Good morning and welcome to the standing committees meeting for Wednesday, April 15th, 2026.

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

Our first order of business is roll call.

Will the clerk please take the roll?

Mr.

Charland, Mr.

Calhew, Miss Gross, Mr.

Lavelle.

Here.

Mr.

Mosley.

Here.

Miss Warwick.

Miss Salonetro.

Here.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

Here.

I have members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is public comment.

I would like to remind all speakers that the rules of counsel state that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before city council, and profanity will not be permitted.

Please state your name and neighborhood for the record.

You will have three minutes to speak.

Only a few accepted agreement and have taken action and launch an investigation to a clothing company that utilized it.

Um the average consumer would hop out of water cooking clothing that we vote on the country.

I become extremely curious about one still called and the public thought.

Thank you very much.

This is a letter to the Post Gazette, a letter to the publisher.

Dear John Blockhead, a Pittsburgh judge stated that you negotiated in bad faith.

That should be your family slogan.

I told your editor, John Craig, that Dick Cheney was responsible for the Gulf War illness that killed over 30,000 Army soldiers.

Craig laughed at me and said, I don't care.

That's something you have to deal with on judgment day.

Your paper cheated Larry Fitzgerald out of the Heisman Trophy.

Ron Cook complained that it was Fitzgerald's fault.

He couldn't catch the football when he was always double covered.

Your featured columnist, phony Tony Norman, a racist, obese black man, would insult and make fun of white people once a week for 20 years.

He called me a joke.

But when I saw him on the street, he ran into the PG building and had a security guard come outside.

I was there waiting for my sister who had business to do at the state office building.

Phony Tony's favorite musician is Barry Mandelow.

Phony Tony's favorite movie is Woody Allen's Annie Hall.

How many black men would admit to that in public?

I made Pittsburgh City Councilman Alan Hertzburg change his vote and create the Pittsburgh Civilian Police Review Board.

I exposed vocal corruption and sent a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller concerning Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy and Pittsburgh Judge Richard King having sex with a minor at the Sheridan Center Station Square.

I told Muller that Allegheny County Pete DeFasio was stealing drugs from dealers to supply his prostitution ring.

Pittsburgh TV station, WPXI, stopped Andy Gasmire from exposing De Fasio's prostitution ring.

Muller destroyed the letter I mailed to him, and he mailed it back to me.

Your paper black that you are one of the best.

That's an oxymoron, and the emphasis on moron.

Good riddance, John Blockhead.

Now I've been coming to these meetings for 30 years now.

These are serious criminal acts.

He makes fun of me.

KDK has been committing criminal acts against my family for generations.

Westinghouse owned KDKA.

My grandfather worked at Westinghouse.

KDK gave a Catholic priest, Charles Owen Rice, a so-called labor priest, a brand new car to lie about my grandfather and call him a communist.

My time's up, but so is the post-gazette.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Yvonne F.

Brown.

I live at 715 Mercer Street.

I told you up in Bedford, the high rise with 190 people.

Yesterday I missed speaking.

But I saw that you had quite a few proclamations.

I think about 12 or so.

And one was for Chris Moore.

I had um when he retired in February, I had brought this sign, and it says Chris Moore, an icon and institution.

He announced his retirement from KKA Radio.

And that's final show was in February, February the 15th.

And I brought that up because he is, I believe, one of the best reporters that we have had.

Unlike Andy Sheehan, who did the um interview at 1015 with Miss Warwick.

She don't care.

We first started at 10.

10 o'clock.

And there's no way you should be doing interview.

Now I love furlough, because Furlow would go out and they would try to get an interview.

He says, No, it's city council time.

Now I will see you after city council, but I will not give you an interview during city council time.

That was a furlough, and I believe that it shouldn't have been done.

Now also, in the building where I live, there are foreigners, and this one lady, I believe she was Japanese.

But it was years, years ago, because I've been in in um the high rise about 15 years.

But it's been some years ago that this Chinese woman came to me and she was trying to explain something to me.

Well, she couldn't speak English real well.

But I knew another woman that was her same race.

So I went to her house and she came and she was explaining to me that the man was dropping something on her head, and she went to the manager, the manager said call the police.

So when I talked to the, they talked to each other, they're talking, and she said in her language, and she said, police, and others said, no, no, no, no, call the police.

See, what the manager didn't understand is that Japanese in different countries, they're afraid of the police.

They are afraid.

So what I did was come down and I told you, which I said that you just need to call all of the part apartments that there are foreign people in and have their sponsor or their interpreter to tell them if they are to call the police, not us.

And they would tell them how to do it.

Do you understand?

We need to know how other people live in other countries so that we can make it better for all of us.

We need to know because we can die.

Lack of knowledge sometimes causes death.

Now we have two little children sitting here, and they are uh my time is up when the buzzer rings, I have to stop.

Sound inside?

You on that side?

Hold your fine.

Good morning, council.

My name is Shalivia Thomas Murchison.

I reside at 115 East 11th Avenue in Homestead PA.

Um, I came to you guys a couple of weeks ago, and I came last week as well to express um to express my feelings.

I'll start to prepare things for you guys to polish it up, but this is not me polished at all.

This is what you see after a traumatic experience, okay.

My family has been traumatized by these foreigners, if you want to lack a better wording, that you're allowing to come into our state and into our communities, into our workforce, because you do not know enough about those people other than the bleeding heart that we all have for whoever, whosoever.

But we need to vet these organizations, these do-gooders, these developers, much more for lack of better term, evasively.

Like what kind of Spanish are you?

What country did you come from?

No, not all of them are coming from Puerto Rico.

Okay, not all of them are coming from Puerto Rico.

And when they come here to this country here, we have been taught and we teach our children love of country, love of God.

We've been teaching this to our children for generations.

They come to America with no real allegiance to that flag there.

And we do not know enough about how they live in their countries to allow them to come here and alter how we live here and what we stand for.

My daughter here, my granddaughter here, you are currently looking at three generations.

This is her arm.

This is what I teach to my children to say no to drugs.

But if you're bringing in cartels because they have the money and it's laundry real good, and we they promise you, oh, we're gonna put luxury, high quality luxury town homes.

And you say, okay, that sounds really good.

But at the end of the day, it's the people like us that have to come back to you guys and say, listen, that was the breach of the contract because they did not give what they said they were going to give it.

They did not give high quality luxury town homes.

No one is against that.

It sounds like uh say planned parenthood.

Sounds good until they start cutting people open to take their baby's organs.

Affordable housing.

Sounds good.

We're good.

Like we're supposed to be doing that until they start displacing homeowners to put up these high quality luxury homes that are nothing more than the projects, even worse.

So these are the things that I teach my children.

Be about what you say you're about.

If that's what you're really about, making the community better, revitalizing the community, then be about that.

And when they're not, it's our job to come to you guys and make them stand on what they said they were gonna do on paper.

Yes.

I appreciate you guys.

I have other things to do.

But my wife said what is your slogan?

Thank you very much.

Say no to drugs.

Say no to drugs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nothing adjust today.

Come on.

Next speaker, please.

A lot of y'all here today.

Good morning, Council of an Action.

I'm here again asking what's going on with the children.

I've been asking that, and now there's a news, whatever article, all that about the two people that was attacked on the bus by the group of teens.

Like that's the only thing that y'all can come up with is to make sure they're not around for the NFL dress.

And then they're going to go right back to doing the same thing.

Where is the rec centers?

Where is the at least like I said, if y'all don't have funding for that, fund some liaisons, fund something, other than y'all pockets back to the stuff that y'all spent and getting $20 back for lunch that y'all spent, stuff like that.

That's one of the bills.

Put real stuff on the agenda.

Like for the kids that's struggling.

I'm sure in y'all neighborhoods, y'all have rec centers and organizations for y'all kids to go to.

We don't have that.

That's why our kids are acting this way.

My kids aren't because I'm gonna make sure that they go to an after-school program or somewhere else that is going to be good for them.

They still get A's and B's, all five of my children were good in school because I made sure and tried hard through all my struggles.

But there's other parents and there's parents that are not around.

There's kids that are in group homes where they're not being held accountable by other people.

So it's not about blaming parents and blaming us.

Bring back shoeman if that's what y'all want to do, because there is bad kids out here, but there's good kids that's just walking past.

There's good kids that might see their friend and they start talking and a fight starts and they're standing there, and now the whole group is bad.

Like just imagine if it was y'all kids going through it or just walking through downtown and something happened, or just your kids sitting on the bus and being attacked by these kids because these kids are they are bad.

I'm not gonna say that they're good, but they're bad because they're being influenced by nothing, no adults.

Who's gonna how are they gonna get good or be good if they're being influenced by other kids?

There's no adults, so if y'all can't fund rec centers but keep building all these places like everybody's saying, that's not gonna be good for us, then fund people to stand downtown.

Fund them, give the bums 10 dollars to actually fight with the kids or stop the kids or something, like do something because we are getting scared, everybody's getting scared, or move y'all to place down there in the middle, so y'all gotta walk around at lunchtime around them kids.

And I'm sure y'all come up with some type of uh resolution, other than the cop standing around ready to shoot one of them.

So can we please just do something for these kids?

Because they're kids, they're not even teenagers, these are nine, ten, eleven-year-old kids.

Three seconds, four seconds, like you.

Like by you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

Cerese Taylor, the missing child special agent sunshine.

Lord, thank you for who you created me to be.

Please help those who look in the mirror and don't like what they see.

I pray they will see you in Jesus' name.

Amen.

The title of my message today is Needing the Light.

We do need the light on these children.

These children are our future.

And the future generations of these children have to be protected from people like y'all, corrupt government officials.

Like it's got to stop.

And it's going to stop by a force of nature.

Called the most high God.

And if you don't have them in your heart, you will not be protected from this force of nature.

The wrath of God is real.

Y'all don't believe it is.

Severe judgment, Mosley.

Severe.

Whatever problems you're having, they're going to come to the light.

We need more light on it.

The bell.

The problem's coming for you.

The light is a million watts right now.

How are you a part of the Pratt community and you don't have pride in your part in it?

Like, why don't you come out and show us?

Because you don't like it.

That's why you hide it.

It's terrible.

Look in the mirror.

Please.

Deeper at who you really are.

If you continue to hide it from others.

I also want to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance and why I don't participate in it.

The part that says liberty and justice for all is a promise of freedom and fairness for every citizen, regardless of background.

Really?

That's why I don't participate.

Because there's no justice for all, especially these children.

They're not getting any justice.

They're being targeted by voodoo practitioners for what they have.

And y'all guys are living off of it.

And paying them brad money, giving them brad money.

Yeah, we'll get the house, we'll get this.

Then you kidnap our children, abduct them, adopt them.

Yeah, this is what happened to me.

This is my story.

I can stand here and tell it.

My child adopted, adopted, abducted for a check by her baby daddy's mother, sister, somebody adopted her.

Now they're getting a check, and they're trying to make me look illegitimate.

My daughter's 35 years old.

I raised them.

They didn't.

Now they choose to get a check.

Really?

In Jesus' name, I pray for their forgiveness.

In Jesus' name.

I pray for their forgiveness and their health and their strength.

Lord, thank you for who you are.

Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers?

Seeing no further speakers, we will move on to our standing committee's agenda.

And the first committee is the Finance and Law Committee.

We have deferred papers.

Will Madam Clerk please read all papers together?

These are our budget bills.

Deferred papers, Bill 278.

Resolution amending resolution 933 of 2024, which reappropriated Federal American Rescue Plan Funding by updating the approved projects as outlined in Exhibit A, version 10.

Bill 279.

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

Bill 280 resolution amending resolution 841 of 2025, which authorized appropriations, salaries, and capital expenditures of the Parks Trust Fund for the 2026 fiscal year, beginning January 1, 2026, by increasing the spend amount by 500,000.

And Bill 285.

Resolution amending resolution 835 of 2025, which made appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business of the city of Pittsburgh and for meeting the debt charges thereof for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026.

Motion to approve all bills.

Second.

Thank you.

So here's how we're gonna do this, and I would like to ask uh budget director Kirsten Walmsley to join us at the table in case her uh knowledge and information is needed.

So we do have um accompanying documents for each of the bills, including each individual line item amendment as a reminder to council and for the sake of the public.

We did take preliminary votes on each of these amendments, line item amendments last week.

That was not the official vote.

This is the official line item vote.

Um during typical budget season, we have a special meeting for this exact purpose.

Given that this is a budget reopener, we are integrating it into our council standing committee's meetings.

So we will be taking uh this similar votes that we took last week on each of the amendments, and you have the ARPA uh amendments as well.

The last thing I'll say is that any amendments to the amendments that were technical in nature from the administration have been integrated in here.

So for instance, there were two line items that had to be changed or removed.

Um those have been been made, and that's in here.

It's reflected in here.

Um so with that um is there any discussion prior to uh each of these line items.

Seeing none, we will move on to amendments to um the summary of amendments.

We have uh we'll take the first two from council first and then move on to the remainder.

So will the clerk please read amendment one.

On 285, please.

Number one is move vehicle funding from Bureau of Emergency Medical Services to the Bureau of Fire and Department of Public Works, Bureau of Environmental Services, budget neutral in 2026 and across five-year plan.

Is there a motion?

Second.

Discussion.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah.

So um, you know, we talked about this at length last time.

I don't think we need to belabor it again.

Um, however, uh just to clarify again for the public.

Um UPM, the taxpayers put in 10 million dollars in new taxes into vehicles.

Uh UPMC made a donation of five million dollars into EMS vehicles, and then we had money that was in operating budget for EMS vehicles.

Uh we do not I uh apparently we don't need as many EMS vehicles as as that money would account for.

And um however, we have dire needs in other uh departments for vehicles.

So um my strong feeling is that we should not be moving this money out of vehicles, we should be keeping it in the pot for vehicles in general.

Um I understand that in the outer years uh the administrations made a commitment or or said, you know, said that they are committed to keeping that money in vehicles.

However, there's no guarantee, right?

If it just goes into paygo, there's no guarantee.

Um so my feeling is certainly for 2026 and 2027 that money should stay in vehicles, uh, which you know, as the public knows with um our inability to get the snow up.

We have uh fire stations with trucks that are um um not functional.

We have garbage trucks, uh, you know, almost a fourth of our garbage trucks that uh have been broken down at a given time.

Uh our forestry department is de desperate for vehicles, um, and and so on and so forth.

So um again, not gonna belabor this.

Uh I, you know, the taxpayers expect us to provide the city services that they pay for and that they are now paying more for, and we cannot provide those services without adequate and consistent and long-term vehicle funding.

So it's great that we that that you know everyone has ponied in some money for you know, taxpayers, UPMC, a little bit from PM PNC for 2026, but that needs to continue in 2027, and um that's not what's happening here.

So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, um, I just want to make sure that we're having a full uh understanding of what's happening here, and I'd like to invite the uh budgeting from OMB to come up if they like.

Imagine there's probably some other questions that might come up throughout the packet here, maybe.

Imagine there's probably some more questions that might come up throughout the packet here, maybe so.

Uh sure.

My name is Rhea Price.

Um I'm current uh the current acting director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Elizabeth Sarcon, assistant director for operating and special revenue.

Uh just general question.

Are we decreasing the amount of um that we're spending on vehicles that council approved in uh 2025 for the 2026 budget?

Um not the paygo amount.

Um, but uh yes, there was funding in the operating budget under uh EMS each year, it was uh slightly less than two million dollars each year.

And um as uh councilperson Warwick uh had mentioned um due to the UPMC donation of uh five million dollars each year, um and because we had so many critical needs in other departments, um we decided to remove the two million dollars in 2026 and 2027 and use that funding uh to fund other needs.

And um as she has all uh already mentioned as well, um we moved that two million dollars in 2028, 2029, and 2030 into a pay-go line uh that would be transferred uh to the capital budget to be used uh by the ELA in those years for vehicles.

But for this year, we would actually spend less than what council approved, like that money from UPMC or PNC.

Oh no, no, no, um, the money from UPMC um more than compensates that.

Okay, um Yeah, if you could just elaborate because that there's this narrative that we're there's this narrative that we're getting what we've uh you know voted on, the council voted on in 2025, and I'm just really uh beside myself about that.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand because like the other move would be uh to take away from I don't know, I saw the amendment was like the takeaway from like bridge maintenance and stuff, which we have bridges falling down.

I don't think we want that that narrative to happen.

So we are not like you're filling the bucket with the money from the nonprofits.

Correct, yes.

Okay, so we're not de we're not defunding the the fleet here.

No.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thanks.

I um I very often uh you know agree with Councilwoman Warwick on her analyses and and and and relish her or like value her input and her team's work.

But I have to I'm gonna kind of say the same thing I think Councilman Wilson just said, which is that our budgets um again for the public and for as a reminder to ourselves.

The are authorizing not you know we still have to take a second vote, but it's a a plan for really the next year.

Right.

So in 2025 we budgeted for what we're actually gonna spend in 2026.

All of the rest of the four years is kind of like good practice, like you make the five-year plan.

But it really isn't authorized spending.

Right?

It's projections that are good to do and informative for the public and informative for us and good administrating.

But this is really the budget amendments to what to spend in 2026.

And we are not decreasing the spending on vehicles in 2026.

In fact, we're increasing it maybe a little.

How much is the increase in the spending on vehicles for 2026?

Um it's at least three million dollars because that's the difference between um the five million dollars that UPMC donated and the two million dollars.

Can we say it now again?

Again, for the public.

So like my next door neighbor understands the math.

The first number that we were gonna spend for 2026 on vehicles was what?

Total.

Don't say it in three different numbers.

Oh, um you can do it.

You can do it.

No, I don't have that number right in front of me.

I would sorry, I I'll have to get back to you on that.

I bet you guys can make someone here can do it.

It's it's like 1.9 million just under two million dollars.

Was the first plan?

What's the first plan?

So again, oh, sorry, I thought you meant the total amount that we were planning on spending on vehicles.

Let's just say it again.

For the line in EMS, which we are shifting, it was just under two million dollars.

1.9 million, yes.

That was the first plan.

And now the new plan to spend if we pass if we pass this today.

And now the new plan to spend, if we pass if we pass this today, the new plan for 2026 to spend on those vehicles is 5 million.

So I I this is a situation where like both people are right.

We should also worry about the next year and the next year and the next year.

But I don't feel like we have consensus about how we want to do that and what model that should take.

Councilman Warwick also has other pet legislation pending about committing and setting aside some funds.

So I I feel like we still are gonna have that conversation.

We are definitely gonna have that conversation about 2027 and 2028 and 2029.

But again, as I said last week, or on the the mock vote or whatever we're calling the first round of votes, that um I am concerned that we not take away from the kind of 60 or so other budget lines that are critically important, as one of the mentions was you know, bridge maintenance.

I certainly have bridges that need those funds so that they don't lessen in their ranking.

Like they need maintenance, they need maintenance now so that they can stay in good condition and not go down to fair or poor condition.

So I'm gonna support these today, and again, with all due respect, um, I almost uh I really value Councilman Warren's with Councilwoman Warwick's input.

I think she's right to hold our feet to the fire, and we're gonna continue that conversation, but I'll be supportive of this amendment today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Second round, Councilmember Warbuck.

Yeah, so I mean, I do want to clarify, right?

The point of this, right?

Is that what we are seeing in this in these amendments is the deprioritization of the now in this case it's EMS, right?

So we're like, we're desperate, we're desperate, we're desperate for ambulances.

And so UPMC says, great, here's five million dollars to spend on ambulances in 2026.

And so we say, oh good, thank you so much for these five million dollars.

You know what?

We actually had two million dollars to spend, so we're not gonna spend that on ambulances anymore.

We're gonna spend them on something else.

Because that is, and again, this is not malicious.

I want to be clear, this is not malicious.

This is you know, these are tough times, and we're trying to move money around.

But the reality is is that this practice, what we're seeing sort of in a mini version right here in these budget amendments, is what has been happening every single year for like 20 years, and it has resulted in us having like this total crisis of vehicles and raising taxes to help fix it and scrambling and you know what I mean?

And so now we have all this money, you know, like 20 million or so in 2026, and no plan for how to so what's that means?

So that means in 10 more years when it's nobody on this council's problem anymore, maybe so I don't know, you know, or or some other administration or some other council's problem that uh now all these vehicles that we buy in 2026 are all at the same time gonna be broken and spending 400,000 a month on repairs because we had no plan.

We had no dedicated funding year after year.

And I get it, this is not you know, the these amendments that I proposed, right, to pull 300,000 from bridge maintenance or pull 200,000 from roof repairs or pull 150 from you know from the city cuts and you know, these little these little amendments.

That's not council's job, right?

That's not that's not good practice for just one council member to say, oh yeah, I'm just gonna look at your budget and snip a little here and snip a little there.

That is that is a bad idea.

But that's our only option here at council when an administration, not just this administration, but any administration comes.

So when our directors come year after year after year saying we don't have the vehicles we need, we don't have the vehicles we need.

This council needs to act to ensure long term that there is dedicated funding for vehicles.

And I get that this is you know, this is sort of a political um conversation more than a practical conversation about this budget today, right now.

But we are seeing this demonstrated in real time, how you can always push off vehicles.

You can always cut a little bit off vehicles, you can always get an extra year out of that garbage truck.

You can always get an extra five years out of that out of that um fire truck, and you can always do that, do that, do that, until all of a sudden you can't.

And the streets can't get plowed, and neighborhoods like Oakland and downtown go a full week without a ladder truck, and garbage is you know, and you have a quarter of your of your garb of your your refuse fleet on a given day out of out of service.

And garbage is made, you know, and you have a quarter of your of your garb of your your refuse fleet on a given day out of out of service.

Our workers can't can't work under these conditions.

And I just feel like again.

But this is this is about the conversation.

And this is about the need for dedicated funding for vehicles for the long term.

Not this administration, but administrations in the future.

Because vehicles are always the thing that gets cut.

So they're the thing that we rely on most to actually deliver our service, you know, outside of our people, right?

Outside of the the workers, it's the vehicles, right?

That's how we deliver our services, the vast majority of our services to residents.

So okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockhill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um well, I first just want to start by saying nobody's more active than me as to the fleet goes.

I had two post agendas going back three or four years.

But the awareness to the crisis that we are in as far as our vehicles go.

I've been serving on the equipment leasing authority board for I want to say six years now.

Um always promoting that we get new vehicles.

I think knowing the director, um Furman, uh, and the consensus as the room goes in the equipment leasing authority board meetings, that everybody would love a steady funding stream.

I I would prefer the steady funding stream.

However, the times that we're in and the unexpected debt that we did not see coming requires us to move money.

And I'm thankful that we were able to secure, the mayor was able to secure that funding from the nonprofits in order to give us the flexibility that we are exercising right now.

So I think this administration's made it clear that the fleet is top of mind and the highest of priorities.

We've I think we've demonstrated that.

I think they've demonstrated that.

So I have no problem with moving these monies from that.

Especially knowing overall, we're still not spending less than than what we set out to do.

Thankfully, we have the flexibility to move that money.

Um in the outer years, as councilwoman gross said, you know, uh, they're just a projection.

We know that our debt's going to be coming down in the future.

I think also I want the mayor to have the opportunity.

I uh knowing the mayor like I do, he's he's not done, you know, trying to secure funds for fleet.

I think that's ideal.

I think the nonprofits like that their money's going into something substantial that they see actually delivers their patients, right?

I mean, so it just makes sense.

I'd like to study fund to see come from the nonprofits.

And maybe maybe the mayor will get us there.

I don't know.

But you know, I know uh, you know, he's secured these funds.

Thankfully, it gives us a flexibility to move and do what we have to do to cover the unexpected expenses that we none of us for saw.

And um that's a position we're in.

So someday in the perfect world, I think four or five years down the road, maybe even sooner that we could have a dedicated fund just toward fleet.

But what was most important to me, because I speak to the you know, EMS fire and police.

Uh I lobbied hard for many police cruisers a few years back.

None of us were really none of you, I think we're in the position.

But but what was important to me was fire.

Um, you know, because of the delay time that it takes to get their apparatus and their equipment.

So at our last ELA meeting that um Sharon or um what's Sharon's last name?

Warner.

Yeah, Warner, yeah.

So uh she made it clear that the bulk of the monies left, which is somewhere on a little north of seven million dollars, will be used for fire.

And I know that makes their representatives happy and it makes me comfortable too.

Yes, we have gaps, we have holes to fill, we're gonna need vehicles still.

Um we'll find a way to do that.

But for now, we have to pay other bills with some of that money.

So that's just my thoughts on it, and uh I appreciate it, madam chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Thanks.

We can go back and forth.

Um, you know, with comments, because I'm just gonna you know, every time I hear that I'm about to take a boat to deprioritize the fleet, I'm gonna correct that so we can go back and forth.

Uh but the fact is we're not doing that, and we should correct that narrative.

We were given uh we revised last year the amount we should be spending each year.

We're doing that in here, we're continuing to do that, we're feeling that money, whether you think we should get more money from nonprofits or less money.

I don't know, I have no idea, you know, what the public thinks uh on that.

We didn't have some big engagement on that, but obviously everyone thinks they should pay their fair share.

And here we're starting to see uh you know efforts to do that.

But that's beside the point because we're just literally looking at the amount that we approved is not gonna it's only gonna go up.

Uh but we're not deprioritizing, so uh just want to make sure we correct that narrative since council is a body uh and I wasn't included that took steps to you know increase taxes and make hard decision, and I think this council should be celebrated for that, especially the members who you know uh took those, took those hard hits.

So I think I think it's very I don't know.

Like I said, I'm just beside myself we continue to try and talk about this narrative that we're deprioritizing when we actually follow through with the advice of our budget leadership and prior years, and uh we committed to the amount of money, and that money is still going forward to fund the vehicles that we expect to be funded.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So my take on all of this is that um we are doing basically all we can for 2026 to fund vehicles, and yes, it's correct, and the out years it doesn't look great for vehicles.

That said, this line of thinking that somehow council members exerting their power each year to amend the budget that might be something separate from what the mayor's administration put forth is somehow reckless or not our role is something I don't agree with.

It's it's literally our core function to pass a budget and to and to hold the purse strings and to challenge the mayor when we disagree.

If our mayor puts forward a budget for 2027 or any other out years that we don't that we believe does not adequately prioritize vehicles, it's our job to challenge that and to change that.

And I expect this council and this particular makeup of council with the history that we have together last year and this year on uh some tough decisions around fleet and budget to to make that just dis decision, um that that um responsible decision to fund our budget or fund our fleet.

Um, you know, uh when I look back to my time on council, uh I really am grateful to Councilman Coghill for raising the alarm bells on fleet years ago, right?

And sometimes it takes time.

It's like implementation theory.

Like it takes time for it to kind of trickle down and like really sink into our brains.

And I I really appreciate Councilman Wilman Warwick for um taking the mantle on that um as well.

It's incredibly important, and we're at a crisis point, and we're handling it as best we can during this these very, very lean years.

And um, you know, eight years ago, it was what the crisis was landslides, tens of millions of dollars focused on landslides.

How are we supposed to do it all when we have landslides to fund and uh vehicles that still need to be bought?

How are we supposed to um you know prioritize vehicles when we have bridges falling down?

I think we have a handle on many of those things.

We don't know what emergencies are going to happen, and we have to still continue to fund vehicles and fleet.

And again, I would expect this council to continue to fund fleet now and into the future given our history.

Um and at some point, vehicles won't be the emergency anymore, and I get it.

Like if we don't have a structure in place to prioritize it 20 years from now, council members might not prioritize it, and that is gonna be their lesson to learn.

But I also um am skeptical of a trust fund for every single need, a bridge trust fund, a landslide trust fund, uh, you know, vehicle trust fund.

Like it's our job to figure out where the very limited funds that are not already obligated go, and we should do that.

And future council should do that.

Um, you know, until we have the population um that our infrastructure calls for 500, 600,000, we're we're going to be playing whack-a-mole with our capital needs and our infrastructure needs.

We're gonna have to make hard decisions and prioritize, and it's not gonna be perfect.

But this is where we are, and I think we're doing a decent job of um funding vehicles and fleet for 2026, and we just have to keep on it for tw for future years as well.

So I would expect that for future budget cycles, including next year's.

Absolutely.

So that's uh six million dollars more than uh than council pass at the end of December.

Thank you.

Councilman Mosley.

Uh I'd like to echo uh the sentiments of my esteemed colleague uh councilman gross that you know two things can be true at the same time.

Um clearly, you know, based on the information you know, we were just given, you know, I'm proud to say I was part of the council that made a historic investment into in our fleet.

Um, you know, and uh and I appreciate uh councilwoman Warwick's um tenacity and you know and dogged uh commitment to continuing uh those kind of historic investments in the fleet, and I do think that you know that is something that we have to remain vigilant on, you know, uh throughout the year and as we move to budget season uh late later this year, but um, but I do want the public to know that you know it was this council that that took the historic step of making um a historic investment um as well as the work of the new administration adding to that historic investment, but also that our work is not done.

You know, clearly um one year of historic investments isn't going to fill the gap, is what's been said um around this table uh a number of times, and you know it is it's a good start, um, but it's not a finish.

So you know we have to you know continue our advocacy, we have to continue our vigilance and pushing for more historic investments over the years so that eventually um like councilwoman Strasberger said that this one won't be the problem we won't be playing whack-a-mole, so to speak, uh, with a fleet, and maybe we'll can find uh some other area um in in the in the city budget to play whack-a-mole with, but uh you know, but for now, I think it is important just to note uh you know, for the record that uh it was this council that made a historic investment in the fleet, you know, and began the process uh of doing the long work to bring our fleet back to where it is, but our work isn't done, and we'll continue the these conversations um as the year go on to ensure that in 27, 28, 29 in the out years uh we continue to make those investments in the fleet.

Thank you.

Okay, with that all in favor of amendment one, please say aye.

All right, aye.

All right, as in a as a like isn't that we would know on that.

As a as a reminder, amendment one would negate uh the mayor's um several different so an I vote on amendment one would um negate some of the mayors and an uh a no vote would not all in favor of amendment one, please say aye.

Aye.

Uh no abstentions?

No, no.

No's have it.

Amendment two.

In order to keep 2026-2027 vehicle funding in the budget decreases to other administrative amendments necessary.

Same way, right?

We need a motion.

Uh anyone, a motion at least we want to approve if I'm voting.

I'm voting.

You can still motion to approve in a second just to discuss it.

Yeah, and a second.

We gotta go through all this.

Second.

Second discussion.

Oh, I know I mean this discussion.

This is all.

So um this is similar to amendment one.

All in favor of amendment two, please say aye.

Aye.

No, no.

Abstentions, no, no's have it.

Thank you.

Uh amendment three.

Increase payroll preparation tax for two thousand and twenty-six, eight million dollar increase in two thousand and twenty-six.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No's abstentions.

Ayes have it.

Amendment four.

Decrease charges for services to account for the ARLE funding not anticipated until 2027, 1,868, 832 decrease in 2026.

Approved.

Second.

Discretion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment four, please say aye.

Aye.

No.

Abstentions.

Ayes have it.

Affirmative recommendation.

Number five.

Update all ask me 2719 and Teamsters position salaries across departments based on 2026 agreements.

Budget neutral in 2026.

Five-year impact $2,073,758 and 95 cent increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

No.

Abstentions.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment six.

Increase funding for premium pay in the Commission on Human Relations.

$2,000 increase in 2026.

5-year impact, $10,000 increase.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Who knows?

Abstentions.

Ayes have it.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment seven.

Increase funding for bridge maintenance in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

$800,000 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $3,200,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment eight.

Increase funding for premium pay in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

$100,000 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact is a $500,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment nine.

Decrease 2026 funding for the ARLE machinery and equipment in the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

$1,028,832 decrease in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 10.

Increase 2026 funding for natural gas in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Administration.

$300,000 increase in 2026.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 11.

Increase 2026 premium pay in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations to account for the February 2026 snow event.

$500,000 increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 13.

In 12.

I apologize.

Amendment 12.

Okay.

Increase 2026 funding in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations to account for smok for emergency snow removal services during the February 2026 snow event.

1,706,755 and 89 cent increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 13.

Add one heavy equipment operator to the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

$79,447 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $422,131 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 14.

Add one coordinator.

Support services to the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Operations, $86,388 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $442,743 increase.

Motion approved.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 15.

Remove two laborer positions from the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

A $128,342 decrease in 2026.

Five-year impact of $682,282 decrease.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 16.

Remove one neighborhood engagement coordinator from the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

With the five-year impact of $411,194 decrease.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 17.

Decrease the 2026 funding for vehicles in the Department of Public Works Bureau of Operations.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 17, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 18.

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

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 19.

Add one director, DPW, facilities in the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Facilities, $155,000 increase in 2026.

5-year impact, $792,764 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 20.

Add funding to the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Facilities for Roof Replacements and Boiler Rooftop Unit Replacements.

$2,556,352 increase in 2026.

5-year impact.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 20, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 21.

Upgrade one division chief to assistant chief in the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services.

$11,227 increase in 2026.

The five-year impact of $57,320 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment $21, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment $2.

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

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

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

No.

One no.

Noted.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 23.

Make a technical correction in a Bureau of Fire for the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief rates.

$17,239.44 increase in 2026.

5-year impact of $103,360 and $91 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment $4.

Remove the emergency management allowance in the Bureau of Fire.

$10,000 decrease in 2026 with a five-year impact of a $50,000 decrease.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 25.

Update the 2026 active health care numbers across departments to $5 million increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's it's it's uh imperative that we update uh these numbers and also continue to put money into the health care buckets that we were realized uh weren't funded.

So I appreciate the administration figuring this out.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 25, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 26.

Add funding in the Department of Human Resources to begin restoring funding to the Viva Trust Fund that was drawn down in 2025.

$3,500,000 increase in 2026.

5-year impact, a $7 million increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 26, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 27.

Increase the 2026 funding for retiree health care in the Department of Human Resources, $6 million increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 27, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 28.

Upgrade one director of human resources to Chief of Labor Relations, Director of Human Resources in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service.

$4,409 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $22,454 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

No, I affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 29.

Upgrade one, assistant director to deputy director and the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service.

$7,408 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $36,928 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 30.

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

$71,546 decrease in 2026 with a five-year impact of $370,000, $308 decrease.

Motion approved.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 31.

Upgrade three HR specialists from 15G to 17 G in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service.

$30,000 $6 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $153,868 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 31, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 32.

Remove one pre-11 call center representative from the Department of Innovation and Performance.

$61,398 decrease in 2026.

Five-year impact of $325,000, $188 decrease.

Motion approved.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 32, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 33.

Remove one systems administrator from the Department of Innovation and Performance, $96,000 decrease in 2026.

Five year impact of $493,000, $770 decrease.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 33, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 34.

Increase funding for judgments in the Department of Law, $7,250,000 increase in 2026.

$5 year impact, $13,750,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 34, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 35.

Increase funding for outside council in the Department of Law.

$500,000 increase in 2026.

$5 year impact, $2 million, $500,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 35, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 36.

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

$300,000 increase in 2026.

$5 year impact.

Motion approved.

Second discussion.

Discussion.

Yeah, I just wanted to, you know, I we we did talk about this last time.

I understand that City Cuts is a great program that uh, you know, that a lot of folks uh uh appreciate having at the city.

Um two concerns.

I mean, one is, and I and I'm I'm actually not going to be supportive of this simply because one, I think this is something that a foundation that this feels like like something that our foundations could step up and provide for, or our nonprofits, you know, we have a number of nonprofits.

Um it's just a small amount of money, uh, but you know all we're talking.

I mean that you know that's that's what makes up a budget, lots of little pieces of money, right?

And uh this really does feel like a nice to have.

Um uh I would be supportive if uh there was some kind of guarantee from the administration that this was income-based, right?

Um, but um the re and I know in my district that there are a number of folks who who take advantage of this program, right?

They call, they sign up, they get in line first, and that's the way the program works.

And um, so it you know there are many folks who do not take advantage of this program either because they don't know about it or they you know don't sign up who who really could use that how you know whatever it is to get your law and cut, you know, they really do not have those financial means.

Um but so just kind of at as the program operates uh at the moment where there is no income requirement or you know, requirement to sign up, and also um just kind of that it does feel like a nice to have.

I'm gonna I'm gonna vote no on on this one today.

Thank you.

Further discussion, Councilman McGross.

Um I I actually think it's a great suggestion.

I'm glad we're refunding it.

I think it's a good program.

Um I'm very sensitive in my district to especially seniors who are getting PLI citations because it's done in a predatory manner by people who are trying to get their houses from them.

Um we've had numerous examples, and uh residents are very sensitive to support their neighbors, not always seniors, sometimes people who are just you know under-resourced, right, low income, or um struggling in some other way.

Um, and so what I think we need to is uh is a challenge for the city to do is to discern um when it's uh kind of malicious or weaponized 311 call.

It does happen.

Um it certainly happens sometimes just with feuding neighbors, but sometimes it happens because a flipper wants a house and they're just gonna go after it by any means necessary.

They're gonna pay people to pretend to be a nice young buyer, they're going to um file repeated 311 just because of a loose gutter or a high grass.

Um and it's possible if we are going to administrate um this program differently.

I think we should vote in support of this amendment today, and I think we should fund it.

Um that we you know, is there a way?

I don't know the answer to this, where we can be sensitive to the needs of the household, whether that's income-based or just vulnerability to housing insecurity because someone's trying to rip them off.

Um I don't know how that would work out, um, but it it's just a thought, but I I'm gonna support refunding that program because it is it's part of a complicated dynamic, I think.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 36, please say aye.

Aye no's abstentions, one no.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 37.

Add funding, excuse me, add funding for interns within the office of the mayor, $50,000 increase in 2026, five-year impact, 250,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 37, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 38.

Restore funding for love your block.

Well, excuse me, restore funding for love your block within the office of the mayor, $20,000 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $100,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 38, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 39.

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, budget neutral in 2026 and across five-year plan.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 39, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 40.

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

20,321 increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 40, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 41.

Increase 2026 funding for insurance in the Office of Management and Budget to cover true costs 4 million, $4,650 and 60 cent increase in 2026.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 42.

Add funding to cover the capital portion of 412 Boulevard of the Allies.

250,000 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, 1 million 250,000 increase.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 43.

Downgrade director position to deputy director in the Office of Management and Budget, 39,916 decrease in 2026.

Five-year impact, $27,741 decrease.

Motion approved.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 43, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 44.

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

Budget neutral in 2026 and across the five-year plan.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 44, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 45.

Increase 2026 funding to cover fuel expenses in the Office of Management and Budget.

$550,000 increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 46.

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

$2 million increase in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 47.

Increase funding for pool maintenance in the Department of Parks and Recreation, 184,000 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $920,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 48.

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

$129,177 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $658,000, $931 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 48, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 49.

Add one deputy director, Office of Youth and Families in the Department of Parks and Recreation, $141,708 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $724,939 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Number 50.

Add funding to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the new Office of Youth and Families.

$50,000 increase in 2026 with a five-year impact of $250,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 50, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 51.

Reduce 2,026.

Grants line item in the Department of Parks and Recreation.

$500,000 decrease in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 51, please say aye.

Aye.

No substantions.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 52.

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

$4,341 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $22,160 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Amendment $52, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment $53.

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

$133,949 decrease in 2026.

$5 year impact.

Motion approved.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment $53, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment $44.

Add one head of wellness position to the Bureau of Police beginning in July 2026.

$94,992 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, $876,000, $169 increase.

Motion approved.

Second with discussion.

Discussion.

Yeah, I did want to I, you know, this is a great role.

I know Chief Lando's talked uh a lot about this, right?

The idea that there, I mean, I think the I think the concept is something that he um he rolled out uh in his prior uh position in Maryland and with with much success.

I think the idea is that uh uh a therapist of sorts can actually ride with officers and you know what I mean?

Just throughout the day.

Uh one thing that I would um uh I was at a ceasefire PA event uh a month or so ago, and um there were folks who were doing this this um violence intervention work right in the communities and um uh the folks who are doing that work I just wanted to remind remind folks that that they too are you know the these are also people who wear bulletproof vests when they go to work, right?

These are also folks who are engaging with very volatile you know, potentially volatile situations.

And so um and that also has an you know takes an incredible toll, right?

Uh uh on on one's mental health is just very, very stressful.

So um you know while we ha you know, I'm I'm this is great that we're um bringing this on for our officers, but um if whether looking forward or maybe if there's additional capacity for this one role for this person's role, if those folks who are also doing who are not officers but who are also doing our uh violence intervention, violence interruption work, uh could have access to um to some of this service sometime.

That would that would be nice.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 54, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment fifty-five.

Add funding for a new professional development contract and the Bureau of Police, 103,186 increase in 2026, five year impact, 951,584 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 56.

Add 2026 funding for retiree dental costs at the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service, $90,000 increase in 2026.

Motion approved, second.

Discussion.

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

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 57.

Add PJCBC union benefit for seasonal laborers in the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service, 324,784 and 89 cent increase in 2026.

Five year impact, one million seven hundred twenty-six thousand seven hundred forty-seven dollars and seventy-four cent increase.

Motion approved.

Sir Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 57, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 58.

Replace Financial Systems Administrator with ERP manager beginning in July of 2026 in the office of the controller, $4,083 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $39,240 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 59.

Replace the controller's clerk with senior controllers clerk.

Beginning in July 2026.

In the Office of the Controller, $2,864 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $26,341 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion?

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

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 60.

Add funding for longevity payments for ASME 2719 employees in various departments.

$53,500 increase in 2026, five year impact, $344,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 60, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 61.

Add funding for medical waivers for PJC BC employees in various departments, $40,000 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact, 200,000 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 61, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 62.

Add paygo funding to 2028 through 2030 at a two million dollar increase per year.

Five year impact, six million dollar increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 62, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 63.

For 2026, utilize the fund balance to balance the budget, $6,509,739.57 decrease to beginning reserve balance in 2026.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 64.

Remove one program coordinator city sports in the Stop the Volage Trust Fund, 71,656 decrease in 2026, five year impact, $379,181.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion?

Yes, Councilmember.

I'm gonna abstain on this one.

So just because I you know I know that after school sports are really high priority for the administration, and I'm just not clear on why this one is being cut.

I did I you know, I I guess I wasn't I wasn't able to be briefed on on what this position was and and why it's getting removed.

So I'm just gonna I'm not saying I'm against it, but I'm just gonna abstain.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 64, please say aye.

Abstentions.

One abstention.

Uh and no's uh firmative recommendation.

That's amendment 65.

Remove one recreation leader after school program in the stop the balance trust fund, $58,364 decrease in 2026.

Five-year impact, $380,826.

Motion approved.

Second.

This discussion.

Discussion.

Um yeah, so I um again we talked about this one last time.

Uh I abstained last time uh in hopes to get some more information.

I I'm gonna ask, again, I'm sort of laying myself out to my colleagues here.

I'm really gonna ask uh uh if we could vote no as a body on this one.

So just to explain the background, um last year uh a plan was put in place and budgeted uh to provide five day a week after school programming at two PPS schools.

Um it was gonna be three and then the principal at the third um whatever it ended up being in put in place for for two schools.

Um it was funded through Stop the Violence, and the only reason that it didn't happen, it was actually supposed to happen starting last year in September, right?

It was supposed to happen for the school year.

Um there were some hiring snafu's and some um you know sort of issues with the rollout that it didn't it didn't get moving in time for last school year, but had you know had had things gotten moving, this program would be happening now, right?

Um so uh just to be clear, uh here in Pittsburgh, the city of Pittsburgh uh provides five-day a week after school care at uh our rec centers, and this care is outstate.

It's really great, it's a wonderful program, people love it.

The problem is, of course, that we don't have rec centers in every neighborhood, right?

And so the idea um uh for this pilot came up and it was around Mifflin School, which is in in my district, uh, which is a community that has no rec center, right?

So and and not only does it not have a rec center, it also doesn't have any kind of after school care, right?

There's no church-based care or or other nonprofit providing after school care.

Um, you know, again, the pilot was funded, uh the MOU is signed with PPS, like we are on board to be uh we are approved to be an after-school program provider uh through PPS.

Uh this is ready to go.

Um and also um, you know, we we're hiring a new deputy director position for youth and family in city parks, which I think is a wonderful idea that there will actually be someone who's you know the core of their role is to make sure that these youth and family programs um uh uh roll out smoothly and effectively, and and so this really something to try out.

Um it would be a collaboration, right, between the city of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Public Schools.

Uh the kind of long-term hope, the long-term vision uh would be that you know, we really can collaborate with PPS so that PPS is responsible for the kids from eight to you know eight to three thirty, and the city of Pittsburgh is responsible for the kids in out-of-school hours.

Uh this feels very much in line with um you know with Mayor O'Connor's um desire, you know, to put the focus on families and make Pittsburgh uh a city where all families uh want to come.

And I think that making that providing after school care as sort of as a long-term vision, right?

Providing after school care in our public schools would also make our public schools a place where Pittsburgh families want to send their kids, and that of course draws people to the city, right?

Um so as it is now, if we eliminate this rule, um we would not be able to guarantee five days a week of programming in both schools.

So, you know, either it would be a couple days a week, but I mean as parents, and we have lots of parents of young kids here at the table.

I think that every parent knows that an after school program that is just here and there, just one day a week, maybe two days a week, is not that's not what parents need, right?

Families need five days a week, reliable after school care.

That is the care that we provide in our rec centers, and I really feel so strongly that this pilot um with PPS has has potential, right?

Potential to um to you know to provide a new service to to kids all across the city um that we're not able to provide now because we don't have the buildings for it, right?

So PPS buildings are staff.

Um but the pilot doesn't roll out, you know, and and also the two schools, right?

The the the this is something that we said we would do, right?

We didn't get it off the ground last year.

That was unfortunate.

I wish that we had.

But the funding is there, the positions are there, we just gotta get them filled.

We're having an again, we're gonna, you know, item 49, new deputy director whose you know entire role is going to be focused on just this type of program.

Um so I really would appreciate it if we could keep this position so that we have two positions which would cover both schools.

And um anyway, that's that is my my plea to my fellow council members on this one.

So thank you.

Councilman Wilson, followed by Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

And I I had a good discussion.

We were going to session yesterday, and I thought um a lot about this and just thinking how even with this uh decrease, the pilot doesn't um it's not canceled.

There's still, like you said, there's still the the school that would be um you know where the pilot would take place.

There's a one school.

Uh and if I think back to a program that did start out as a pilot is now very successful, which is Safe Passages.

Uh that started out with uh a grant and also funding from Buell, a state grant and funding from Buell.

And uh I'm really eager to expand that.

That's a program that happens during school time that um you know Sarah's underserved youth uh during um during uh uh lunchtime.

And uh the program was so successful that they've been asked to share the results uh across the country.

Uh that recently came back from out west.

And um excited to bring uh work on that to bring that more in-house at the City of Pittsburgh through the stop the bonds fund.

And um, you know, so I think we're you know, I think if this is successful, then you know we can definitely grow it.

But uh it was it was great how the first one started out with, like I think you know the kind of method that you've been ascribing um for a lot of things, like get some it's a nonprofit funding, and then you know, then invest city dollars in it, so or or always have just like city cuts always have um you know it's supplanted by uh nonprofit or foundation money, but that's that's where the city passages did start.

And so I think this I think this is a good start, even though it would be decreased by one school.

I think uh starting out with a pilot and understanding what we can uh do with um you know do more than just one school in the future.

So I'm supportive of of this amendment and I'm still supportive of the program, but I appreciate uh your interest to immediately um go to two schools, but I think um I want to make sure that we're uh definitely focusing on programs that have uh already been uh tried and true and and looking forward to continuing the good work that happens at uh high schools like Perry High School.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

Um so I'm just gonna uh ask our guests at the table to confirm my math here for budget um item 65.

This is a lot of flying items, by the way, right?

This is we're on budget amendment sixty-five, just for the record.

So again, we're really only voting on expenditures for 2026.

We also forecast out to the outer years, five years.

But if we vote on this, um if we were to vote no on this, uh it would just really affect the expenditures for 2026 and the forecast for the other years, yes?

That's correct.

Okay.

So the expenditure that councilwoman Warwick is asking us to vote no on would retain um $57,000 of expenditures instead of del instead of removing them.

So the first line of budget amendment number 65 is um forty-four thousand five hundred and fifty-four dollars, and then there's nine thousand six hundred and seventy-nine dollars, seven hundred and twenty-three dollars, and then three thousand four hundred and eight dollars, and everything else is in the outer years.

Correct.

And if I add that up, I get fifty-seven thousand dollars.

Um it's actually fifty-eight, three hundred and sixty-four.

Fifty-eight thousand three hundred sixty.

Three hundred and sixty-four, thank you.

So we're being asked by the administration to remove fifty-eight thousand three hundred and sixty-four dollars, which will kill the second location for 2026 of of this project.

No, so interrogatory.

So just to clarify, my understanding in the conversation is that the question is not necessarily that we kill both locations, but that we kill five days a week.

Okay my opinion is as a parent.

That will kill the pilot.

That the after school programming needs to be five days a week.

Okay, so I think I'm gonna take the floor back here.

I think that says that we kill the that kind of ruins the pilot because the pilot was intended to be five days a week.

And honestly, $58,364 is not going to knock this budget out of whack for the the 2026 citywide budget, which is how much are the proposed new expenditures for the total of 2026?

Um around 28 million for the general fund.

But this is now the total city budget for 2026 operating budget.

Oh, you mean uh it's 700 million is 680.

Say it again.

721 million.

So this 58,000 is not gonna ruin the 728 million dollar city budget.

21 million, sorry.

721 million.

721 million dollars city budget.

Thank you.

So I am I'm inclined to support councilwoman on this one, um, because I would like to point out in response to the other councilman's comments.

The very amazing program that he spoke of is for high school students, um, which again started off as a as a pilot and has grown it to be a really impressive program, and I'll point anyone to the post agenda that was held in May of 2025.

If they want more information about it, it's just really I'm enthusiastic about it.

This is for little kids.

Um, this is a pilot for little kids.

So let's not roll out the pilot wonky or half baked.

I feel like you know, we just fund the 58,000, it's not gonna kill the city budget.

Let's do it the way all of the people who are planning it do, and it's it's a model for working with the school district, which we've all been calling for, and it is to support a pilot for K-through 5 children.

Um, so I I'm definitely supportive today, and I think councilwoman for the work that you and your team and and the city departments have been doing to try to to try to create a new way of working together with the school district, but also support city families.

Thank you.

Further discussion, council President Laval.

Thank you.

Just sort of to clarify to both my colleagues' comments, because I'm probably in the middle of them.

One, this isn't really throwing the city budget off because this is coming out of the self-developed trust fund.

And so if we leave it here, I would then want to know what does that do to the cap in terms of hitting the administrative cap.

Um, it's my understanding.

One, I'm supportive of the initiative, just to be clear.

But it's my understanding that it didn't fill it last year.

They've posted for the position this year, um, at least for the one position, is my understanding, to try to get the pilot up and running.

Um, and so this doesn't then to councilman Wilson's position where I agree with him, this doesn't then preclude if you can fill this position if you can get the pilot up and running, then continuing it with a second location.

Um it's also just worth noting that the current school year is about to end in two months.

And so that gives us time to hopefully try to have this up and running for the next school year because we're literally almost exactly 32 months from the current school year ending.

So first, how does it hit the cap?

Um, I will tell you that um we are over we are currently already over that 50% uh cap for both um parks and the other positions.

Um so this would increase that um a little bit more if we kept this position in.

So um but I mean we typically have a lot of vacancies, so in actuality, um we may not hit that uh 50 percent cap, but with the way that the positions are currently budgeted, we are over that.

And um we might want to look into amending the ordinance.

Um that's something that uh we would have to discuss with council.

So okay, so just so I'm clear from a budgetary position, we're over the 50 percent cap.

But we're technically not because we may not have filled all the positions, yes.

But by leaving this in there, we're definitely exceeding even further the cap.

That's correct.

Okay, and I can't give you um that updated uh percentage after this.

I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

Second round, council member Warwick.

Um, yeah, so just to clarify a little bit what you asked me.

So that you're you're correct, right?

That is where we are now with the pilot is um it is too far into we just had a call with um the folks at Mifflin School and PPS administration and city parks.

Um we are too far in, it's not worth starting now.

So the plan for um uh the rest of the school year is to do an initial like a one day a week, just something just to kind of get in and like begin the but then with the hope of in the in September or I guess end of August uh be able to launch.

So again, I just want to clarify.

Um the proposal, my understanding of the proposed and unfortunately the administration isn't here, but um my understanding of the proposal as it stands with the one position is that we could do a couple days a week.

But I I firmly believe and I really like every parent here after school and uh a a viable after school program is a reliable after school program, and that means five days a week, just like we provide to the children who have rec centers in their communities, right?

I live in Greenfield, that's what you get at McMahon.

It is a fabulous program.

It is um it's a godsend for parents who you know that in that program they walk over, they're so close to the school that they just walk over to the school and scoop up the kids and bring them back to the rec.

But that's just not feasible in communities that don't have that city location, right?

Um, or that don't have uh uh uh an existing community program with open spots.

So uh so the five days a week feels very important.

You know, I guess we could do it at one school, but it seems a shame because we did commit to you know the the conversations with PBS at least last year were about two schools, and um again the the dollar amount is not is not high to hold on to this position.

So I'll I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of amendment sixty-five, please say aye.

All right, no.

No.

Two no's abstentions.

The ayes have it.

Yes or no.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 66.

Increase 2026 funding for maintenance projects and the parks tax trust parks tax trust fund, $500,000 increase in 2026.

Motion approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 66, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 67.

Increase assistant to administration position in three taxing bodies trust fund from 0.9 to 1.0 or fully funded in trust fund, 10,000 five hundred ten dollar increase in 2026, five year impact, 55,831 dollar increase.

Motion approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 67, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation, amendment 68.

Update all asked me 2719 and Teamsters position salaries across various trust funds based on 2026 agreement.

A police secondary employment trust fund $4,731 increase in 2026.

Five-year impact $26,284 and 81 cent increase.

B community development trust fund $1,389.51 increase in 2026.

$5 year impact $35,768 increase.

C stop the violence trust fund $398,359 and 20 cent increase in 2026.

5-year impact $2,044,829 and 92 cent increase.

D three taxing bodies trust fund $9,259 in one cent increase in 2026.

5-year impact $40,000.10 cent increase in 2026.

5-year impact.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 68, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 69.

Update part-time salaries for tennis instructors in the Mellon Park Trust Fund.

$17,084 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $92,860 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment $69, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 70.

Add one violence prevention coordinator in the stop to violence trust fund $93,000, $46 increase in 2026.

Five year impact, $476,720 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 70, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 71.

Add five violence prevention managers in the stop the violence trust fund $500,465 increase in 2026.

5-year impact, $2,563, $385 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 71, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 72.

Move the assistant director, community affairs from public safety administration to the stop the balance trust fund.

$134,300 increase in 2026.

$5 year impact, $687, $142, $142 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment $72, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 73.

Increase salary of senior safer together project coordinator from 22G to 24G in stop the violence trust fund.

$7,047 increase in 2026.

5-year impact $35,957 increase.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 73, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Amendment 74.

Remove one stop the violence coordinator from Stop the Violence Trust Fund.

$93.46 decrease in 2026.

$5 year impact, $476,000, $720 decrease.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment $74, please say aye.

Okay.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Last amendment.

Amendment 75.

Remove one crime analyst from Stop the Violence Trust Fund $93,000 $46 in 2026.

$5 year impact $476,000, $720 decrease.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Yes.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of amendment 75, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

All right.

So we have gone through each and every amendment meticulously.

And now we have the deferred papers, the budget bills.

Um as a whole that are under discussion.

Is there any further discussion on the bills as a whole?

Any of the bill, any of the budget bills.

Seeing none.

All in favor of bills 278, 279, 280, and 285.

Please say aye.

No.

Abstentions.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you all very much.

New papers.

Bill 316.

Resolution further amending resolution 886 of 2021.

Effective December 27, 2021, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2022 Capital Budget.

Effective December 27, 2021, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2022 Capital Budget and the 2022 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program by reducing litter can upgrades and monitoring by 144,100 and increasing play area improvements by 144,100.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amendment 36 of Bill 316, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

317.

Resolution providing for the conveyance by the City of Pittsburgh of certain properties to qualify city residents.

Subject to affordability restrictions.

Items A 1518 Fallowfield Avenue 35 C 12 District 4 and 136 Bodkin Street 62K 200 District 4.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of 317, please say aye.

That's bound.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 318.

Resolution repealing an item in resolution 862.

Effective December 23rd, 2025, in order to rescind the sale.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 318, please say aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 319.

Resolution.

Excuse me.

Resolution providing for the sell of certain property acquired by the city of Pittsburgh at tax sales items 8 through X.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of Bill 319, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of invoices, please say aye.

Aye.

Invoices are approved.

Interdepartmental transfers.

Is there a motion?

So move.

There's second.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none.

All in favor of transfers, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative transfers are approved.

P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

So move.

Sir Second.

Second.

All in favor of P discussion.

All in favor of P cards, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

P cards are approved.

That takes us to public works and infrastructure committee chaired by Councilwoman Salon Nutro.

Deferred papers, Bill 300.

Resolution providing for the issuance of a warrant in favor of a Felino Construction Inc.

in the amount of 481,320 for the purpose of emergency snow removal at various locations and providing for the payment of the cost through over one year.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilwoman.

This is a bill that we held last week because we were looking for some additional detail on the invoice.

And so far, uh I believe the director has tried to get that information and has been unsuccessful.

And I I thought he might be here today.

He said he would if he got it.

But so apparently that information has not yet been received by Fellino.

Um so I would like to hold for another week to give them a chance to get that corrected invoice into us.

Second.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of a one-week hold on bill three hundred, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill will be held one week.

New papers, bill three fifteen.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of finance to enter into an easement agreement or agreement with Duquesne Light Company for the installation of certain wires.

Cable imped mile transformer on city owned parcel ID 184E80, District 5 at no cost to the city.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 315, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Human resources committee chaired by Councilperson Charlin.

Bill 346 supplemental paper.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Department of Human Resources and Civil Service to enter into an amended lease agreement or agreements with Wood Street Commons Commercial LLC to continue leasing office space in 304 Wood Street for the Pittsburgh Partnership for some not to exceed 52,620 and 10 cent over two years and for the payment of the cost thereof.

Oopsion with uh council person out.

Do we have a motion?

So moved to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of bill three forty-six, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to land use and economic development committee chair by Councilman Wilson.

Deferred papers, Bill 2250.

Ordnance amending the Pittsburgh Code Title IX zoning, Article 5 use regulations.

Chapter 911 primary uses to add restricted personal goods retail to add specific requirements and conditional use application requirements.

Motion to approve discussion.

Discussion, Councilman Wilson.

Yes, I'd like to uh call my legislative A Morgan Martin to the to the table.

Hello, Morgan Martin, legislative vapor, Councilman Wilson.

Nice to have you at the table.

This is the first time.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, uh definitely appreciate all the great work that you've been doing with the vape shop legislation to uh amend the the zoning code.

And I just want to know if you can give us just a brief overview of what we're looking at here today.

We have to amend the the bill uh so that we can hold it for a public hearing.

And I understand that you know uh throughout this work the the planning commission was supportive.

Can you just walk us through that and what we're gonna amend today?

Yes, so our office has been working with uh the Department of City Planning for a few months to uh look over the bill, and it was their recommendation to amend the bill, and so a few changes that were made to the legislation were the first one being the definition.

Originally, the definition um was restrictive personal goods retail, which had a few different tests that uh city planning and PLI would have had to conduct.

And after conversations with city planning, we determined that the tests that we had originally included in the definition were a bit too difficult uh to enforce.

So we had changed the definition to what you see now, which that being retail tobacco inhaling and cannabinoids, and that definition um determines what a vape shop would be based on their principal retail activity.

And then in the definition, it also includes a ton of different products um similar to those of electronic cigarettes, vape pens, and other typical things you would see at a vape shop.

Another change that we made um in this new amended bill is changing the use permission to special exception in districts where the use is permitted.

Umriginally we had uh included special exception and conditional use, but again, after conversation with city planning, we realized that um if the use should is permitted, it should be by special exception.

Another change we had made was uh maintaining the separation requirement from vape shops and a thousand feet from primary and secondary schools, but we did remove uh the 1,000 feet um separation from vape shops and daycare facilities as well as other vape shops, and that is because we uh put on a map all the different separation requirements, and we realized that by including daycares and also the separation from other vape shops, there would be an overall citywide ban, which we did not want to do.

And the final change that we had made in this new amended version of the bill is removing the requirement that products be kept behind a lock case or behind the counter, and again, this was after conversations with city planning, and we didn't think this would really be able to be enforceable.

Thank you, Morgan.

Appreciate uh all your great work on this, and uh with that uh make a uh motion to uh amend the bill, and uh there may be some discussion, so if you could continue to join us motion to amend bill two twenty-two fifty seconds this discussion, council member Warbeck.

Uh yes, thank you.

So uh uh Councilman Wilson and I had discussed this a while back.

Um so just so I'm clear, we have removed the the proximity to daycares and playgrounds.

Yes, we would so currently in the new amended version there would only be a separation of a thousand feet from vape shops and primary and secondary schools.

We remove the separation from daycare facilities, parks, I believe, uh, and also other vape shops.

Okay, so um my concern here is and I I had spoken with the councilman about this uh specifically um uh in the Hazelwood business district.

We have three vape shops vape shops and like a two-block um and um I had requested that we add libraries to that uh but uh my understanding was that it that wasn't gonna be necessary because of the daycares and didn't we have a daycare in Hazelwood, and yes we do.

Um is there an option to add because I would like to add, I mean, I I understand the issue citywide of the daycare, right?

Because you have lots of little daycare facilities.

We do not have lots of libraries, however.

Would there be would that this have to like go back to planning or go back like if we were to add libraries?

That I'm not aware of.

I believe in discussions that we had at the planning commission regarding potentially adding more uh separation requirements.

I believe if it's a small change that doesn't uh change the complete intent of the legislation, we wouldn't go have have to go back to the planning commission.

But I also have maps of the different separation requirements, that being um the one that's currently here in this legislation from vape shops and primary and secondary schools, as well as the uh zoning requirements that we have on top of this.

So I can look at the map and to look specifically at the location you're talking about to see if there would be a potential in this current amended version for a new vape shop to open.

So I can uh work with your office to double check that as well.

Yeah, because just because the the elementary school is quite I don't know if it's a thousand feet, I have to look at a map, but it is pr it's far up the hill from um from the main street, which is of course where these shops pop up, and the library is right there on the main street.

I think what we found is that the current uh zoning in certain areas already would prohibit and make it uh what's the use called?

Make it a non-conforming use.

Non-conforming use, yeah.

If there's any currently operating vape shops, but I can uh work with your office just to double check because I have a few maps showing the different density requirements currently.

Okay, um just be and and I mean would there be an option to add like maybe before Tuesday to add libraries if that's something well we have to put I'm sorry, we have to do a public hearing.

So we're um so there's still we're amending it now, and then we have to hold public hearing, and then we'll come back to council for a vote.

Okay, you'd have to do another public hearing.

Yeah.

So we can work with your office between now and even scheduling the public hearing to see what that looks like.

Okay.

I just want because I know in here, I mean we've got three, like in a two block, and you know, so I'd love to have this protection for for um for Hazelwood as well.

Thank you.

Uh one move well.

I want to go, sorry, if you allow me for a second.

I just want to um I made the wrong motion.

Um so if I can redo the motion, the motion is to um oh my gosh.

It's it's uh not motion to amend.

We're gonna um motion to amend my substitution.

Second.

Okay, we will continue just resume discussion.

Thank you.

Um councilwoman gross.

Thank you.

I'm Mike, thank you.

I really do appreciate um your work on this issue.

It affects probably almost every business district in the city.

Um so can you um explain again the distance from um primary schools?

Is that how it's phrased?

Is it race primary?

Primary and secondary schools, so it's uh and secondary.

So that's all the way up to high school?

I believe so.

Yeah.

Okay, so K through 12.

And so, and it's not just um I guess I'm thinking like we have some odd small private schools, we have charter schools, magnet schools.

It applies to all schools.

It should apply to all primary schools.

So, like if it's they're like licensed by the state of Pennsylvania and operates as a school, then it applies.

I believe when we uh we have all of the different primary and secondary schools on a map, and I believe when we uh put all the different schools on a map, we use information from the Department of Education.

Great.

Great, that's wonderful.

And um, and so but that map isn't here.

Like, can you send that to us?

Yeah, I yes, I can great.

Because again, it it's just helpful to us to be able to answer questions so we can tell residents, yes, in you know, in our district, it applies here but not there and there and not here.

And yeah, absolutely, yeah.

It was included, I believe, in the presentation used by city planning at the planning commission, so I can send it out as well.

Great.

And then and then we'll have to look at it and figure out which schools are selected to close.

Then we'll change that map and remove that coverage because I've got like four K through fives proposed to be closed by PPS.

And so it's gonna, you know, where I'm thinking there are schools that it provides coverage for the you know, the main streets where the there's a vape shop, you know, if PPS restructures as they're about to imminently do, then there won't be coverage.

So okay, food for thought.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion?

Uh my only question was um in the definition, uh, this is this definition makes sense, and I um noticed that it says really just whose principal reach real retail activity based on product inventory.

Was there any discussion in planning commission about like how to further define that, like whether it has to be more than 50% or whether we need to specify that in the definition, or if this is just like pretty cut and dry in every vape shop that there is?

Yes, there was a lot of discussion between the commissioners and also um the zoning administrator Caroline Restal regarding this definition, specifically the principal retail activity and there not being a percentage or a test.

Um and so Carolyn uh stated that she is creating different policies and regulation that will be publicly available to any potential vape shop owners that defines how uh the city will be determining what a vape child's principal retail activity is, and it was also recommended by the planning commission for Carolyn to return back uh and give an update to uh the planning commission on what that definition, how it's gonna look like.

Okay, so that would be then in policy, or that would be then in I guess policy, like administrative policy rather than in code, making it more malleable over time.

I know we've done that like with recycling policy or this and that, like you don't want to lock something that might be changing in.

Okay.

That's correct, yes.

Great.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Okay, further discussion.

Councilman Wilson.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

Well, well, but we can have a motion.

Yeah, uh, before I make the motion for booking, I just want to thank all sponsors and all members, so especially the sponsors, uh uh President Label, uh Councilmember Charlin, and uh Councilmember Strasberger.

Uh, thank you for being so supportive throughout this process, and everyone um else um on council that helped us get this to planning commission, and now we're gonna move this to public um public comment phase of the public hearing.

So, with that motion to hold for cable cast public hearing.

So I think discussion.

All in favor, please say aye.

Thank you.

Very helpful work, and with that, we will move on to new papers, Bill 320.

Resolution further amending resolution 863 of 2018, effective January 1st, 2019, as amended and titled resolution adopting and approving the 2019 capital budget and the 2019 community development block grant program and the 2019 through 2024 capital improvement program by reducing facility improvements, recreation, and senior centers by 400,000 and increasing remediation of condemned buildings by 400,000.

Motion to approve the discussion.

Second discussion discussion.

Yeah, I I just wanted to um you know I'll open up for the for the councilwoman uh since it's our district, and I just want to work through this how of how to be best supportive to your community.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, we've had a lot of going back and forth with emails and uh messages with the administration.

I've had some phone calls and meetings, um, and I've certainly heard from community members.

I think all of council has gotten some emails as well.

Um so just background on this, um, and it's briefly.

Um these are funds that have only ever been in district seven, but we wanted um some projects that previous two previous administrations weren't willing to move.

And as you know, we can't actually issue the contracts to do a project.

We need the the administrations to do them.

So the first concept, um, and again, Bloomfield is a neighborhood of about 10,000 people, and really has four business districts, has a lot of complicated things going on with transportation with utilities, with housing, and so we wanted a neighborhood plan.

And it would have been enough if you know um the area to cover also like kind of bomb center corridor, which you probably don't know as Bloomfield all the way up to like pet boys, and um uh really kind of meets North Oakland.

And then also we have um the Penn and Main corridor, you think of like Bloomfield and Garfield.

We were gonna collaborate with our neighboring uh neighborhoods like Shadyside on one side and North Oakland and and Garfield on the other, and then the Penn and Main corridor, you think of the Lawrenceville area when you're close to children's hospital, it's a complicated area.

There's a lot going on.

Um, and so that would have been enough money to kind of have almost you know um enough process to engage those combined corridors as well as the neighborhood.

It was planning was always unwilling to do it for years because of the comp plan.

They wanted the comp plan instead.

Um so um the neighborhood really built consensus, and there are multiple RCOs at this point, there's multiple different stakeholders in moving it to the park, which everyone knows is that the park under the Bloomfield Bridge, the Bloomfield or Shula Park.

Um, because our recenter, which we we're talking about rec centers today, has been closed for 30 years.

Um and that pool is the second highest attendance in the city.

That park gets kids from the Hill District, it gets kids from all of the neighboring neighborhoods, anywhere, you know, you can reach Bloomfield on a bus.

Anywhere, you know, you can reach Bloomfield on a bus.

And so it's a really packed pool.

That pool gets so full, it is so beloved.

You don't even have room to put down a pool bag sometimes.

It's like standing room only inside the fence.

So there's a lot going on.

And the building that has been empty, it's um it is under contract, so the um there is an additional 180,000 in addition to this that is contracted to do a plan.

It's probably gonna cost at least a million dollars for the roof.

We all know big flat roofs are are difficult.

Um but we can't lose that building, or we lose the pool pump and infrastructure that keep that pool open, right?

And so that pool was down one summer and it was horrible, and we had all our other pools like the Highland Pool, Highland Park Pool, and other pools overrun.

Um we really don't have another rec center.

We've got the West Penn Rec Center over in Polish Hill.

Um, but we also you know uh have a lot of kids in the district these days.

Whereas, you know, 15 years ago, we had a lot of World War II, 20 years ago, we had a lot of World War II generation that weren't in these weren't households full of kids.

Um but a lot of these neighborhoods have turned over and there's young families and there's a lot of kids.

And again, this specific park serves kids, not just from District 7.

Um it is just in a really central, easy to access location.

So we are jealously guarding funds for the park and the building.

Um that said, the federal government in all its wisdom keeps making CDBG more and more difficult to expend.

And this is CDBG funds.

So I understand that we have to move these out because we can't expend them on this project in this time frame.

Um and for the purpose that's needed.

Um, but I would beg for um maybe at least one week to try to refill this pot.

Um so that these specific C D BG funds would be uh is proposed to be used for demolitions.

I understand how bad some of the situations are around those the houses that are have been condemned for a long, long time.

And I'm sympathetic.

Um but we also need to make sure that we're moving this small park project forward as well.

So I'm gonna I I was gonna ask for two weeks, but I'm happy to kind of bring that down to one.

Kirsten's been very busy.

We just went through 75 budget budget amendments.

And she doesn't we only have one person in our because it counts a budget office right now, not too.

So I'm gonna be hopefully you'll have time will be a little more free, Kirsten, in the next before we get to the next standing committee meeting, which is actually a double session on Monday.

So it's not even that much time.

Um so we're looking to not zero out this pot.

Um so that's my plea to you as counsel fellow colleagues.

Um so if the if the committee chair of councilman Wilson doesn't mind um I'll motion to hold for one week.

I'd love a second on that.

Second discussion.

Councilman Wilson, followed by Councilman Cockell.

Um yeah, I'm definitely a supportive of trying to make sure that you know you we figure out where the where the funding will come from.

Uh I and I'm definitely I've been here several times with CBG and uh where money is expiring has to move.

And then recently even ARPA for community center has to move out.

We just did that in the you know, with with moving orbit funds uh that are expiring.

So definitely fully aware, continually working on that.

Um I know it sounds pretty um like one week sounds like it wouldn't be a problem.

I just I just want to confirm with people who work at CBG or or anyone that has knowledge of this because they've emailed me in the past, like there is no time.

Uh so I just want to get a confirmation of like a week we can work on this.

It is a double session Monday, but it's wouldn't be funneled to the following week.

So yeah, it's good.

Whoever can come up and clarify that for us.

Uh tomorrow next it's double session next week.

Sunday.

Okay.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this would be a whole delegation.

Uh I just want to Kelly Russell, Assistant Director of Community Development.

AJ Miller, program supervisor, community development.

Matt Singer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor.

So with the double session on Monday, if we can really move it forward, that should not be a session.

Luckily, for the project where these funds would move to for the demos, the environmental review process is always already been completed in terms of deadlines.

We have the internal deadline that these funds must be spent down by June 30th.

So that's the most important thing.

So the one week won't hold won't make it different uh that much, but we uh would like to move this forward come Monday, if possible, please, ma'am.

I I really hate these types of situations.

I've been in here several times.

So I just wanted to make a confirmation of anyone else any of that since you all came up.

Feel free to I don't think anything different about that one week.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Further discussion on oh councilman Calcum.

Thank you.

Uh if I were to advocate for one park outside my district, it would be this park in that recreation center.

I mean, it really is a charming little place.

A neighborhood just kind of flows right into it.

And uh the pool.

We can't give up the pool, and if we have to save the building to do so, that's great.

Um the funding was set aside, or you're looking to make sure that you secure that funding for a plan to do the recreation center.

So the funding is being zeroed out unless we hold it a week.

Right.

And so there would be no money, and it would all go to demolitions in district three and district one.

If that's the bill in front of us, but you're looking to re-secure that funds.

But that's for a plan to redo the Rexon.

Okay.

Is that right?

Okay, good.

No, yeah, no, I know yeah, I visited it with you many years ago.

It's uh well worth to put the investment there.

And if you have to get a plan, I guess that's what you're gonna do first step.

So uh you'll have my cooperation for whatever you need to do as far as uh get keeping those funds for that plan.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

So the motion on the table is a one-week hold.

All in favor of a one-week hold of Bill 320, please say aye.

Aye.

Abstentions, no uh bill be held for one week.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Bill 321.

Resolution amending resolution one ninety-one of twenty nineteen, effective March 28, 2019, which authorize a professional service agreement or contract with urban design ventures for services relating to the administration of the city's community development block grant, emergency solutions grant, and housing opportunity for persons with AIDS programs for a sum not to exceed 191,000 dollars by extending the term through the second quarter of 2027 and increasing the amount by 86,000 for a new total cost not to exceed 277,000 dollars over nine years.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 321, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 322.

Resolution further amending resolution 863 of 2018, effective January 1, 2019, as amended and titled.

Resolution adopting and approving the 2019 capital budget and a 2019 community development block grant program and the 2019 through 2024 capital improvement program to reduce play area improvements by 144,100 and increase the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank by 144,100 and authorize a subsequent agreement or agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 322, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you both very much.

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

Deferred papers, Bill 224 resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of public works, and director of finance to enter into an easement agreement or agreements with the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority for the installation of certain monitoring boreholes on city owned parcel IDs at no cost to the city.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of a four-week hold on bill two four, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill be held.

New papers, Bill 314.

Bill 314, resolution amending resolution 501 of 2023, which authorized an amended agreement or agreements with the URA of Pittsburgh for the completion of projects approved in a city of Pittsburgh's American Rescue Plan by realigning project line items to ensure spending deadlines are met.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 314, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

But exhaust our standing committee agenda.

Tomorrow at tomorrow afternoon at one thirty, Council will hold an executive session on bills three sixty one, three sixty two, three sixty three, and three sixty four as they relate to litigation matters.

Next week, Council will hold a regular and standing committee's meeting on Monday, April twentieth at ten AM and one thirty PM respectively.

And uh by next Monday, we will have the budget reopener behind us, and we can move on to uh spending the money.

I just want to thank members for participation yesterday in the various interviews to Council Ms.

Gross's point.

We only have one person in our budget office.

We're trying to get that second position filled.

So if you have thoughts, opinions, please provide them to Kirsten so we can move forward.

Thank you.

And with that, I'll take a motion to excuse the absolute member appear the minutes and adjourn the meeting.

All in favor.