um above Washington Boulevard, but we'll now be really literally having people passing um right by it.

So this is the beginning of the work.

We're very excited um to see the administration supporting it and moving forward with it, and it's it's been a very long time coming.

Um so at least there will be some sound mitigation work that is happening here, also safety improvement since again it will be so close to a public recreation feature, um, which is again not the case.

It's very difficult to get there, you know, to even find how to get there.

Um so I just wanted to acknowledge that and and uh thank the administration for moving forward on it.

Thank you, Councilman Cockhill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I want District 7 to know how hard you work to try to get this thing moved.

We've actually went on site tours.

We we found areas that we thought might be suitable.

Uh it is a heavy lift in the end, isn't it?

And you know, just the lead mitigation at this current site.

It was an astronomical amount of money.

And um, yeah, it's a heavy, heavy lift to try to move that.

Uh I'm just glad I'm excited for you too.

I can't wait to see sound barriers and I hope it helps.

Uh, you you should know better than anybody.

I think you can hear it from your house, right?

So you'll be a good test uh for the sound barriers and uh I look forward to it too, and I hope this you know helps comfort the people, you know, and in the new path coming along.

I know you have legitimate reasons to try to move it.

And um I think you tried your very best, I will say.

So uh congratulations that we're getting the sound barriers and funding for that.

I don't think we'll ever give up on it being moved as well.

So still work today.

Point taken, right.

I'll remember.

Thank you.

Councilman Mosley.

Yeah.

Um I just wanted to again highlight this this pleasant surprise uh on on this on this Wednesday afternoon now that it is 12 uh PM on the dot.

Um this is uh a facility that is actually in District 9, but um has had a disproportionate impact on District 7.

I don't know uh if I've ever got a constituent call about this from District 9, but I've had uh you know numerous conversations with my esteemed colleague from District 7 about this issue and this is something that um you know we work together on, but um ultimately uh Councilwoman Gross has worked on for uh you know uh a mini number of uh of years, but I also did want the to highlight uh the second uh pleasant surprise in this is also advancing stormwater management, um, understanding uh um that valley where uh Washington Boulevard is, you know, once was a lake uh at one time and and in Western Pennsylvania's earlier history, um, and we know um, you know, about the the horrible tragedy that happened a number of years ago uh on uh Washington Boulevard, which now causes a gate to come down when there is serious flooding.

So it is great to see a project um not only touch on one issue um you know, which is the uh the true disruption to people's lives that happen in Highland Park uh through uh the gun range, but then also uh the uh uh you know the um environmental stewardship um that's associated with the stormwater management uh piece of that.

So it is great to see a project um not only touch on one issue um you know which is the uh the true disruption of people's lives that happen in Highland Park uh through uh the gun range, but then also uh the uh uh you know the um environmental stewardship um that's associated with the stormwater management uh piece of that so kudos to everyone involved and many congratulations um to council woman gross and looking forward to seeing this project move forward.

Thank you very much.

Any further discussion?

Councilman Wilson.

Oh yes.

Thank you, Chair.

So this will completely eliminate the sound or it'll just dampen it.

No, which is why we're never gonna give up on moving the firing range or moving it indoors.

It is definitely not gonna eliminate all the sound.

It's still an outdoor range.

Okay, so the how about the dampening the sound was part of the definitely is.

Oh, yeah.

It is part of the sound mitigation project, which is a completely different thing than eliminating all the sound.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

And that's what this is.

Yeah.

So again, DPW, the police four chiefs of police, and I'm not sure how many public safety directors have I talked to about this project now.

Um and so there have been sound studies repeatedly um studying the site, you know, acoustic engineers doing the plans.

I think um I don't remember exactly how much the plan itself costs, some thirty thousand dollars, I think, just to do how do we rearrange the site.

Would you like to see the site plans?

I've got them.

All right.

All right.

It yeah.

I was just saying uh, you know, I can relay I guess what the plans are since um yeah, as you know, I have some family in Island Park that live right there on Jackson where they um actually no, I'm sorry, I forgot that.

Yeah.

So yeah, so um they'll be excited about this, thanks.

It will make it less disruptive, is the best we could do.

You know, without again, which is why we spent over a year trying to find a place to have an an outdoor site somewhere else that would be you know less populated and less um reverberating, you know, the way it echoes off of that hill site onto a residential site, um, and to or to have an indoor facility.

Um and so we spent um over a year going back and forth looking at facilities.

We talked to my staff, look you know, talk to cities across the country, talk to the people that built their indoor facilities.

We talked to our training people, we talked to our um you know uh police academy people, um, and so this is a first step.

The real solution is to not have this outdoor range on this hill site.

Um and so hopefully that will also happen.

But not today, unfortunately.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Calkham.

I think you've been clear the goal is to move the site still.

But um just out of curiosity, so they are rotating it.

I remember those plans.

And earth and berms, changing the way the sound waves travel, rotating it, etc.

Um will all hopefully cut the decibel level in half, which takes it to the really a distressing level um to being one that like if you if you're quiet, you can hear it.

Um but um Yeah, I remember director Hornstein.

It's not gonna be eliminated.

So they're what they're hoping for is like 50% reduction.

Which is takes it again from a level it's not like a perfect, you know, the way decibels work, I understand, isn't like a perfectly linear line.

So it to take it to a level where you were mentioning in my house, since I'm kind of over a hill um on a on the opposite side of a slope, like if everything's quiet in my house, I can hear it.

If I'm near standing near a window.

But it's not like you know, alarming me while I'm going about my business in my house.

Right.

Um and so it's an entirely different thing because there are some levels like we you know, we've got sound recordings on various days with various types of munitions trying to track the different types of things that the firing range uh the police academy is doing on different days.

Uh we're trying to tease out kind of every factor.

Should we not allow some of the types of weapons to be um you know discharged there?

Is there a difference in the types of munitions that the same weapon is doing?

Is there a difference on weather and cloud?

But there's a there's been a lot of time and effort trying to parse out what um could change right the the level of noise that is being in when I mean really disturbing levels of noise um that is being experienced in some parts of Highland Park, including you know, our little kid playground at the farmhouse where it sounds like warfare uh because there's so many people firing so you know discharging so many times um that it sounds like you know automatic weapons fire.

Um so I could go on.

Yeah, I could go on.

So if you want if you want, I will go on.

No, this well, this will hopefully be a significant change.

We'll see, I guess.

But uh but make no mistake, we spent a day there looking at the training.

If anybody doubts the training that the city of Pittsburgh puts into its police officers, you should see how hard and what they put them through out there.

It was uh really um sight to behold.

So um so yeah, we have well-trained police officers as a bottom line.

So thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of Bill 277, please say aye.

Uh aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That moves us to our final committee of the day, land used to economic development committee chaired by Councilman Wilson.

Supplemental new paper, Bill 312 ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title V, Traffic, Article 7, parking, Chapter 543, parking meters and chapter 549, residential parking permit program to implement temporary enforcement and penalty provisions for specified areas during the NFL draft.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Second, with discussion.

Thank you, Chair.

The bill before you uh does three things for um just a short period of time during the draft.

And what that does is it would increase on-street parking uh in certain streets that are downtown and certain streets on the north side that are uh really close to the vicinity of the of the event raise uh on-street parking rates to five dollars an hour in uh in those particular areas, and then also it also changes the fine to match what is the fine during Steel R game days, and so that fine for on-street and in RPP to in two places, that fine will go up to 120, like I said, which is does seem to work in especially the neighborhood of Allegheny West to deter um abuse of of you know parking um in the neighborhood and um so there was well a lot of this was modeled off of that, but then also a lot of this came like came to light during the parking authority board meeting, which I'm uh a member of that all prices in private garages will go upwards of 120 a day.

And so we really want to deter people from uh just you know, parking their car for four, you know, four or five days and just you know, realize that the penalty wouldn't would be less than going into the garage.

So the parking authority will have its garages, garage rate at 40 dollars an hour.

That's not within this bill.

I'll just let you know the rate.

So it's still I mean it's still high, but it's extremely less than the 100 or 120 dollars that you'll see uh at private um private garages.

And so then the five dollars an hour somewhat matches um the full rate for the day if you were to go in.

If you were to stay eight hours or go into the garage, it would be similar.

So once again, this only affects uh a small part of the city and and the the city uh you know, for a small amount of time uh during a time whenever our uh there is gonna be a high utilization.

And um I'm looking forward to you know if there's any discussion about this bill, but also just in the future about how we look at dynamic pricing like this to really uh move people along uh the on especially main streets where you know those small businesses, these businesses they really do want to see some turnover.

Um I know it's people don't like to see parking rates increase, but uh we do have the ability to do dynamic pricing downtown, uh but we don't have it in other other areas of city, and I think that's always just a good conversation to continue to talk about uh as we move forward trying to you know make um do the best we can at managing the curb side.

So that's all I have, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the bill or or anything further about this this uh ordinance.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I don't see I didn't know who hand whose hand went up first.

Councilmember Warback, followed by Councilwoman Gross.

Okay, Councilwoman McGross.

Uh thank you, Councilman Wilson.

I um also represent areas that have a lot of you know RPP next to metered parking.

Um and you know, we've been trying to balance the same thing.

Luckily, we don't anticipate the kind of level of influx of people that you will have with the draft.

But I I I just wanted to echo something since it's been a while, but something you just said, I just want to emphasize that when we don't have rates high enough in a business district, people will park there for like three days.

And so there are you know, there are places where we've experienced this where the rates were too low in a business district, and so it's a 100% parked, and so the businesses are need there to be some empty spaces sometimes so that their customers can get there.

That's the whole you know point.

So um not that we don't also encourage mass transit and people walking, and I'm very fortunate also that my main streets are well supported by lots of pedestrian activity.

Oh, that's true.

But also um I was here when we first started dynamic pricing.

I think Councilman Laval and I were maybe the only people here at the table, and so we had post agendas about it, we had you know analyses from Carnegie Mellon, we had pilot projects, and we used to vote one rate for entire neighborhoods at once a year at this table.

Like, oh Bloomfield should be 25 cents an hour.

You know, we literally just kind of made it up.

And now that we're able to see where there's too much in some areas there's too much parking, and then in other areas they'll there's almost no one's parking, even on the same street, like at the time, the example would be like Liberty Avenue on Bloomfield.

It's still Bloomfield, still Liberty Avenue, but there are areas at the time, it's less so true now because there's new storefronts, but there were areas blocks and blocks where there would like be no cars.

And then other areas where the you know people were parking um and staying there to like take the bus downtown, like park and ride.

And so that means the rate is too low.

Um and then of course we also if we have it appropriate that manages kind of car traffic better, it's better for um our retail storefronts, and um we don't want to underprice ourselves on our parking tax as well, frankly, and our parking meter revenue.

Um so for both the private, the private um sector and the the public sector.

Um it's it's the right balance to to keep rates um to prevent people from just using them for long-term parking.

It's meant to be short-term parking.

So anyway, just wanted to throw that in.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick followed by councilperson Sharlin.

Um yeah, so I just would could you repeat again, sorry if a minute.

So you said that so our meters are able to do dynamic pricing?

So in the in the code, we have so yes.

Okay.

I mean there is um I'm sorry, I don't think it has smart technology like it's gonna like met like it's not gonna count how many cars and you know, come up with some sort of algorithm how it's gonna change the price on its own.

But you know, people behind the scenes that you know can program that it can be programmed to continually adjust, like so we could you know, the basically not by hand, but you know, there could be like some more effort to change the price, you know, which could be seen as dynamic, but it's not like the smart technology we have in them.

Right has to be programmed by by a human.

So I mean this is uh this is actually pretty exciting to know.

I mean, we can obviously talk about it more, but I would be because um in my district, specifically in Shenley Park, we have an issue of people parking, driving in for who don't live in the city, right?

Driving in, parking for free in the park all day, right?

Parking right, circumference.

Right, using it, yeah, so not serpentine anymore.

That's touching subject.

There are no cars on Serpentine anymore.

Um but um are the the thing that I'm curious about is is it possible to do like um and I think we talked about this, like a first hour free or first five minutes free.

So like if I'm coming to use so we could like meter the parks, but if I'm coming to use the park, if I'm coming to do a you know have a soccer, you know, take my kid and do the soccer game at the Shenley Oval, I'm not being charged.

But if I you know, if I work in Oakland that I can't just park my car all there all day for free, that I would have to go use a lot, you know, if I'm choosing to drive into the city.

Yeah, I mean I think anything you may respond.

I mean if you're yeah Yeah, I think anything's possible.

You know, that would just take the enforcement officer to come back at that hour.

You know, like they would do the license plate read, and then I guess they would just come back and continually circle around if they were to implement something like that, like first hour free and like specified streets.

Right.

I mean I'm wondering if it could be like programmed into So like if you on the app, right, and you're like I'd like two hours, it just charges you for one.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of things possible within within the technology that the parking authority like we you know have businesses under contract, like tech tech companies under contract or whatever the tech packages, they have been able to do some unique things.

So it's worth a conversation with.

Okay.

Great.

Yeah, because I I mean I love this.

I I'm I'm not sure.

I mean it's worth a conversation with uh, you know, director on Rado.

But just just so if I could just take this moment, yeah.

Um just to explain this one little piece that we we kind of um you know, you mentioned that we so we may not realize this, but because you mentioned the history of rates and how they change.

So uh currently currently um, you know, when rates change, like you'll see sometimes every couple years, the rates will just automatically change recently, and that's because it doesn't take council approval of the director of the parking authority uh emails the finance director what what the rate increases they'd like to see, and the finance director signs off on that or doesn't sign off on that.

And then that that is really it's just the approval of the finance director.

Um so I just want to like, you know, it's something I even have the you kind of get a familiar with it when whenever rates changed and people were you know confused how that can just automatically happen like that.

So that's the way we're currently set up.

But you know, just like I'm doing here with this legislation, you can you can definitely um you know have a conversation with the director like this was in partnership with them to try to understand what's possible, and that's what we're going on this route, and especially just because this is a temporary situation, so that's why um this this uh ordinance was written.

Um because we don't have the ability in the code, we don't have the ability to do uh the the dynamic change, dynamic price change in downtown only.

And so we want to just uh cover all our bases here, so that's why it's uh a separate ordinance.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Council person.

Yes.

Uh I want to thank Councilman Wilson for doing this.

Um, you know, as we are all painfully aware, the only revenue stream that uh that the city has that will benefit from the draft is parking revenue.

Um the parking tax and and people feeding the meter, you know, everything else that is coming into the draft uh doesn't at least immediately benefit us financially.

Um so I think this is is great.

I mean, I kind of said joking to you I don't think any level is too high.

I think all those spots will be full.

Um and this hopefully lets us capture some revenue back um as we're gonna be expending a lot during the draft.

So uh thank you for doing this.

I think it it's a win-win because it it benefits your residents that already live there.

Um, but also hopefully will get us a little bit more a little bit more revenue um to cover offset our our cost here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Calcill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I want to make uh one thing clear that I had some remarks or saw some remarks out of cities trying to gouge, you know, the NFL or you know, the the the event that's that we're holding.

Uh not to be further from the truth.

There are other operators out there who are gouging the situation and taking advantage of the situation.

Um I had this talk yesterday, I was telling Councilman Wilson with the Pittsburgh Steelers and a few others, and this is not gouging by any means.

This is kind of what you do on regular game days anyhow, isn't it?

So Yeah, well, the the ticket fine.

Right.

Is what the ticket fine.

Okay, yeah.

So it's an extra dollar.

Does anybody have any idea as to what kind of revenue that would generate just for three or four days or say we have a no, there's no guaranteed every spot will be filled though, I'm sure.

Uh they're gonna be filled, yeah.

Okay, good.

So it should be a little, you know, bumping as councilman Charlotte said, you know, people are under the impression the city is benefiting financially from this event.

We are in a way of hotels and restaurants and national exposure and you know many other things.

But to our purse string, as Kirsten will tell you, that uh, you know, we don't get a whole lot.

Um maybe a little bit of payroll tax for people building the stage, and as councilman Charlotte said, you know, the parking tax is really one source of revenue we could try to get a little bump in, and by no way uh is this taking advantage of the situation.

It's you know, um it's it's minimal, minimal compared to what other operators are doing.

So seems fair to me.

Seems like the right thing.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

I just wanted to note on this conversation about dynamic pricing.

Um when this first started, and I was not yet on council, but I was a staffer.

We worked with a business school at Carnegie Mellon, and there were some pilot locations in I believe Oakland, maybe Shady Side, trying out like dynamic pricing by the day.

So like during the busy times when we know everyone at Carnegie Mellon or nearby was going to be parking right there.

It was maybe cheaper in the morning, but then more expensive when everyone was there and then cheaper in the evening.

So I don't know how that was made possible, but it it was it was possible.

I think it was similar to what you said, Councilman, it was um pre-programmed, but then there was ongoing assessment of who is part of market parking studies, who is parking where when, to know when you needed to um kind of increase the fee to encourage more movement and people moving along and discourage people parking there all day.

So I think it's possible to continue that.

Um seeing oh, Councilman Wilson.

I guess kind of like an office.

I open the can of worms.

Well, yeah, I just wanted to mention that you know, curbside parking is is in high demand as we continue to reshape our streets to make sure that everyone is safe on the street.

So if you think of bump outs, that's less parking.

If you think of bike lanes, that's less parking.

So these are all things that I believe this council wants.

And so yeah, the curb side becomes premium.

And uh, you know, I just I don't know.

I'm I'm interested in not just because I'm on the parking authority board, but I just think uh, you know, it's it's a good conversation for cities that are looking into the future of how to best handle the curbside management.

Okay, council member Warwick.

I just think too, it's you know, I mean, this idea of like, you know, the folks think like the city's gouging them.

I mean, we all have choice, right?

Like you have a choice if you're going down to the draft to find, you know, you can ride five people in a car, right?

And you can split the parking, you could take a bike, you could take the bus.

And I think it's either and we talked a little bit about this this morning at the um interview, but you know, it's about changing, it's that culture shift, right?

Of making people understand and you know, it's a conversation.

You know, my husband always is like, I don't pay for parking, so he'll park super far away, right?

And the kids like hate it, right?

You gotta like walk super far, but you know, or just making the choice.

I mean, I always say it's like going into Oakland, right?

Like you you you have a choice of how to get to Oakland.

You can take the bus, you can take a bike, or you can drive.

And if you drive, you're it's you know it stinks, right?

Like you you and I think that we need to be asking more of our residents to sort of m move with the times of um of just reckoning with the fact that we cannot grow this city and have a car for every person.

You know what I mean?

For every new person as we grow.

It's just not physically possible.

So anyway, thank you.

Yeah.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of Bill 312, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Oh, now our actual final committee of the day.

Yes, innovation performance and asset management technology committee chaired by councilwoman gross.

Bill 287 resolution authorizing and instructing the Department of Innovation and Performance to publish and submit a report on surveillance technologies.

Second.

Discussion.

Thank you.

So money, if you have uh talked to me about um surveillance um issues, and we've been talking about it here at the table.

And this is a resolution just to work with our IMP department.

What I expect is that they'll kind of prov they are very knowledgeable about this.

And so it's an opportunity for them to kind of bring it to the public.

They really truly have been very in front of these issues.

I they know a lot more about it than we do.

Um, and so this is an opportunity for them to start the conversation to tell us what they've been doing.

Um, I also envision that maybe later um after we get the report, we'll also do a post agenda and hear from some other types of experts.

Certainly, some cities have started to tackle these issues.

And um, as we know, we want to make sure it's kind of like information going in both ways.

And so I've I've said it several times recently.

We have so many different technologies under contract, so many different kinds of vendors.

Some of them we want to make sure, as we heard recently we caught on an invoice, that it really is a service so that we can actually have follow someone in live time.

But that we only do it with the judicial warrant.

Um, and then that's a policy that as I think again, our IMP and our law enforcement are working on, and it's important that we all know about it and that they're able to communicate to us.

But there's a second privacy problem, which is that some of the technologies that maybe you buy on your phone app or cities buy, including the city of Pittsburgh, are selling information to these third-party data brokers.

And those third party data brokers are buying so much information from so many places.

They can track you.

And they maybe aren't even needed, they won't even ask for dish ish warrant.

You can just, someone random person can pay them money and they will track Deb Gross.

So she leaves this building and goes around her day.

So there's a lot of work that's been done on this.

Again, I really um grateful to our um innovation and performance department, which does uh our technology purchases and really thinks about these things and meets on them.

Um and so the you know, meeting with them next week, and they're eager to talk to us about it.

So we put this language in place so that we can begin the conversation.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 287, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That concludes our standing committee's agenda.

Do have meeting announcements this afternoon with sessions at 1 30 and 2 30.

Council will hold a briefing relative to the Pittsburgh Water Customer Assistance Program.

Also to note that this Friday, April 3rd, City Clerk and City Council offices will be closed in observation of the Good Friday holiday.

And next week, council will hold their regular meeting on Tuesday, April 7th, and standing committees meeting on Wednesday, April 8th, 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 from members?

I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone who's celebrating Easter happy Easter, and those celebrating Passover, a very happy Passover.

And with that, I will take a motion to approve the minutes and adjourn the meeting.

So move.

All in favor?

Aye.

Meeting is adjourned.