Good afternoon, and welcome to the Pittsburgh City Council budget hearing for the line item vote for the twenty twenty six reopening of the operating budgets.

I am Councilperson Erica Strasberger, and I chair the committee on finance and law.

And for this hearing, we will be going over each of the amendments sent over by the mayor and council to determine what amendments will be voted on during next week's standing committees meeting.

And just before we get started, I wanted to walk everyone through more specifically what we will be doing.

So I want to make sure we're on the same page.

So I guess with that, I would like to introduce our guests at the table before we start with the discussion of the amendments, as I mentioned, slightly out of order, and I'll guide you through which ones we'll be taking first and then second.

We'll start with Director Walmsley and work down the line.

Kirsten Walmsley, Council Budget Director.

Rhea Price, uh, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Elizabeth Sir Cone, Assistant Director for Operating and Special Revenue.

Thank you very much.

I can turn it over to Director Walmsley if you'd like to add anything to what I've already said.

Yeah.

Or start us on.

Yeah, so as Councilperson Strasberger said, we're gonna be going a little bit out of order.

So I I appreciate everybody's patience while we get through this together.

Um, but we are gonna start with the last page of your yellow packet with the two city council operating amendments that were both sponsored by Councilperson Warwick.

Um so the way I'm gonna do this is I'm gonna read her first amendment, and then I'm also going to read the two corresponding amendments that would be in conflict with this one under the administration's amendments, if that makes sense.

Um and then I'll read the second one, and I think there are seven administrative amendments that that one conflicts with, so I will read those as well.

Um, and then I'm gonna pass it over to Councilperson Warwick because I believe she has a presentation to kind of walk you all through this and clarify anything.

Um, and then we'll answer questions.

Um, yeah, jumping into this uh city council operating amendment number one is to move vehicle funding from the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services to the Bureau of Fire and Department of Public Works, Bureau of Environmental Services.

Um this is budget neutral in 2026 and across the five-year plan.

Um as I said, this does conflict with two of the administration's amendments, so I will read those now as well.

Um the first amendment is actually number 20 in your packet, um, and that is to decrease funding in the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services for Vehicles at a cost of 1,956,750.

That's a decrease in 2026 with a five-year impact of nine million eight hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollar decrease.

Um, and then the second amendment that it conflicts with is number sixty two, um, and that is to add paygo funding to the years 2028 through 2030 at a two million dollar increase per year.

That's a five-year impact of a six million dollar increase.

Um so then we will turn back to the city council operating amendments.

Um the second one is a little more complicated, and I think that's where Councilperson Warwick's presentation will come in handy.

Um I believe you also have the spreadsheets in front of you, and that also details all of the decreases that we'll be walking through.

Um so the second city council operating amendment is in order to keep the 2026 through 2027 vehicle funding in the budget, decreases to other administrative amendments are necessary.

Um, and so then moving back to the administration's amendments, um, the corresponding amendments here, starting with number five.

Um, this amendment is to increase funding for bridge maintenance in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure with a 2026 increase of $800,000 and a five-year increase of $3.2 million.

Um, the next administrative operating amendment that will be impacted by the council amendment is number 18.

Um that's to add funding to the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Facilities for Roof Replacements and Boiler Rooftop Unit Replacements at a 2026 increase of 2,556,352 and a five-year impact of $3,756,352 increase.

Um the next one is moving down to number 24, um, and that was to add funding in the Department of Human Resources to begin restoring funding to the VIBA trust fund that was drawn down in 2025.

Um this is a $3.5 million increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $7 million increase.

Um, and then right below that, number $5 was to increase 2026 funding for retiree health care and the Department of Human Resources with a $6 million increase in 2026.

Moving down the page to number 32.

With a $7 million $250,000 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $3.75 million.

And then the we'll take the final two with number $33, which was to increase funding for outside council in the Department of Law with a $500,000 increase in 2026 and a five-year impact of $2,500,000 increase.

And then finally, number $44 was to restore funding for city cuts within the office of the mayor.

This is a $300,000 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $1.5 million increase.

And I will turn it over to Councilperson Warwick in a minute.

I believe her presentation will walk through how her amendment impacts these administrative amendments, but none of those are being fully eliminated.

It's all decreases to certain amounts that she will walk through.

So if you would like to take it away.

Thank you.

Here I'll pull this closer.

I'm going to share my screen.

Okay.

So I'm just going to walk through sort of the thinking behind these amendments first and then the amendments themselves.

All right.

So we're going to catch up.

All right.

Okay.

So I just want to remind everybody, right, that the city of Pittsburgh is in the midst of a dire vehicle shortage.

Every city department relies on vehicles to serve our residents effectively.

We are currently paying $400,000 a month, a month on repairing vehicles because our fleet is so old, right?

So we are repairing vehicles that should have long been retired.

In 2026 alone, so just this year, we had 37 plus of 95 plow capable trucks out of service during a severe winter storm, right?

One of the worst storms we've seen in a decade.

And just recently we had 11 of roughly 40 uh refuse trucks out of service.

So that's you know, a quarter of our garbage trucks out of service, which you know results in delayed garbage pickup, and um, you know, and we've also seen missed recycling pickups due to vehicle issues.

Um Pittsburgh City Council, so this body increased taxes by 20% recently to ensure in part, uh in large part I'll say to ensure that we could make the $20 million investment in 2026 needed to start addressing this long standing vehicle crisis, right?

So for a decade plus, multiple administrations have been, you know, putting vehicles by the wayside, just you know, moving along, just oh, we can keep going, we can get another few years, we can get another few years, and just sort of investing in drips and drabs, and that has gotten us to to where we are.

And we also know from our ELA, from um uh from our department directors, that uh 20 million dollars a year is really the bare minimum that we should be investing in vehicles just to keep our heads above water.

Uh so we increase taxes on homeowners to do that, on property owners to do that, to make that investment in 2026, and uh and I believe to continue making that investment, right?

Um Pittsburgh residents deserve a city government that makes the hard choices necessary to ensure that they receive the core services that they pay for, and this includes, in my opinion, dedicated funding for fleet vehicles.

Um there is a bill on the table currently for a trust fund for fleet vehicles.

Um the original bill is set at 20 million, but you know, maybe that's too high, maybe it could go lower.

Um, however, um in the current 2026 budget, there was 1.98 million per year in the EMS budget for vehicles through 2030.

So that's nearly $2 million a year in the EMS operating budget for vehicles.

Um UPMC gifted the city uh $10 million for two years for ambulances, which helps offset the cost of ambulances.

However, in these proposed budget amendments from the administration, what we you know, the amendments that we're reviewing today, that funding is not reinvested into other vehicles, it is eliminated from the vehicle budget and moved to other things.

Just like and and again, I understand that these are hard choices, right?

These are hard choices that our budget team has to make and that our and that administrations do every single year, right?

But the reality is is those choices result in our fleet getting underfunded, and that has that has gotten us to this crisis point today.

Um so these funds, our fleet funds, you know, if we have a little extra in EMS, that means that those fleet funds should go to other departments, right?

So here in these amendments, I'm proposing that they be reinvested into fire and refuse, right?

Into fire and environmental services, not pooled to fund other needs.

Um, you know, here is just you know the sort of the the numbers in the spreadsheet.

So again, two million in annual funding for EMS vehicles to be moved to fire and DPW environmental services for 2026 through 2030 to allow for the purchase of fire vehicles and environmental service vehicles.

Now, what that means here is that that would have that would mean that we, you know, we'd have to move money around, right?

So what I'm proposing here is to remove some funding in order to account for that, right?

Because this money again was not put in vehicles, it was just sort of put in other things, would be to remove some funding from bridge maintenance, roof and boiler replacements, VIBA, retiree health care judgments outside council and city cuts in order to put it back into the vehicles where it belongs.

Um, you know, and you can see the details here, right, of in the spreadsheet of how much, right?

Now it would um how much funding would be pulled in these amendments.

So you know, obviously open to discussion.

Um, but I do want to say that um fleet has been deprioritized and is being deprioritized again here, right?

And this is not even necessarily a criticism of the administration because these are the tough choices that we have to make, right?

But the the reality is fleet takes a hit every year, all the time, every year, because we can always make, you know, it's just like at home.

Just like, you know, I drive a van, I've got duct tape on the front of my van, right?

I've got duct tape on the front of my van, right?

But that's my van, and that's my problem for my family that gets stuck on the side of the road.

But this is about Pittsburgh taxpayers, right?

And they they have put in money, they are putting in more money with the understanding that this year we should be investing in vehicles, and we should continue to invest in vehicles.

Um the other point that I want to make, and I can actually put this as a question.

I do not, and this is why I think we need dedicated funding for vehicles.

I do not necessarily think it is a best practice for council members who are not budget experts to come into a a budget that has been carefully worked out and just start cutting things left and right.

I can ask our our acting budget director if you have any thoughts on that.

Like sorry, can you repeat that uh your concern again?

So I mean, as the budget director, you know, doing the work that you and your team does.

Um what is the impact of an amendment like this that essentially goes in and undoes the work that you've done ahead of time?

Um well, if you're referring to uh the uh 2026 operating budget, um, like I mentioned before, we felt that due to the UPMC's donation, EMS was going to be fine, and we have such critical needs in so many of our departments that I mean we felt that we should reallocate those funds uh to those needs.

Um and you know, like I'd mentioned before, uh, in the out years 28, 29, and uh 2030, our intention was to use that $2 million for vehicles.

So and I know that you have concerns about that because I it it doesn't explicitly say that it would be for vehicles, but um, I mean that was our intention.

Yeah, so but I understand.

So I mean that's the thing, right?

Like we we we can't rely on on you know promises, right?

These these are these are hard numbers.

So I guess I could I frame the question differently.

So let's just imagine hypothetically a budget is put together for 2020, a full budget, not just not just some amendments, right, but a full city budget that probably I assume takes three to six months to to pull together, and then any given council member just jumped into that budget and um and moved say 10 million dollars around.

What would that how would that impact your team and what are you doing?

Okay, um so uh we haven't really analyzed uh uh your amendments uh yet, but I mean I'm anticipating that in some of those areas we may not have the funds at the end of this year to cover um our obligations.

Um at that time, uh we'll have to look um in other areas of the budget that maybe um we didn't need the full amount that was budgeted, and then we would come back to council uh to ask if we can move those funds around to cover those uh obligations, assuming that we even have uh the money to fund those.

So I mean, but that is an issue that we'll have to deal with at that time.

Right.

So I mean, I would say I like to put faith in our in our experts, right?

Like in our budget team, but we also have this obligation I feel to residents around vehicles.

So it seems to me that it would be better for the budget team to know ahead of time before they start their budget process that they need to account for X amount for vehicles rather than sort of hopefully getting there, maybe maybe not, and then members of council saying, hey, look, you know, our constituents are upset that we are just sort of blowing off the vehicle problem, and we're gonna make major changes.

Um well, we will be looking at the 2027 operating budget uh not too far away.

Um so um, yeah, hopefully we will address uh many of your concerns uh through that process, but um quite honestly, I mean, this budget reopener, um there's been a lot of moving parts, and so uh quite honestly, uh maybe there are some things that uh we could have analyzed uh a little better, but um, yeah, there was there was just so many things that we needed to uh to address here.

So um is it perfect?

Uh absolutely not.

Um I will be the first person to admit that.

But uh these are the things that you know we felt that you know we have to address now.

Um you'll see a number of large items uh for the 2027 operating budget um as well.

So anyway, so I I will you know I'll I'll leave it at that.

Um happy, obviously if if anybody has comments and if I can answer any questions as well.

Thank you.

So um I will be opening this up to other council members just for those who weren't with us at the beginning and wanted to reiterate.

We are currently considering on the the last page of the yellow document that you have, city council operating amendments.

We're considering both of these and we'll eventually take a preliminary vote.

Um but um we have also noted that for awareness, City Council operating amendment one would implicate um the administration operating amendment 20 and 62.

So it would negate those two.

And operating amendment uh city council operating amendment two would implicate administration operating amendment five, eighteen, twenty-four, twenty-five, thirty-two, thirty-three, and thirty-four.

Um just wanted to reiterate that.

Um there I'm happy to open it up to council members.

I am also happy to just blanket um interrogatory as necessary with the council member uh as this is her, these are her amendments.

So I saw Councilman Wilson's hand first.

Did you have do you have a clarifying question?

Yeah, clear.

Are we taking a motion on this yet?

Uh we have not taken a motion on this yet.

Um I'm happy to uh allow someone to take a m to give a motion so we can further discuss this.

Is there a motion on motion to approve discussion?

Motion to approve uh city council operating amendment one.

Let's start there.

Well, we'll do one and two and take them together since I think we're both technically about both.

Is that makes sense to the council member?

Okay.

One second move.

Discussion.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Um Councilman Wilson first.

Okay, thank you.

And uh so I just want to make sure I'm clear of what's going on here.

So this this amendment from City Council, which is from it's from council Council Personal Warwick.

Both of them, right?

Okay.

So here's what because I'm I'm hearing that just sounds like we're not doing the right thing, or uh that's what I'm taking away from us that we're not doing the right thing here.

So I just want to ask in the end of uh 2025 when we passed the budget, how much was allocated to the fleet?

Um I believe there was sixteen million in capital.

Um probably another two million in public safety for police vehicles.

Um do you know of anything else?

Yeah.

So 16 million like to ELA to spend.

Yeah, that was the paygo amount that was in the capital budget.

And there was two million in um yeah, so as you know, police vehicles are budgeted in the operating.

Okay, other version and how how much was that?

I think that's usually around two million a year.

Okay.

And then roughly before coming here, there was was there something in EMS as well?

Yeah, there was almost two million dollars budgeted in EMS operating.

So that's so that's that adds up to 20 million.

Right.

I think it was a little bit over 20, because I think there was also money for DPW in the liquid fuels trust funds.

Okay, so we did allocate 20 so what does this amendment do?

Um so this amendment would be additive basically to the amount that it would take away from other things and then increase that amount to Yeah, it would leave the funding that is currently budgeted in EMS's operating budget um in the operating budget, but would disperse it to fire and environmental services instead.

Um but it would add almost four million dollars in expenses based on the administration's amendments.

So we go from twenty to twenty-four with these amendments.

Is that what I'm hearing?

So it's two million each year.

Um so it would be two million in 2026.

I'm not sure what the amount is if we also add in the UPMC funds and the PNC funds.

Um I assume it's over 20 million at this point.

So does the administration's amendments take out funding to the fleet?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well Oh sorry.

Do you want me to answer?

Okay.

Yeah, you'll be great.

Yeah.

So um like I said there was uh and as Kirsten had said uh there was less than uh a a smidge under two million dollars each year in EMS's operating budget and um since the since UPMC donated 10 million dollars uh uh for EMS vehicles um we thought it was safe to uh remove the two uh the uh 1.9 and you know change million in twenty tw 2026 and 2027 altogether and alloc allocate that towards um the other amendments that we have in front of you.

Um however in twenty twenty eight, twenty twenty nine and twenty thirty we moved that funding from the operating budget to a paygo line item uh with the intention to use that for vehicles in those years.

Oh not even the next year.

We're talking about in the future years correct.

To use so they're not touching the what we voted on for this year right now 26.

There's nothing well no it um there there is funding that we're moving from 2026 and 2027.

So um related vehicles for EMS vehicles.

Okay and what and why would you move the the money out from EMS?

Uh because we received the donation from UPMC.

The donation.

Yeah and is that gonna fill the whole bucket?

Um the 1.9 or whatever you said, right?

So well the donation was for 10 million dollars.

Right.

Yes.

So the 1.9 this year for 1.9 uh for next year too so that's four million dollars so there's still an additional six million dollars from that UPMC donation.

So like I said we're so that so I'm trying to pull out what you're saying.

You mentioned the UP so you're saying that that's gonna that donation is going to fill the 1.9?

Yes.

Is that what you're just trying to say yes.

So what are we talking about then?

I mean isn't that what we want isn't that we want we want the if we get contributions in from nonprofits and we can I guess I'm just gonna make a statement here if we can you know these announcements of um donations to the city or agreements that are happening and we're getting payments um you know in terms of donations and we're able to use those funds and we're not so we're not taking away.

So I I guess I'm just lost here because those it sounds good.

Sounds like we're doing the right thing.

It sounds like these amendments from the administration are doing the right thing and we already made our decisions on how much we want to spend on fleet in 25 and they're spending the same amount so I guess I'm okay with what the administration's doing thank you.

Thank you further discussion I'll take first round Councilman Coghill and then um second round Councilmember Warwick.

Thank you Madam Chair so you know like Councilman work I'm always alarmed when we touch the vehicle funds I've been trying to bring attention to that for years now had two post agendas and had auto directors here tell us how bad a shape everything was in which it is but I understand the position that the administration was in when they found that we were short anywhere from twenty to forty million dollars on top of what we already were facing.

So it's like Rob and Peter a PayPal I quite like the idea of UPMC and I'm really happy that the administration works with them and it just makes sense for them.

I know that they feel good about putting ambulances on the street um we need them desperately we deliver their patients so you know that all all made really great sense um I wouldn't be for this had we not found the you know recent uh deficit that we're really in but I understand as to moving this money around I trust that the administration will be putting it back in in our years.

You said 28, 29, 30.

Um I do want to make sure that our plan is to uh I'm I'm really concerned about fire right now more than anybody and we have an ELA board meeting tomorrow and I want to be reassured that their needs are going to be met and I'm sure that I know that it's on the administration's mind.

I know that you know it's but just to be sure before uh we we won't be taking a vote on this day anyway.

We will be taking a vote but there'll be the official vote a week for today.

Got it.

Right.

I feel like you did what you had to do, and we'll make everything right, I think two years from now, this will all be an afterthought that we have to move and you know, take funds from here to give to there just to make sure bills are paid and everything's uh you know, current.

So I'll support the amendments from the from the mayor's office and uh be sure that we get the fleet funded properly.

So that's it.

Thank you, man.

Thank you.

Sacramento, Councilmember Warbeck.

Um yeah, so I just wanted to clarify for for Councilman Wilson.

So yes, the taxpayers filled the gap and got us to close to 20 million dollars in 2026 for vehicles.

And that included $2 million in EMS vehicles.

So UPMC made a donation of five million dollars, because it's five million each year, right?

So five million dollars in 2026.

Um pulling this money out effectively like decreases that down to three.

And that still leaves us with a giant gap in 2020.

So we are nowhere close to 20 million dollars in 2027.

Right?

We have five million of UPMC money.

Um that's it.

And there's like two million, I think, in the in the out years that for our for our fire truck leases or something like that.

I can't remember exactly, right?

Yes, and I'm not sure it's in the CIP right now.

I don't have it up in front of the U.S.

So 2026, yes, we're good.

Why?

Because the taxpayers ponied up 28 million dollars in additional taxes, ten of which went into, which this council did, right?

Ten of which went into Fleet.

And so here, despite the assurance that fleet is a priority, we get a little extra money from UPMC, and the next step is that we're pulling money out, and and only for EMS, right?

Because the UPMC money can only be spent on EMS.

So instead of reallocating that money to our dire other issues in fleet, you know, when and by the way, it's not just fire and refuse, right?

Like it's forestry, it's it's every department of the city, right?

But we're talking about the most urgent ones.

Um so no, we do not have enough.

Right now we have a guarantee from UPMC of five million dollars for 2027 in fleet, and that's it.

And so that's why just to underscore the propensity of, and again, not just this administration, I get it, right?

This is uh this is something that happens every single year and has been happening for 10, 15 years, is that you get down to budget time and you gotta move some, you know, you gotta you have all these things that you need to to manage.

And fleet is a real easy thing to skimp on because you can always you know you can always get another year out of that truck.

But we're paying $400,000 a month in repairs because of those decisions over so many years.

And so there comes a point, and I think that point is now, because for the first time in ten years, we have turned to the taxpayers who are actually experiencing the effects of this fleet disaster in real time, right?

In snowstorms, and seeing that fire trucks aren't available and garbage trucks that are down, it's affecting services, and we have turned to the taxpayer and asked them to pony up to help us fix this problem.

And I feel that it is our job as council to make sure that we know fulfill that commitment to the taxpayers to not just do it in one year to get us out of the emergency situation, you know, we're in right in this second, but to continue you know, to use that money to continue investing in fleet and to lock at least a minimum investment in dedicated funding, right?

Um again, and I will say again, I do not think this is it is not a best practice for council to go in and just slash and burn on an amendment on an administration's budget.

That is not a it's been done before, I I've heard.

I've heard that there have been members who just taken a mayor's budget and thrown it in the garbage and start it over.

I don't know if that's true.

Um but it's not a best practice.

Um but what we can do is make sure long term that we have dedicated funding for fleet.

That is within our power.

And then that sets the parameter for the budget office to again, and these are hard decisions.

These are hard decisions.

And to to make those hard decisions within the you know, the rules as they have been set by council.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Any further discussion second round?

Okay, seeing none, the question on the table is um both of the city council operating amendments one and two, so we will take a vote, a preliminary vote on both of those together.

And um does anyone have a question about the procedure or what implication of those votes?

No?

Yes, Councilman.

Yay would be voting uh for the amendments, no would be voting against.

Correct.

Yes.

But in doing so, we would also then, because we all read the other ones together.

We'll take a separate vote on them, but they would also then be a default no vote on the on the on the administration amendments, just to be clear, because they cannot be considered at the same time because they're in conflict with one another.

So um per the um home rule charter and um rules of order, we would have to vote on one and and then therefore not the other, if that makes sense.

Okay, yeah.

So uh all in favor of city council operating amendments one and two, please indicate by saying aye.

Are there any aye votes?

You're gonna support your bill.

Are there any aye votes on one and two?

Council council operating amendments one and two.

Yeah, I'll vote aye.

Aye.

Uh abstain, uh any nay votes?

Nay.

No, no.

No.

Okay.

I'm not actually sure if I was able to follow since there were so many line items with the councilwoman's proposal.

Um so again, just since this is just a kind of two abstentions.

And as a reminder, these will we'll be back up for consideration next week.

So this is just a temperature track indication.

But okay, so as of now, City Council operating amendments, um, motion fails.

Okay.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the administration operating amendments, which is page one of your yellow sheet.

Uh so I believe what we will do here is have our budget director.

Um read them one by one and take a motion on each one.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

So from here on out, it should be a little more straightforward.

Um so we'll just start with the first administrative operating amendment.

Um so number one is to increase the payroll preparation tax for 2026 with an $8 million increase.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of administration amendment one, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment two.

Um amendment number two, decrease charges for services to account for the automated red light funding not anticipated until 2027.

This is a 1,868,832 decrease in 2026.

They're a motion.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember uh councilwoman Gross.

I'm curious to see this.

And again, I know it's for the public and for us, there are you know, 60 some different line items to continue uh to discuss and try to research.

Um I will be asking, probably not today.

I'm not sure if anyone at the table has the answer.

No, if this is related to the automatic license plate readers that are part of the surveillance technologies that we'll also be hearing about when we hear the reports on um our technology and privacy and surveillance reporting.

So I don't know if you know it now or if you don't.

Um yeah, I can't address your concerns as far as uh yeah, that kind of surveillance.

But yeah, this is um related to the automatic automated uh red light enforcement uh program.

Which is separate than parking ticketing, which automatic license plate readers are, but I believe automatic ticketing for red light cameras also use license plate readers, right?

And so right now, decreasing the charges for services.

Does that mean that it's like delaying any other projected um program?

No.

Um, so uh this revenue was put in for 2026.

Um the program has not actually started yet.

And uh we probably won't see revenue for at least another quarter.

And so uh because of that, um, we felt that it was safe uh to remove the 2026 uh we bad that it was Yeah, uh just to be conservative, we would remove that revenue for 2026 only.

We don't want to count on that revenue if there was little likelihood that we're going to receive that.

Okay, so I like I'll separately ask Domingue or Innovation and Performance, whoever is doing the red light.

Do you know where the red light camera project is?

I don't have those intersections of the case.

Do you know where the red light camera project is cancelment?

Yes.

So it very much is moving forward this year, albeit slowly.

Um the fur it will roll out not all at once, but one intersection at a time, likely the first one coming in quarter two, maybe quarter three of this year.

And um, you know, as the it's uh uh uh acting director said, um uh probably a conservative budgeting estimate that we might not recoup all the costs that we thought just in case there are further delays.

Um just to note, yes, it will utilize license plate reader technology.

It is a separate company from our stationary parking ticket uh vendor.

That one is called automodis.

This one's called Vera, and um I believe that there is a plan to brief all of council on all the the ins and outs of the program before it goes live far before it goes live before it goes public as well to be able to answer questions such as data retention policies, um, etc.

etc.

Do you know where those first intersections are?

Yes, and they are posted on the engage page of the um red light camera.

Um I don't know all of them off the top of my head.

I know Sawmill Run is one of them, Fifth and Negley is another, but I don't have all of them on the top of my head.

But there is okay, so we can just leave it there.

Thank you for the information.

So there is an engage page with more of this details, but then we will also be being briefed, but we also separately ask to be sure that there are privacy and security policies in place.

But thank you for the information.

Any further discussion on number two.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment number two, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment number three.

Yeah, and I think from here on out, these are all expenditure related, and I don't think there are any more revenue ones.

Um so moving on to number three.

This is to update all AFSME 2719 and Teamsters position salaries across various departments based on the newly signed 2026 agreements.

Um this is budget neutral in 2026 with a five-year impact of two million seventy-three thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight dollars and ninety-five cents.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment number three, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment amendment number four.

Uh increase funding for premium pay in the commission on human relations.

This is a two thousand dollar increase in twenty twenty-six and a five-year increase of ten thousand.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment number four, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

We will take votes on the on the bills that we sort of that were implicated by the council budget amendments to just it might be duplicative, but we're I'm I'm gonna make the executive decision just to take a vote on it anyway for the record.

Yeah, so as council person Strasberger indicated, this is one of the ones that was in conflict with the council budget amendment.

So number five is to increase funding for bridge maintenance in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure with an $800,000 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $3.2 million.

Motion approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of amendment number five, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment number six number six.

Number six, increase funding for premium pay in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

This is a 100,000 dollar increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of 500,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment seven.

This is to decrease 2026 funding for the automated red light enforcement and machinery and equipment in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

This is a $1,028,832 decrease in 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment eight.

This is to increase the 2026 funding for natural gas in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Administration at a $3,000 increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment nine.

This is to increase the 2026 premium pay in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations to account for the February 2026 snow event at a $500,000 increase for 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment nine, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 10.

This is to increase the 2026 funding in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations to account for emergency snow removal services during the February 2026 snow event and in a 2026 increase of $1,706,755 and 89 cents.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Just wanted to note here yet another expense for us not having the vehicles that we need to do the work that we need to do.

Thanks.

Further discussion.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

For a lot of the budget people.

So is that how much was it that we approved today?

Preliminary vote?

Was that the $400,000?

$300,000?

It was over $400,000.

It was a good thing.

Can we hold it?

Oh, we held it one week.

And so can you explain what item 10 is?

Um I think that there were about five separate invoices in total for the the contracted out snow removal.

Um Felino was one.

Um another one.

Um I can't remember the other three.

But anyway, the total amount of all those invoices was that amount was $1.7 million.

The cost of the entire snow event uh was actually over $4 million.

Um but um at this point uh the amendments are what we're coming to council to ask for to address that.

So the total of these two amendments, number nine and number 10 is around uh $2.3 million.

So that's the the um overtime, some of the overtime, it's not all the overtime related to the snow event.

Um what's not here, we're just gonna try to cover uh with what funds there are in their operating budgets now.

But uh but yeah, this 1.7 million dollars, that was the snow removal that we contracted out.

All of it.

If it was all of it, then how do we have any money and it's covering it all?

How are we planning on paying the invoices that came to preliminary vote today?

No, that's included in this amount.

Okay, yes.

But the money isn't there to pay it.

So I mean this is the money to pay it.

Yes, but we haven't allocated this money yet.

That's right.

And so why how could we have approved that invoice and to pay it when that we may not allocate this money into that budget line?

So I mean they would probably use uh I think that they paid the invoices from Liquid Fuels Trust Fund.

Okay, and the intent was then uh we would use these funds to reimburse the liquid fuels trust funding.

So we think the legislation that was in front of us this morning was to be paid out of a different JDE number than this one that doesn't exist yet.

Um I have to bring that legislation up and then.

Since we've held it for a week, let's make sure that we're not trying to pay it out of what is still now an imaginary JDE number.

I'd appreciate that.

That's all I'm asking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 10, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 11.

This is to add one heavy equipment operator to the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations with a $79,447 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $422,131.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 11, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 12.

This is to add one coordinator support services to the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations at an $86,388 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $442,743.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Discussion, Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

I am just curious what a coordinator support services in DPW is, because it sounds like a great idea from what I would like imagine it is, but does anyone know?

Like what they'll actually be tasked with.

Um honestly I do not have those details in front of me right now.

I can uh certainly get those uh for you.

And I will definitely have them uh for council at the the next vote.

That'd be great.

There's just lots of ways that we've had observations, I think, just as you know, in discussing DPW responses to things that like hey, can't we take like the vehicles from this you know function A and then use them for an emergency like the snow event like what about garbage trucks?

Some cities put you know snow removal shovels in front of garbage trucks, but you know, I so I'm kind of imagining someone who's a coordinator would play that role, but I'm sure there's lots of other functions like that.

And so I'm just wondering what is imagined for this role or plan for it.

I'll get that information too.

And just to let you know, um um you were asking about the uh invoice.

Yes, uh that that JDE job number, that was the liquid fuels trust fund.

Okay, yeah.

So it would have been paid had we voted on it, it would have been approved.

There was money in it's a real account, it would have been paid out of that.

Um but instead we're moving this money into it.

Yes, to re-and then that'll cover the whole thing.

And so there will still be four or five hundred thousand dollars that we're not using in the liquid fuels tax if we move if we create this line.

Oh no, there's there's plenty of other uh funding in the liquid fuels uh tax.

Sure.

But that $400,000 won't come out.

Right, that's correct.

It'll come out of here instead if we create it.

Uh yeah, we'll we'll what we'll do since this is being paid out of liquid fuels.

I think I'm saying it, yeah.

Yeah, we'll take the funding that we're we're adding via this amendment, and we'll transfer that to liquid fuels to make you know to make the I mean otherwise since we held it for a week, we could also just change the JDE number so it's coming out of the correct account.

We could do that too.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of uh amendment 12, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 13.

Remove two labor positions from the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations with a 128,342 decrease in 2026 and a 682,282 decrease over the five years.

Motion approve.

Second, second discussion.

Celina Trump.

I'm sorry.

Um this is these are two positions that were never filled, correct?

These are these are vacant.

Yeah, these are vacant positions.

Okay, correct.

We weren't laying anybody off.

I just make sure I understood that.

Okay, thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 13, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 14.

Removal and neighborhood engagement coordinator from the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

This is an $80,205 decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $411,194.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 14, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 15.

Decrease 2026 funding for vehicles in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations at a 2026 decrease of 680,352.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

So just to clarify on this one, uh, correct me if I'm wrong.

This was um this was like double booked, right?

Correct.

Yeah, we believe this is a duplicate because the exact same entry was in uh the liquid fuels uh trust fund.

Got it.

Further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 15, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 16.

Increase funding for health care related to Teamsters in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Environmental Services with a $50,000 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $250,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 16, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 17.

This is to add one director of DPW facilities in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Facilities.

This is a $155,000 six dollar increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $792,764.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 17, please say aye.

Aye.

Right.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 18.

Umteen.

I will just put a disclaimer that this one is another one that was in conflict with one of the council budget amendments.

But this is to add funding to the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Facilities for Roof Replacements and Boiler Rooftop Unit Replacements at a 2026 increase of $2,556,352 and a five-year increase of $3,756,352.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 18, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 19.

This is to upgrade one division chief to assistant chief in the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services.

This is an $11,227 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $57,320.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 19, please say aye.

Aye.

Amendment 20.

Decrease funding in the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services for Vehicles.

This is a $1,956,750 decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of $9,891,750.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, so um obviously I'm a no on this one, and just to clarify that if instead of if if we just moved this money into vehicles for 2027, this $4 million, roughly, and then added the five million from UPMC, we would be at $9 million already for vehicles for 2027, which would be a pretty comfortable place at this point in the year.

Right?

So I just want to clarify that for 2027.

Anyway, thank you.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 20, please say aye.

No.

One no.

So noted.

Um amendment 21.

This is making a technical correction in the Bureau of Fire for the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief salary rates.

This is a $17,239.44 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $130,360 and 91 cents.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 21, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 22.

This would remove the emergency management allowance allocated in the Bureau of Fire with a $10,000 decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $50,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 22, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 23.

This is to update the 2026 active health care numbers across all departments.

This is a $5 million increase for 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 23, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 24.

Um yes.

And I did want to point that this is another one in conflict with the council budget amendment.

But number 24 is to add funding to the Department of Human Resources to begin restoring funding to the VIBA trust fund that was drawn down in 2025.

This is $3.5 million increase in 2026 with a five million or five year increase of seven million.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

You explained this very clearly a week or so ago.

And just a reminder, what is the VIBA?

That stands for Voluntary Employment Benefits Association.

And this might be a little bit too much information for you.

But the city has two VIBA trust funds.

And so every month our health care claims are actually made our active health care claims and other benefits are actually made from this trust fund.

And then every month we reimburse that trust fund uh from amounts that are budgeted in every single department for those expenses.

So basically at the start of this year, that trust fund was absolutely insolvent.

So we're trying to uh build up that cushion that we should have in that trust in that trust fund so that we're able to always pay our claims.

Very good, thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 24, please say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 25.

This is to increase the 2026 funding for retiree health care in the Department of Human Resources at a $6 million increase for 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Councilman Coghead.

Yeah.

So, you know, we really got hit hard with these health uh insurance payments or without paying for the benefits.

How are we to know in the future?

Like, you know, I mean, nobody we don't get a I I mean I was clueless that we didn't pay that.

So how is it that we're gonna know in the future?

I I I trust that disadministration is going to be paying that, but I was quite caught by surprise that we were 11 million dollars short in health care payments.

Well, I mean, no, the payments were made, but it was at the expense of other money wasn't accounted for though.

Right.

And so there like in the Viva Trust Fund, there used to be like a healthy um cushion of like from what I remember in previous my previous in OMB, like around $8 million.

So we rated that fund.

Yes.

This is not something we can defer.

This is has to be paid.

Right, exactly.

Right, right.

That's about a third of really the whole that we found.

Uh okay, so we have to assure that the fund is funded to make sure.

Yes, and this particular amendment, this uh refers to a different trust fund.

This refers to the OPEB trust fund, which is the other post-employment benefits trust fund.

Um that's a trust fund that has its own board and everything.

Um to be completely honest, we've never actually spent anything from this trust fund.

It was a trust fund that we were required to set up by Act 47 in uh 2010.

And uh we steadily uh made contributions to it until uh a few years ago.

Um starting last year, um there was a five million dollar drawdown in 2025 from from this trust fund.

I guess that's my question, right?

I mean, the one the five million, did did we approve that?

Did the council.

The board approved it.

No, it didn't go.

So we went up.

I mean I I guess technically you approved it by approving the budget, but you don't see the detail.

Do you know what I mean that goes into you know what you are approving?

I mean, being that we vote on the budget, right?

And uh, you know, we've taken everything into account.

I mean, whose responsibility is it anybody's responsibility to say, oh, hey, by the way, the administration just rated this fund that we can't pay for, you know.

So I never got that information, I guess.

No, I understand.

Is it uh is there some policy in place that we don't have to do?

So the OSP trust fund, they do have quarterly meetings, is that correct?

I believe that's the same.

Yes.

And so um they do have a website and uh documents are posted there, but I mean you would have to check the you know website.

So um but yeah, so they I believe the minutes are posted on that website.

It never came in question in the past because nobody nobody was aware of this.

Now, lo and behold, uh guess what?

It's not fun.

One of the surprises.

I'm welcome surprised that we found out through the town of the administration.

Okay.

I guess I'm just uh, you know, I guess we just gotta hope that we have responsible mayors that fund keep that funded and board to vote to keep that funded because we are none we don't know.

I mean, well, we're we're voting on the budget, and we don't know that I didn't know.

I mean, I don't know if any of us knew, did we know?

I don't know.

I'm I'm just wondering should we know or uh did somebody inform council?

I guess no.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Councilman, if I may, I think.

I agree with you, not just on this, but on so many other issues that like we are the fiduciary managers of the city.

We hold the first strings.

We should know more about the budget and how it works than I think many of us do, right?

There is it's so complicated.

We know a lot, right?

We pass budget every year, but I guess to your point, I'm looking at um various ways that various garbrails and various strategies that we could start to institute, um, not just relying on like the collective wisdom that we've gained over the last six months, but also just like in the future for future council members who haven't gone through this process to be able to just institute policies or procedures or habits to ensure that.

We're always asking about the Viva Trust Fund.

We're always asking about the OPED trust or whatever it takes to be able to understand that.

So I'm very much on the same page as you.

I'd love to talk to you about it more and then talk to council members about CDS.

Yeah.

Somebody raids a fund.

Something like that.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Um, any further discussion on amendment twenty-five.

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment twenty-six.

Upgrade one director of human resources to chief of labor relations and director of human resources.

Um this is a four thousand four hundred and nine dollar increase in twenty twenty-six and a five-year increase of twenty-two thousand four hundred and fifty-four dollars.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment twenty-six, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment twenty-seven.

Upgrade will an assistant director to deputy director in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service at a $7,408 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $36,928.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 27, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 28.

Remove one senior HR HR specialist in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service.

This is a 71,546 dollar decrease in 2026 with a five-year decrease of 370,308.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 28, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 29.

Upgrade three, HR specialists from 15G to 17G on the step grade scale in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service.

This is a $30,000 increase in 2026 and a $153,868 increase over the five years.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 29, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 30.

Remove one 311 call center representative from the Department of Innovation and Performance.

This is $61,398 decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $325,108.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

Well, I'd like to talk more about our 311 system, but also if we can move the public toward a more automated version of that set.

Right.

Obviously, you need people on the phone for for older folks, folks who are not as tech savvy.

But um but you know I I think that a rethinking of of how we connect with people via 311 in this age, you know, when apps, email, that kind of thing is definitely something to think about.

So anyway, supportive obviously of this.

Thank you.

Further discussion?

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 30, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 31.

Remove one systems administrator from the Department of Innovation and Performance.

This is a $96,390 decrease in 2026 and a 493,770 decrease over five years.

I'm looking at the back end of the year.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 31, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 32.

Increase funding for judgments in the Department of Law at a $7.25 million increase in 2026 and a $13.75 million increase over the five years.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 32, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 33.

This is to increase funding for outside council in the Department of Law at a $500,000 increase in 2026 in a five-year increase of $2.5 million.

I also should have said the $32, $33, and $34 are all in conflict with the Council budget amendment.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 33, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 34.

Restore funding for city cuts within the office of the mayor.

It's a $300,000 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $1.5 million.

Motion to approve.

Discussion?

Councilmember Warwick.

So uh for city cuts, um, which, you know, I know a lot of people are big big fans of this program.

So, you know, I'd um uh and it's a long-standing program.

Uh I will say I feel as though um well, A, I think that this is something that could be funded by um um uh foundation dollars, first of all, right?

Um and second of all, if it is being funded, you know, or it is being funded by city dollars.

I feel that there should be an income requirement, right?

So just having it be folks with disabilities and seniors.

I have lots of seniors in my district who can afford $50 to get their lawn mowed, right?

And so the city should so and I don't believe there is an income requirement at this stage.

Am I wrong about that?

No, I think you're right.

Yeah.

So that is not you know, lots of seniors are on fixed incomes and are low income and and it is a burden to to pay somebody to to mow the lawn, you know, two, three times a summer.

However, you know, as we know, folks who know to call and say, you know, almost often the folks who don't know to call are the ones who would need the service most.

So I would strongly encourage the administration to um make sure that these dollars are going toward our most needy, you know, our our neediest folks by adding some type of income requirement uh to this program.

That's all.

Thanks.

You further discussion.

Councilmember Coghill.

Yeah.

I I agree.

Um I I would love to see foundations fund this or something other than the city of Pittsburgh.

I think it's wonderful and it's great.

And the people benefit, I'm sure need it, and it's welcome.

But it's really not the city's responsibility.

It's a nice perk, nice service.

And it's great when we're flush with money, but we're not.

And it's $300,000.

It's not gonna break us at the same time.

Uh I I don't know if there's amounts, you know, financial uh, you know what your income amount is, but um certainly that should be in place.

But uh yeah, I'd like to see us uh I'll vote for it this year, but I'd like to see us get away from that and find funding elsewhere for us to do.

Because then we send but we pay individual contractors.

We don't send our employees out.

We pay landscapers and people would sign up, I guess.

So yeah, it's uh it's a nice thing.

It's just I don't feel it's necessary.

I don't think it's our duty or our obligation as a city.

So I'll support it this year until we could hopefully find an alternative funding source.

Second round, Councilmember Warwick.

I mean, not to oversimplify everything is more complicated than it seems, but um uh providing a service to folks based on whether or not they have uh a snap card is often a fairly simple way to just you know what I mean, rather than some kind of form or something.

Just do you have you know do you have SNAP benefits?

Yes, okay, then you're eligible.

Council member, I'm trying to remember is this uh was this Councilwoman Kale Smith's initiative?

Oh don't don't tell her I just said that, right?

I remember that.

Okay, thanks.

I support it.

I said I was trying to speak something here.

She uh any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment thirty-four, please say aye.

Aye aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment thirty-five.

And funding for interns within the office of the mayor, a fifty thousand dollar increase in twenty twenty-six and a five-year increase of two hundred and fifty thousand.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment thirty-five, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment thirty-six.

Restore funding for love your block within the office of the mayor.

This is a twenty thousand dollar increase in twenty twenty-six and a one hundred thousand dollar increase over the five-year plan.

Second.

Discussion.

Uh I just have a question as to what what what is it?

I would say what's the money go to?

Love your block.

From what I recall in my previous L and B, these are like small grants that were given out for um like lot improvements and uh yeah, very small.

Like it's grants.

Yeah.

From what I yeah, do you it's it's um neighborhood beautification projects.

Right.

All right.

We could get you more information.

Reimbursement based.

It's it's small.

Is that council and trees of killsmith's initiatives?

No, I don't believe so.

No.

Okay, I'll support it.

Councilman Mosley.

And uh these led by like community-based organizations generally.

We can follow up.

I believe it also could potentially be just individual.

Individuals and community groups can apply.

And I don't believe it was used too much last year, was it?

It's utilized.

It's there's a um we're following up on previous year grants still.

Thank you.

It's like the last year it was uh open for applications is 2024.

All right.

Uh any further discussion.

Oh, Councilmember Warwick.

I will say just um this is of course anecdotal, you know, in my dis but um I have had neighborhood groups who've applied multiple times to love your block and they like never get it, and it's frustrating.

And uh, you know uh sometimes I wonder if those improvements couldn't be just something we'd be like, could we just get DPW or whoever to do whatever it is that you that you're wanting to do rather than go through this.

I mean again the the dollar amount is low, but um you know it's one of those things you you do the application year after year and then you don't get it, and it just creates some frustration.

But it's so little money there's not enough to go around.

So anyway, this is a thought.

Councilwoman Grass.

Yeah, I'll just have to chime in and say that love your block program.

It's it's just fantastic, right?

So even though we're trying to cut and we're trying to get funded by the last one I'm aware of was before I was elected.

But I you know, I I it never ceases to strike me just how lovely the effects of that improvement were on that block.

Um it's in Lawrenceville, and every time I drive by and I think there's renting window boxes on uh historic store for um uh facades of of the homes there, and it's just like that block is so great.

So, you know, it's like 20 years later or something.

So it I like yes, we we try to not you know take on too much, and here we are all talking about returning to basic services.

But then also there's a program like this that does, you know, costs a little bit does so much that it'd be great if we could do more of it.

So that's all thank you.

All in favor of amendment 36, please say aye.

I affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 37.

Move memberships and professional services associated with the Office of Business Diversity from the Office of the Mayor to the Office of Management and Budget to align with 2026 staffing.

This is budget neutral across the twenty across the five-year plan.

To approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of Amendment 37, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 38.

Increase 2026 funding for memberships and professional services in the Office of Management and Budget.

This is a 20,321 dollar increase for 2026.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 38, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 39.

Increase 2026 funding for insurance in the Office of Management and Budget to cover true costs.

This is a $4,650 and 60 cent increase for 2026.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

All in favor, please say of Amendment 39, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 40.

This is to add funding to cover the capital portion of 412 Boulevard of the Allies.

A 250,000 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of 1.25 million.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 40, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 41.

Downgrade the director position to the deputy to a deputy director in the Office of Management and Budget.

This is a $39,916 decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $27,741.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 41, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 42.

Change the title of the Chief Financial Officer to Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

This is budget neutral across the five-year plan.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 42, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment thir 43.

Increase funding to cover fuel expenses in the Office of Management and Budget.

This is a $550,000 increase in 2026.

Motion to approve.

Discussion.

Oh, all the fuel that uh the fuel.

Yeah.

That's just where we hold the fuel correct.

Yes.

Kind of like finance holds all the yeah.

Correct.

Okay.

Got it.

Healthcare.

Or yeah, whatever.

Um okay, got it.

Thank you.

A further discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 43, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 44.

Increase 2026 funding to cover non-target fleet repairs in the Office of Management and Budget.

This is a $2 million increase in 2026.

Second.

Discussion?

Councilmember Warwick.

So can I ask non-target fleet repairs?

Does that mean out of the ordinary repairs?

That's correct.

Yes.

And then yeah, these are some repairs that aren't in the actual contract.

Right.

So again, I just, you know, want to underscore.

So, you know, we're nearly two million in contractors to help us with snow because we don't have enough vehicles, and now we're an additional two million in 2026 to help, you know, pay for just these repairs that we're making on these old, old vehicles.

So that's four million right there.

That's that's about what you took out of EMS, not you.

Out of EMS vehicles.

Already just, you know, I mean uh everyone gets my point.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

What's McCoggill?

Um, I agree mostly of the fleet woes that we have with you.

But uh I I don't think it's fair to say though that you know the snow equipment we didn't have the equipment to remove.

I mean, there was like eight foot walls of ice and snow.

And we don't have that type of equipment.

We never had that type of equipment.

I mean front loaders, big huge dump trucks, you know, that these Felino and all these companies that came in that we paid daily for, obviously, you know, one point seven million.

Is that what we paid?

Yeah.

So that's a lot of money and we hope not to have to face that again.

We hope not to have a storm like that again.

But I just want to say I don't think that proportion is from us not funding our fleet.

We never really had that type of equipment or that type of capability to remove such ice walls that they were it was insane.

So um so I just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.

But um but yeah non-target you know expensive transmission engine big time money.

Yeah.

So should ask Munhall if they how they didn't see what's going to be called all in favor of amendment 44 please say aye.

Aye affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 45.

Increase funding for pool maintenance in the Department of Parks and recreation at a 184,000 dollar increase in 2026 and a five year increase of 920.

Motion to approve second discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 45 please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation amendment 46.

Add part-time pool staff for Oliver Bathhouse in the Department of Parks and Recreation.

This is a 129,177 increase for 2026 and a five year increase of 6581 dollars.

Motion to approve discussion?

Councilman Conketting this was a another one of those surprises that we didn't it's great that that and it's beautiful the uh the work that they did there but obviously to be open we have to have staffed.

So 129,000 and that's part-time that's just is that lifeguards like three, four lifeguards throughout the summer or the month the you know the season?

So no I think it's uh I have to get you more information on it.

But it's for staffing correct no matter if it's one, two, three positions, whatever it is but they're lifeguards.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

No other additional positions for that facility other than the lifeguards.

Okay.

Thanks.

Further discussion?

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 46 please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation Amendment 47 add one deputy director of the Office of Youth and Families in the Department of Parks and Recreation and a 2026 increase of a 1418 dollars and a five year increase of 7249 dollars.

Motion to approve discussion council woman uh gross yeah I will just say I've said it before I'm excited to see a new position even though again we are rearranging the budget and mostly adding um to acknowledge expenses that were underfunded et cetera.

This is a new position um but I'm enthusiastic about doing more many of us have said over the years that Parks and Rack is one of our most valued departments and still one of the lowest budget departments and just does so much.

So I think I had proposed in a previous budget year to that there should be another deputy director on the budget was too tight in that year.

And so I'm enthusiastic to see one dedicated to youth and families and I'm eager to you know see that role field and see how we might do better and reach more people or um create kind of new opportunities across the kind of various divisions of parks and rec that we've had for very long time.

As most of you know like we now kind of do more outreach to community gardens and support food and I'll be talking about that in another budget line here.

And because these are this is our most kind of publicly facing department it touches the most of our residents.

And so I think there's real opportunity to really think about it instead of just the programmers aquatics here and farmers markets there to think about it in terms of the kinds of residents that are need services and what kind of services do they need and where.

So anyway I'm excited about this one for their discussion Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah just to echo I'm I'm very pleased about this position.

I uh I think that it aligns obviously with the mayor's um goals of you know uh strong focus on on youth and families uh I'd say sort of to make what what's the to make Pittsburgh every family's first choice but also you know for families who were here um I think that and there's some other amendments that we can that we'll talk about when we get to the trust funds.

Uh I will say just for the just for the record, um there is currently in the Stop the Violence Trust Fund uh city parks can have a limited, can use a limited amount of money uh from the Stop the Violence Trust Fund for its programming.

I I personally think that that should be increased, right?

There's so much that we can do uh through city parks, right?

So much work for our youth and families to keep um and especially um uh in communities that are experiencing um gun violence among among other things.

If we um you know, we we've talked a lot about we've heard speakers talk about um uh you know, kids downtown after school, kid, you know, and and all of these things, and I think that uh City Parks has a very large role to play in partnership with our community groups who are already doing out-of-school programming and in in supporting those groups with with resources and and even perhaps staffing, and also of course, uh with with Pittsburgh Public Schools to provide um quality uh alternatives uh at the end of the school day and in the summer.

So um very supportive of this role as sort of a launching pad for that uh for that for those efforts.

Further discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment 47, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 48.

This is to add funding to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the new Office of Youth and Families.

This is a $50,000 increase for 2026 and a $250,000 increase over five years.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 48, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 49.

Reduce the 2026 grants line item in the Department of Parks and Recreation.

This is a $500,000 decrease.

Motion to approve?

Second.

Discussion?

Is there a second?

Second.

Uh Council Woman Gross.

Thank you.

Um so I have to ask about this one because uh we've been tracking it and talking to people in the administration.

And I think in the first packet that came over, it was like senior programs and food justice fund.

And then when it went on to Legistar, it was like miscellaneous items.

And I feel like that's now this, which says grants line and department of parks and rec.

It is the same account.

It keeps changing its name though, right?

So um yeah, so we just there's a million dollars, there was a million dollars in 2026 uh in that object account.

Um that's a term that we use in budget, but it's a line item in the budget, and that includes multiple things.

And um so two of the things that were in that um that object account were um food justice and uh senior programming.

So but um we're taking $500,000 out from that entire line item, not specifically to those uh programs.

Great.

Okay, so that's what we had been told.

Um, but it I didn't hear it specified how it's breaking out by senior programs or food justice fund, because they're still there are they're lumped together under the same object, as you said.

Yeah, they're all lumped together under the same account code.

And so I we're reducing the funding available for everything that's in that um that account code.

So um I can't tell you specifically what the impact will be to food justice or senior programs.

Uh we still have to look at that and how those uh monies are going to be divvied up.

So, you know, we we supported adding other parks and rec creating new object or budget lines um in parks and rec for the deputy director and um the spending for the Office of Youth and Families, um, which would be you know 141, 142,000 for the um director.

Deputy director.

And um 50,000 in spending to go along for that deputy director for that program.

Um is this are these is this reduction accommodating that increase?

Uh yeah, that is the intent.

Um, but this is only a one-year uh decrease.

Uh those other expenditures, those are um those are five-year increases.

No, the deputy director is 142,000 for one year.

It's a 725,000 five-year impact.

Right.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so what we're been told again, but it's not on paper, is that basically the food justice fund would go down from 500,000 to 250,000.

I don't have the answer to that question today.

So I mean, our intent is not to to completely take some money from those programs overall.

But not eliminating either one.

I know, no, no.

There's no intention to eliminate either one.

I think that's important for everyone to hear.

I mean, for council's information, I think, I mean, this is close to 100 signatures on a letter that we got.

Um, you know, supporting the full protect and retain the full 500,000.

Um there are some impact numbers since all those monies the original funds came from our federal relief funds, our American rescue plan dollars.

And it was less than one percent of the 335 million dollars.

There wasn't a penny for food in the first budget.

I voted no on the first allocation, you know, in the first year of it.

Um and as we amended the budget, council moved to um to create moved ARPA dollars to create the three million dollar grant program that did go out.

And it's um it provided already today something like 300,000 pounds of food or hot meals to like various kinds of populations across the city, including seniors, including people with disabilities, including vulnerable populations, including kids.

So part of it was to food bank, but it was to other organizations that do very similar kinds of work.

Um in addition, um I'll talk just very quickly about um the support for urban farming that again council has supported over the years.

Some five years ago, the only city resources, employee time, compost fencing or supplies or whatever, went to only like four gardens, and those were our own TPW allotment gardens, that there are only four of them across the city.

Combining the work that Parks and Rec now does to proactively go out and support community gardens and the food justice fund funding, that was 60 gardens last year.

And I I feel really good about that.

I think we should all feel really good about that.

And they're their gardens across the city.

So we're proactively helping them succeed, basically, and produce more food.

So there's there's new gardens, uh, but we're also just, you know, if you have gardens in your districts, you'll know that the number one problem is probably fencing, because those deer eat everything, right?

It doesn't really matter what part of your city you're in, those deer will find that garden.

So we you know, we've been able to, it's it's cheap for us.

We buy this stuff all the time.

Um and so and it's not that much money for the amount again of citizens that it's touching.

So my staff has been working with the department and trying to add up not just food justice fund, but also the allocations that are being preserved, I'm happy to see are being preserved in parks and rec in the positions and some of the funding.

They need a little bit more.

They've already expended all of their 2026 funding for fencing and gardens and tools.

But the uh lumped together with farmers markets, um, it touches nearly as many residents as pools as aquatics.

And aquatics has like 30 full-time equivalent employees.

And uh trust me, I am not trying to take a penny away from aquatics, and I would love to put more into aquatics as well.

We love our pools and our aquatics team are amazing, and the the jobs that they provide and this and the parts of employment and the and employing uh and training lifeguards every summer.

But we touched nearly as many residents and kind of I think add recreation and value with three and a half full-time equivalents in the food programs, including the food justice fund coordinator.

So I think it's really impressive.

Again, so like not nearly as expensive as million dollar capital repairs to pools.

And you know, one-tenth of the employee costs.

Um so I just want us to not feel bad about the work that because it's really it's touching families, it's touching kids, it's touching seniors, there's that you know, thousands of volunteer hours at these kinds of park uh they're not parks, but it they are green spaces where people can gather and be together in some of the neighborhoods where they really, really need that because they don't really actually have other spaces that the city is investing in.

So I I will probably abstain on this today.

I will try to be sure that we get some clarification.

Um if we if if the administration is not defunding the food justice fund entirely, I think it would be good to have it clarify on paper.

I can confirm right now uh we are funding both programs in 2026.

Right.

So I just wanted to mention that the ARPA funding for food justice, we're not touching that either.

So that remains full.

I thought they were fully committed all of the grants.

Oh no, no, it is fully committed, but even so, um, there are some projects that even though yeah, they're fully committed, they probably won't be able to spend the funds by the end of this year.

So we will let you'll see we did have some ARPA amendments.

We we did uh move some funding around because we knew we weren't going to spend fully spend those projects.

But ARPA isn't our sorry, okay.

Food justice was not one of those.

We can follow up on that.

And again, to the advocates that um are uh I think correct in their appeals that we continue to invest.

I'm gonna just say what I'm just I'll stop after this.

That we continue to invest in the food system.

Right?

If if we're all paying attention to the war with Iran, we know that fertilizers are stuck in the street of Hormuz that American farmers need.

So this is planting season, and as American farmers across the nation are planting, like especially like the vast fields of wheat and corn, they're not gonna be able to plant those many acres as they were last year because they are not going to have the inputs that they need to put the crops in the ground right now.

Um, this is the kind of thing that we not just for crises, but also for all of the other you know, ancillary benefits of having community facilities and having people know each other and create support networks, but also to grow food.

Um I would like us to see us increase, you know, continue this investment and continue this increase in the amount of food that's under production in the city, but also being processed, being warehouse, being moved, being sold that's locally produced, right?

We're investing in not just farms, but in the capacity to grow, preserve, distribute, sell, retail, everything, right?

So you can't have a small corner store, which most of us love to have.

We want small corner stores in our districts.

Um they can't buy three 30,000 units of canned tomatoes from the national retailer.

They need small producers to stock their shelves generally, and those small producers need small stores because they don't have 30,000 units to sell.

So it's a it's a supporting system that uh I is creates more wealth in the city, creates more entrepreneurship, and it's great to be investing in the kind of human capital and in um in the green space.

So okay, I'll stop there.

I could go on.

Thank you.

Further discussion, Councilmember Warwick.

So I uh I am also open to abstaining on these, and I I think too, I mean, and there's some other amendments down the line that I would ask that members abstain on.

I mean, I really uh just to echo Councilman Gross.

I feel like there is room for us to increase funding for city parks.

I mean, it is such critical work that this department does.

But I'm not saying that just because I'm the chair of the committee of bias, but like it is such critical work, and their budget is so small, and we should be increasing their butt and you know, and I am more than open to amending the stop the violence to allow that department to have more funding or you know, whatever.

So I I feel like on these parks and recs reductions uh uh until there's more clarity, like what senior you know what I mean, what is being cut, like what what funding for for seniors and what food funding, et cetera, is being cut.

Not to say no, but just to wait and see until we can get more clarity from the administration about their plans, like not to micromanage, but to just sort of understand what the plan is before we kind of say yes to to you know slashing half a million dollars from city parks or parks and work.

Further discussion.

Okay, so seeing none all in favor of amendment 49, please say aye.

All of them opposed, say no, abstentions, two abstentions.

Thank you very much.

Um recommendation.

Amendment 50.

Upgrade one public information officer to senior public information officer in the Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Administration.

This is a $4,341 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $22,160.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 50, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 51.

Move one assistant director community affairs to the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

This is a $133,949 decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $685,275.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilman Cockhill.

Yes.

So we're eliminating a spot that was with Stop the Response.

No, we're I mean we're not eliminating anything.

We're just uh moving the funding source.

So uh the position still exists, uh, but instead of being funded uh in by the general fund, it's moving to the stop to violence.

Wait, sorry, did I get that right?

Okay, so I should have mentioned that you'll also see a corresponding amendment in the trust fund section that's adding this position back, so you'll see an increase there.

Do we have a person in that position?

Okay.

Yes.

So the same person is gonna stay doing the same thing but being paid for out of the stop the violence fund rather than our general.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Councilwoman Gross.

I'm not the expert at the table, but I thought we couldn't do that.

Um stop the violence funds are pegged to the size of the police budget.

If the police budget were to double, our contributions originally would have doubled, now they're capped at 10 million a year.

But they were never meant to be spent in the Bureau.

This isn't for a Bureau position.

This is the uh community affairs and violence prevention office.

This is uh assistant director as well as the assistant director for OCHS were previously funded out of stop the violence.

They were moved in the 26th budget, the budget that you passed to the public safety administration bureau.

This is moving one of those back.

Okay, I got you.

So that's we're it's line item just for clarification.

Line item 51.

Move one assistant director.

Got it.

So who do they report to?

They report to the um public safety director.

So they are in the public safety org chart.

They are funded under the stop the violence trust fund and have been previously funded.

But I guess OCHS also reports to public safety director.

Correct.

But they so they are in public safety and the public safety org chart, but not in the police bureau or chart.

Similarly, how the city parks employees in the stop the violence still report to the director of uh parks and recreation.

Okay.

All right, I gotcha.

Thank you.

Council President Labelle.

I will I'm going to stay on this one.

Um as we were sitting here, I'm getting slightly ahead of myself, but there's a corresponding uh in the administration trust fund amendments, there was a corresponding amendment.

And so I'd try to quickly do some math on the stop the violence trust fund.

Um we are removing approximately 1.6 million one million six hundred thousand, six hundred forty thousand worth of positions out of the fund.

But we're adding three million seven hundred sixty-three thousand worth of new positions into the fund, which is a difference of two million one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, but the fund also has a cap on how much could be a spent administratively.

And so my concern is if we're adding two million worth of positions, aren't we up against that cap or potentially exceeding it?

Yes.

Uh if if it were fully staffed, uh, it would exceed that 40% cap.

Um, but due to like how vacancies are uh in the stop the violence uh trust fund, we don't anticipate like once it's actually staffed that it will exceed that forty percent.

Okay.

Can you give me a breakdown of that?

Yeah, I previously sent that to uh council budget last week.

So um yeah.

Okay.

Um but it yeah, it's around 46% uh per light per year.

Okay.

I was checking when I sent that out to all of you.

I'm not saying you didn't, I just didn't check it myself.

Sorry.

uh trust fund we don't anticipate like once it's actually staffed that it will exceed that forty percent okay can you give me a breakdown of that yeah I previously sent that to uh council budget last week so um yeah okay um but it yeah it's around forty six percent uh per light but per year okay I was checking when I sent that out to all of you I'm not saying you didn't I just didn't check it myself sorry yeah no I was just gonna help you have located in your emails um it looks like it went to you all on Thursday at 1256 p.m if that helps you find it Thursday Madam Chair is that just Council President if so if we're up if we're at 46 percent then we're below the 50 percent cap then I feel comfortable voting on these today I hadn't reviewed what was sent over so my apologies that number answered my question okay how close we were to the threshold okay thank you uh further discussion seeing none all in favor of amendment fifty one please say aye aye aye affirmative recommendation uh no's abstentions affirmative recommendation uh amendment fifty two add one head of wellness position to the Bureau of Police with funding beginning in July twenty twenty six this is a ninety four thousand nine hundred and ninety two dollar increase for twenty twenty six and a five year increase of eight hundred and seventy six thousand one hundred and sixty nine dollars motion to approve discussion second discussion councilman cock thank you ma'am chair uh now I just wanted to say my very first um meeting with our chief landow he stressed that he really wanted this position he said it was really effective for him in Fredericksburg and for you know the the the uh rank of foul there they were a little hesitant to adopt it at first but he said they really embraced it there and I'm hoping that our police officers do here as well um and uh he like I said he stressed how how important he thought it was and I want to give him every tool he can have to succeed in the way he feels like the direction of the police department goes so I'm glad that they created the position is all I'm saying so thanks any further discussion seeing none all in favor of amendment 52 please say aye.

Aye affirmative recommendation amendment 53 this is to add funding for a new professional development contract in the Bureau of Police This is a 2026 increase of 103,186 dollars and a five year increase of 95154 dollars motion approve discussion we have a second second sorry discussion yeah the um professional development contract what is that uh it doesn't currently exist okay uh it would uh be to uh contract out some uh like leadership uh development training for police uh because abraham was here just last week commander abraham and that was yeah and that was i is it tied into this do you think yeah yeah okay okay that was only like 2000 but okay so this is for programs like that correct yes yeah non targeted specific just to have four things like that we know of one at least so okay all right thanks further discussion seeing none all in favor of amendment 53 please say aye aye aye affirmative recommendation amendment 54 at 2026 funding for retiree dental costs in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service this is a $90,000 increase for 2026.

Motion to approve second discussion seeing none all in favor of amendment 54 please say aye.

Aye aye affirmative recommendation amendment 55 add PJCBC union benefit for seasonal laborers and the Department of Human Resources and civil service this is a 3247 increase in 2026 and a five year increase of 1,726.

Motion to approve discussion second discussion Councilman Cock.

Okay uh this is for part-time laborers for public works specifically public works yes um and uh I don't know if this is too much information but it comes from um a 1990 uh sidebar you won't find this in the actual CBA but um it's so to allow us the privilege of hiring seasonal um uh employees rather than permanent employees so we agreed to uh pay uh uh contribute into their for their benefits so and and so this is not for payroll no no it's not for pay at all so it goes into uh the trust fund that so our part-time workers get benefits is that what you're saying is that with this funds through their union um benefits right yeah it's through their union not directly through us but we but we contribute to that so our part time laborers become part of the laborers union then that's correct uh okay um okay thanks further discussion seeing none all in favor of amendment fifty five please say aye aye thank

Is that what you're saying?

Is that what this funds?

Through their union um benefits.

Right, yeah, it's through their union, not directly through us.

But we but we contribute to that.

So our part-time laborers become part of the laborers' union then?

That's correct.

Uh okay.

Um further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 55, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 56.

Replace the financial systems administrator with an ERP manager with funding beginning in July 2026 for the office of the city controller.

This is a $4,083 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $39,240.

Is there a second discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 56, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 57.

Replace the controller's clerk with the senior controllers clerk with funding beginning in July 2026 in the office of the city controller.

This is a $2,864 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $26,341.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 57, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 58.

This is to add funding for longevity payments for the ASME 2719 bargaining group for employees in various departments.

This is a $53,500 increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $344,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 58, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 59.

This is to add funding for medical waivers for PJCBC employees in various departments at a $40,000 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $200,000.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 59, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 60.

This is to add a senior secretary back in city planning and budget budget neutral throughout throughout the five-year plan.

So I will note that for amendments 60 and 61, there has been a request from for an amendment to the amendment from the administration to withdraw both of these.

I just don't think we read it.

Okay.

So we do not so be aware that there will be like this will be reflected sort of accurately and sort of formally in the vote next week as an amendment to the amendment.

So sorry.

I think on Wednesday we would motion to withdraw it, but today I just think we move past it.

Yeah, it will be like accurately.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's the exact way they meant.

Like it will be it will be kind of formally and we'll have to we'll have to take a vote on that.

So for the purposes of this, um we will I have made you all aware, and we will move now to amendment 62.

This is to add pay-go funding to 2028 through 2030 at a $2 million increase per year with a five-year increase of six million.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion?

But my question is just uh what exactly does pay go is it can it be used for and do we have it earmarked with the specification?

Yeah, uh pay-go funding is pay as you go uh funding and it's uh funding that we basically move from the operating budget to the capital budget and um it can fund projects or uh that that have a shorter term uh lifespan than most of the projects in the CIP.

Um we often use uh a large portion of it to fund vehicles.

Yeah.

So and that's what that the intent of that two million dollars is.

Yeah, and it's always things that we need cash on hand for.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Thanks.

Further discussion?

I didn't know if you wanted to note as you have with the others.

Yeah, I did forget to note that this is one of the amendments that's in conflict with the council budget amendment.

Yes, council member Wilson.

Uh yeah, the question I have is where's this money done from?

Is this because the new uh revenue certification for the uh the payroll tax?

No, this is the money that uh we were talking about that's coming from uh EMS's operating budget.

Okay, this is the Yes, correct.

Um it's slightly more, it's like fifty thousand dollars more uh than that amount, but yeah, essentially.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick.

Um if the intentions to put it towards vehicles is there some reason that it wasn't put toward vehicles, like put in in a line item for vehicles now.

Um to keep it flexible.

Like so in case we want to use it for something that isn't vehicles.

The the line items, like we typically use those in the operating budget.

Um the capital budget is more project-based, and um we're not and we put that amount in the pay-go line because that's where the funding is will come from whenever we do uh address the CIP in those years, then you would see the deliverables uh in that uh that project page.

But we're at this point we're not amending the CIP because um those funds don't show up until 2028.

So in 2028, like the intent was you know to explicitly outline that amount for vehicles.

Okay.

I know we're speaking about operating here, but was there a $10 million increase to the ELA and the capital budget?

Whenever you uh um amended the budget for at the end of the year, yes or was.

So there still is a sort of earmarked as much as possible, like $10 million it for the ELA in capital.

Yes.

In addition to this, which is less defined.

Yeah.

These can't be defined in the same way.

Right.

Exactly.

Yes.

So yeah, this is this is not until 2028.

So there is no plan, you know, like there no plan exists for these funds yet.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, but I just want to clarify that in the capital budget there's 10 million for 2026, but not in the outer years.

It's like two million, maybe it just it's only the money for the leases in the current capital, like in the current capital budget.

Right.

Right.

And um, yeah, we we did talk about potentially amending the CIP at this time, but uh that's not typically something that we do if we're only addressing uh the out years.

So um that's the reason why uh we're not doing that at this time.

So but whenever um whenever you would see whenever we do the 2027 operating budget and uh 2027 CIP, at that point we would address those out years.

Okay, all in favor of amendment 62, please say aye.

Opposed?

Abstention?

No.

One no.

So noted affirmative recommendation and our final amendment for this section.

We do have another section, um, is amendment 63.

For 2026, utilize the fund balance to balance the budget.

This is a six million five hundred and nine thousand seven hundred thirty-nine dollar fifty-seven cent decrease to the beginning reserve balance in twenty twenty-six.

Motion to approve discussion?

Councilwoman Gross.

All right, I'm just gonna ask you all to kind of remind us what we said the first time we talked about this when you were giving us the overview, which is that our current fund balance is above the recommended amount of our operating expenditures.

Um I think it's around 17%, something like that.

Is that what I recall from us?

Was it two weeks ago?

Um yeah, Lisa, I have so many numbers in my head.

I I can't keep them straight.

It was it was less than 20 percent, but it was more than 10 percent.

Okay.

Um then by reducing it, um, it especially becomes really close to 10 percent in the five-year projection, if is what I remember.

In 2030, it is 10 percent.

So we're really nervous about that.

Yes.

But we're still doing it.

Can you tell us why?

Um okay yeah, uh, so we have a legal requirement to balance the budget, which means that um our revenues and our expenditures have to at least uh balance.

And in order to um so with all of our amendments, um our expenditures exceeded uh the revenues that we're anticipating uh bringing in.

And so in order to make uh the budget balance, we would have to use a portion of our uh our rating day fund.

And uh that does not necessarily mean that we are 100% going to use that, okay.

Um ideally what would happen is uh whenever it comes to the end of the year, our expenditures do come under what we budgeted in uh we bring in more revenue uh than we anticipated.

Normally every year, that's typically what does happen last year was very different, okay.

But um going forward, hopefully that will happen.

Um and so we won't actually have to uh touch the fund balance to bring in that six and a half million dollars.

So but just to uh to make the budget balance uh for now uh we had to use that uh fund balance amount.

So just to try to recap in my own words what you said I would call this a more conservative budget than the one we passed in 20 in December because it um acknowledges like all of the possible expenditures, right?

So not exactly overestimating expenditures, but fully estimates expenditures and also hopefully conservatively estimates revenue, right?

So as opposed to a budget which maybe 2025 was which was was maybe too optimistic on revenue and you know maybe underestimating expenditures, right?

So we're we're still hoping that maybe we won't actually have to use all of the fund balance drawdown, is that correct?

Yes.

So but right now, um, just to make uh the revenues uh equal and the expenditures, we had to you know take six and a half million dollars from that that rainy day fund.

Right.

Um if you were to just make I guess I don't think I asked you this last time, like I shouldn't even cut like jinx us, but like if there was a revenue that was higher than you anticipate in this in this budget, which part of the revenue would it be, do you think?

Oh, that's a good question.

Um maybe um actually um payroll prep tax uh because of that uh um we're already increasing the budget we saw, yeah.

Yeah, eight million dollars because of the the weird timing of the bookings uh this year.

So um it might actually um so there was actually 12 million dollars that was incorrectly booked to 2026 rather than 2025 2025, but I uh we only increased that uh revenue source by eight million dollars.

So there is a potential uh for that full 12 million dollars to show up in 2026.

But um there um there's some moving around that the controller's office does.

Um so um yeah, um I won't know the we won't know the full uh result of that until uh the the act for comes out.

I think that's a great example.

Like conserve you're conservatively accounted for the revenue.

Yes, right.

Yeah.

So good.

Okay, that answers my question.

Thank you.

It makes me a lot more comfortable.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 63, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

So now we move on to our administration trust fund amendments.

Uh to our council budget directors, anything you'd like to say before we dive into line by line items.

Um I don't think so.

Um just this is gonna cover various special revenue funds, so I will try to keep you all on track with which specific trust funds are being amended for each one.

Um yeah.

Right.

Um Trust Fund Amendment one.

Um this is to remove one program coordinator and the stop the violence trust fund.

Um this is specifically a city sports position at a 71,656 dollar decrease in 2026 and a 379,181 dollar decrease over the five-year plan.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion, Councilmember Warwick.

Um my comments here, I'm actually speaking more directly to um amendment two, which removes a rec leader.

Um, but I I feel like the two are combined or are are related.

So last year um we worked with um with the administration and with um parks and recelman Smith and myself and um Councilman Coghill, right?

And Councilman Coghill, right?

We allocated funding for and it was stop the violence funding to pilot after school programming in Pittsburgh public school buildings, right?

Unfortunately, the the pilot did not get off the ground in time for the current school year, which would have been last September, right?

Um for various reasons, right?

I think in one case, someone was hired, and then they kind of backed out of the last minute.

You know, these little things that happen.

But we committed to the pilot with PPS.

Um we worked closely, at least with two of the schools.

Um one of the schools we had a harder time getting a hold of the principal.

Um I know at least at the school in my district, we committed to the residents that that we were doing this pilot.

It was funded, the the roles were created, the roles were posted, right?

And um and so it is it is a program, a pilot program that I feel like we should deliver on.

In addition to that, I feel like as a program, it is very much in line with what Mayor O'Connor is interested in doing, which is like increasing out of school time, you know, uh, you know, increasing capacity for out of school time programming for Pittsburgh residents, right?

And and with it being, you know, in other words, we have the the concept was we have rec centers that have that offer fantastic after school programming, but if you don't have a rec center in your community, you don't have access to that after school programming, which is a gap.

And um that's why we worked with PPS who identify schools that kind of fell in that category that had no other community-based after school program, you know, to um and while I don't want to vote no on this, I just want to be sure I'd like to get some clarity.

I think similar to the to the um, you know, the senior programs, the food I I would like to get clarity from the administration that even though these positions are being removed, that we are still committed to following through with these programs, right?

Starting in the next school year.

That's something that I've discussed with um Director Sloan.

And so with that, I would ask again and also because I think there's so much potential.

Like if this pilot works where the city of Pittsburgh can come in to PPS buildings and provide after school care so that there's a continuum for the kids from 3 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

the same way we do at our rec centers, that we I mean that would be an incredible partnership, and then we could even build on it further and offer that same programming in the summer because again, PPS has lost its summer, right?

They used to have the Summer Dreamers program, and that program was cut, but we offer really fantastic summer programming in our rec centers.

So again, I think that the potential for this partnership is huge, but it just we really need to slow to we need to prove that we can do it in this small scale first.

And I think that if we if if we can do that and if we can keep our commitment there.

So just for these, you know, these positions, my concern is is I'm not sure what the cutting of these positions means for our ability to follow through on that pilot.

Um and that's why I'm asking for if if members would abstain on these amendments for now.

And I don't want to say no, I'm not trying to, you know, like if if if the plan is if there's another plan in place, great, you know, super, but um I'm not clear on that yet.

So that's that's what my my might might ask to members if if they um if they are so willing.

So thanks.

I know we're kind of discussing both, but yeah, or I guess we can I I will open it up to discussion on one or two, but we'll take a vote on one first.

Seeing none all in favor of amendment one, say aye.

Abstain.

No abstentions, abstain, I'll abstain as well.

One eye abstain.

Well um the abstentions have it for the preliminary vote, and we'll take it up next week.

Um amendment two.

Remove one recreation letter leader in the stop the violence trust fund um as part of the after school program.

This is a fifty-eight thousand dollar three hundred and sixty-four dollar decrease in twenty twenty-six and a five-year decrease of three hundred and eight thousand eight hundred and twenty-six dollars.

Is there a motion okay without a motion?

Oh I just want to note councilman Wilson is registering an I vote for amendment one.

Um I guess without a motion on amendment two, the line items.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Okay, no second.

So the motion.

Okay, there's a second.

Um is the wish of the council member to abstain on these two on this bill as well.

All in favor, please say aye.

Abstain.

Abstain.

So one aye, five abstentions.

The abstentions two ayes, abstentions have it.

So this will be considered as abstained upon until next week.

Amendment three.

Increase twenty twenty-six funding for maintenance projects in the parks tax trust fund at a five hundred thousand dollar increase for twenty twenty-six.

Is there a motion?

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of a trust fund amendment three, please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any other ayes?

Abstentions?

No's affirmative recommendation.

Amendment four.

Um this is to increase the assistant to administration position in the three taxing bodies trust fund.

Um is currently 90% funded in the trust fund, and I believe 10% funded in the general fund, um, Department of Finance.

Um this would fully fund it in the trust fund.

Um so this is a $10,510 increase in 2026 and a five-year increase of $55,831.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor of trust fund amendment four, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment five.

Um, yeah, I I guess I'll preface this one that this one covers various trust funds, so it's kind of broken into parts in the administration's amendment.

Um, and I believe the administration is also requesting us to amend this kind of technically.

Um, so I'm just gonna read it as it will be amended.

Um, but this is to update all AFSME 2719 and Teamsters position salaries across various trust funds based on the 2026 agreements.

Um so starting with the police secondary employment trust fund, that's a $4,703 and 15 cent increase in 2026 with a five-year increase of $26,284 and 81 cents.

Um second is the community development trust fund, which is this is a $1,389.51 cent increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $35,768.

Um then the next two are the ones that will be amended next week, um, starting with the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

This is a $398,359 and 20 cent increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $2,044,829 and 92 cents.

The three taxing bodies trust fund will see a $398,359 and 20 cent increase for 2026, and a five-year increase of $2,044,829.92 cents.

And then finally the parks tax trust fund, which will see a $264.10 cent increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $20,495 and $33.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion.

So number five itemizes across various trust funds.

But one of them uh the D is the three Taxing Bodies Trust Fund, which was also amended in number four, um with a ten thousand five hundred dollar increase for twenty twenty-six, and then here five a three hundred and ninety-eight thousand dollar increase in twenty twenty-six.

Um so that's a lot.

Wait, I'm sorry, can can you repeat that?

So you're meant you were talking about the assistants um in number four.

Uh-huh.

I think I understand it.

It was uh you know, in increasing ten thousand dollars in the three taxing body trust fund.

So number four is increasing a position uh allotment, a percentage that we pay out of this trust fund from ninety percent to a full full-time position.

So it's increasing the amount of withdrawal from the trust fund by ten thousand or so.

The number that you see in number four is isolated to that position change only.

What we are reflecting in five D is the impact that the new AFSME contract had on all of the positions within this trust fund, which there are multiple in this union.

So those changes in the new contract increased expenditures of the trust fund for 2026 by 398,000 dollars.

I think this this might be a misprint on this.

Oh, yeah.

That is such a big number, it doesn't seem right.

It's only 40,000 over the five-year-old.

Yeah, because then we see this.

Okay.

Yes.

Well, it says two million in the five-year plan.

Yeah, that's a that's a mistake.

Um, you know what?

I think C and D are exactly.

Yeah, I think I think it was replicated from Stop the Violence.

Um but D should be and we'll make sure this is corrected for next week, but D should be a $9,259 and one cent increase for 2026 and a $40,232 and 84 cent increase over the five years.

Did you say just $925?

$9,259.

$259 and no cents.

$10.

And one cent, yes.

For $2026.

Right.

Um, can we do a verbal strikeout then?

Motion to amend.

Um so I guess I'm just asking Kirsten since we have the number since you're like being our clerk for us here.

Yeah.

To just change D to the number you just told me, $9,259 and one cent increase in 2026, and then the five-year impact to $40,232.84.

$32.84.

Okay, so yeah, motion to change again, same motion.

Um, and then $40,232 and 84 cents for the five-year impact.

Second.

All in favor of the all in favor of the um verbal amendment, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so that's cool.

We just saved ourselves two million dollars over the five years.

Um, so the last time I remember I was talking about this in the um, you know, at the table, we were up to like a million dollars in the three taxing body trust funds.

Is there a million dollars in it right now?

Um, I'd have to double check.

Um I just for clarity, um, in the amendments, the amounts was correct.

It uh the amount in this sheet was was incorrect.

So it's we don't have an additional million dollars.

No, I was teasing.

Okay, okay.

Sometimes we shouldn't actually make jokes at all, so it's not funny.

Um but yeah, I would I'm curious.

Kind of um we the reason I I mention it is that it wasn't that many years ago that it was zero dollars in the three taxing bodies trust funds.

And on in our budgets, we had to put general funds into the three taxing bodies trust fund.

Um and so it's good that there's money in there to cover what it's supposed to be covering, which is the maintenance of vacant lots and other things that are costs associated with the 10,000 property inventory and our moving it through and whatever we're you know, the staffing to do the legal work and deal with the school district in the county, et cetera, et cetera.

Um so since these are Teamster positions, I'm s I'm assuming, but just ask me and Teamster.

So are these kind of like people mowing lawns or are they like another quarter of a real estate attorney?

Like kind of what all are we paying out of this?

The three taxing bodies is only AFSMA positions, the Teamster positions.

Um for these parks tax.

I think it's just parks tax.

Um the positions in the three taxing bodies, uh, those include the real estate manager, uh, assistant real estate supervisor, uh, real estate sales coordinator, senior assistant real estate, and assistant to administrative.

So those are all asked me.

So these are positions that are like doing the auctions and correct.

Maybe even kind of supervising, like seeing what the status of the properties are, et cetera, et cetera.

Which is good, we were just discussing this morning, kind of moving some of the properties to the land bank for affordable housing development, but also um that there was a another program that the um real estate department and finance are administering themselves and finding buyers.

Um so I assume that these are helpful.

Basically, because we didn't have this stuff staffed 10 years ago, we moved far less properties.

We're we're moving more properties, and the more properties we move, the more we fund those sales fund the three taxing bodies trust fund, which is how it was meant to be.

It's just that 10 years ago it really wasn't working.

Um just keeping an eye on that.

Uh I'm glad we caught the the typo um here.

But it's it's correct on um the white pages.

Yes.

It's wrong in the yellow pages if old people are gonna get catch the joke here, right?

It's wrong in the yellow pages, it was right in the white pages.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

And just a note there is um there are further amendments that the administration which it wishes to make to C and D, I believe.

That are not here, but they so they're on your document.

So this since this is kind of like a a test vote, um, we're not actually amending today, but I wanted you all to be aware of the technical amendment the the administration is making.

So that's why you'll see crossing out and um the voting and underline to show the changes.

Um but obviously D is not correct, so you'll have the correct version next week.

Thank you.

Uh all in favor of the amended trust fund amendment five, please say aye.

I affirmative recommendation.

Thank you all.

Amendment six.

This is to update part-time salaries for tennis instructors in the Mellon Park Trust Fund at a $17,084 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $92,860.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment six, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment seven.

This is adding one violence prevention coordinator in the stop the violence trust fund at a $93,046 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $476,720.

Approve.

Okay.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment seven, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment eight.

This is adding five violence prevention managers in the stop the violence trust fund.

Um this is under the Office of Community Safety and Violence Prevention.

Um, but at a $500,465 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $2,563,385.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment eight, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment nine.

Yes.

And this is the one that corresponds to the operating amendment that we discussed earlier, but this is moving the assistant director of community affairs from public safety admin to the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

Um this is a $134,300 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of six hundred and eighty-seven thousand one hundred forty-two dollars.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment nine, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 10.

Um this is to increase the salary of the senior safer together project coordinator in the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

Um the position would move from a 22G to a 24 G, which is a $7,047 increase for 2026 and a five-year increase of $35,957.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 10, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 11.

This is to remove one stop the violence coordinator from the Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

Um this is a $93,000 forty-six dollar decrease in 2026 and a five-year decrease of $476,720.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Councilmember Warwick.

So are are we looking at just sort of like changes in job titles with some of these?

Or maybe change and roll a little bit.

I mean, just because we're adding positions and removing positions that sound very similar to each other.

Could conceivably honestly, I'm gonna have to get that back to you.

So for number 11, this is a second position that was added in the 25 budget as part of a position swap.

It was ultimately never filled, and so we are now removing it.

Got it.

Okay.

All in favor of amendment eleven, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

And our final line item amendment of the day, trust fund amendment number twelve.

This is to remove one crime analyst from the stop the violence trust fund at a ninety-three thousand forty-six dollar decrease for twenty twenty-six and a five-year decrease of four hundred seventy-six thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment twelve, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That exhausts our special uh line item reopening, uh, budget reopening light item vote.

There are any further questions or comments.

If not, I want to thank everyone who joined us at the table today.

Thank you for your work and thank you for um answering our questions and your stamina today.

Thank you to all council members for joining.

We will take more a more formal vote on this after the public hearing on the reopening of the 2026 budget.

Um, but now we have everything that you know accurately reflects what we're doing for the public to comment on.

So look forward to that next week, next Tuesday afternoon, and a final um line item, uh a preliminary line item vote next Wednesday morning.

With that, I'll take a motion to recess this meeting.

So move.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um, are folks able to see the agenda okay?

Perfect.

Great.

Um, so again, I'm Callie O'Brien.

I'm taking over as the mayor's office staffer from Stephanie.

So this is my my first go-around here.

Um, so I appreciate your grace, but hopefully we can do everything, you know, pretty smoothly.

So we'll go ahead and get started.

So we'll get started with roll call.

Deborah Gro Deborah Gross.

Nicole Turney.

Avery Hart.

Here.

Devin Talia Farrow.

Terry Minor Spencer.

Julian McLean.

Great.

Thanks to everyone.

Um, and then we'll move on to approval of the February minutes.

Can I get a motion?

I'm going to approve the minutes.

Moving into public comment, I received no public comment inquiries for this week or for this month.

So we can move right into special committee reports.

Um had a chance to look at the email that I sent earlier.

Um I was looking back through my email inbox and I couldn't find an actual link to the survey, so I'm not sure Stephanie may have sent that out and I couldn't find it or something, but I just wanted to recirculate it so everyone had their eyes on it.

I know uh the commission voted last month to approve the content.

Um I was still uh you know getting my feet wet with this and trying to grasp my grasp the intention of the survey and all the information that was passed on to me.

So apologies for not um bringing this up last month before the official vote happened.

But um some of my recommendations that we're looking at that I would like to look at today, they shouldn't affect the content so much of the survey or like the uh be structural change for the questions, but I just think that they might be beneficial to add that added clarity for departments um to be as specific as possible what we're asking for for asking from for folks.

Um in my experience with data collection specifically, uh it can kind of be all over the place as to what individual departments are actually collecting.

Um so I think if we can get some more clarity as a commission of what we're actually looking for, and then pass that on to the departments as much as we can, that would yield uh better results when we're looking at the responses from these.

So I haven't sent out the survey yet, but I after today's meeting, I have some draft email language to send out to departments, which I'm happy to share with you as well.

I think it would be nice to just have like all of our eyes on the same information and make sure that the way that I'm distributing this survey is how we would like to present the commission in this process and roll it out the best it can be from the very beginning.

Yeah, I think the um three and uh three, and it was another one on there that was very important.

I had wrote it down and I was trying to find my notes, but I think three taps into what we really you know, what we're really looking for.

Um there was another one.

Yeah, so the questions are that I added these suggestions to or three, five, and six.

So you can see here um the italicized text is what I'm suggesting that we add.

But it's all just examples, and if there's other suggestions to what we should be doing, please feel free to chime in.

The examples definitely give the departments a better idea of what we're asking for.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Do we are we good with all of all of these indicators, or do we want to make the list smaller?

I think that's a that's a good number.

That's a good list.

Okay.

Perfect.

I agree.

I like the list right now.

Okay, great.

I agree as well.

Okay.

Thank you for that feedback.

And then I also just wanted to, I wanted to talk about question five some more as well.

Um to me right now, this reads as every department answering with the entire citywide demographics, since like every department technically serves every area of the city.

I think, and maybe it's someone can jump in.

I think maybe the intention of this is to build off of question four of like the demographic breakdown of the folks accessing the programs offered by departments.

Um I just want to confirm the intention of question five.

If I were not mistaken, go ahead.

No, I was just gonna say, I think that like my like the way I read that was sort of that the that intention of you know, when it's served by your departments, it kind of like and and probably updating that language to be like by programs within your departments, because I'm sure there would be a difference of you know, uh uh uh the girls' fire camp is gonna be have different demographics than you know another program within you know parks or something like that.

So um, yeah, I feel like if if if there's a if if a change in wording there makes it clear that we're looking sort of like you know, from a program aspect instead of the department as a whole, that would make sense.

Okay.

programs within your departments because I'm sure there would be a difference of you know uh uh uh the girls fire camp is gonna be have different demograph graphics than you know another program within you know parks or something like that so um yeah I feel like if if if there's a if if a change in wording there makes it clear that we're looking sort of like you know from a program aspect instead of the department as a whole that would make sense okay so then this would be not it might be not applicable to like every department right so like legal or finance or law or not public facing departments so much but more so for departments that have public programming is that correct yes okay I would just be interested to know which of the public programs are asking for demographic information when they're serving the public like if they're collecting it how they're collecting it well that is a great question yeah yeah and I I do think this survey will reveal that information because that's kind of like what I was thinking too I I know in my previous experience it's very hit or miss what people are what data people are collecting and usually unless they have like a data person on their team and unless someone tells them please collect this this information they're probably not reporting on all of that um but we we'll see we'll see um and I guess we we can always send out iterations of the survey based on the responses that we get if we need to rethink our approach here as well okay um so for number six in addition to the demographic indicators I added routinely collaborate so does your department routinely collaborate with any organizations um we can keep it as collaborate but I think it could get the the list could get very long of multiple organizations that departments might interact with uh versus like the ones where most of our resources are pulled together with specific routine organizations so what how do you all feel about that uh we can reword it I mean when you ask when you ask let me let me be clear when you're when we're asking um I remember this question when we are we're asking does your department routinely collaborate with any organizations break that down for me I feel like we had we wanted to know what um organizations like the departments were working with on like a community point.

Okay I remember I remember I just don't yeah okay okay like if there's anybody that works with like if for example like one hood is the one that I'm thinking of off the top of my head if anyone works directly with like a community based I feel like that's what that conversation had kind of been leaning towards but I really don't remember.

Okay.

I I was I was thinking towards that too but I I was just like you I was don't really remember I think that could be more Pacific number six number six because that can go multiple ways that question.

I I almost just wonder if asking for the name of the organization and then we can figure out I mean put less of a burden on them I guess to figure out like what the I don't want them to take a guess as to someone's gender identity or or how they identify so it might be better for us to just identify those organizations and then do the follow-up ourselves.

Yeah I agree I agree with Rachel on that.

Okay great so we can reword this and do we want to keep it as routinely collaborate or just like any level of collaboration any level I would say honestly any level because it just it would just be nice to know if there's any organizations that like we just honestly just don't know of I agree.

Okay sounds good.

So we'll change it to does your department collaborate with any organizations and we'll strike all like the second part for demographics right like community organizations.

Yeah just your department change it in real time okay