Good afternoon, and welcome to the standing committee's meeting for Wednesday, May twenty-seventh, twenty twenty-six.

The clerk please take the role.

Mr.

Charlotte here.

Mr.

Coghill.

Here.

Miss Grouse.

Here.

Mr.

Laval.

Here.

Mr.

Mosley.

Here.

Miss Salonetro.

Here.

Miss Warwick.

Mr.

Wilson.

Miss Strasberg, the chair.

Here.

Eight members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is to amend the agenda.

Can I have a motion to amend?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Agenda is amended.

Our next order of business is public comment.

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

The office of Pittsburgh City Clerk.

Kim Clark Baskin, the Office of Pittsburgh City Council, or Daniel Lavelle, office of Mayor Corey O'Connor.

I request information regarding the legal foundation for a declaration of a city state of emergency SOE.

Provide references from Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter, Pittsburgh City Council Ordinances, Pittsburgh City Code.

Questions.

Question one.

What are the criteria used to define state of emergency SOE for Pittsburgh?

Q2.

Can an SOE be declared by the mayor without agreement from the President of Council?

Q3.

Is there any legal impediment preventing a group of Pittsburghers declaring an SOE if the criteria for an SOE exists without support from the offices of counsel and mayor?

We think so.

Question four.

Is there any legal ground preventing an indefinite temporal extension of an SOE?

The status of request for information regarding the City of Pittsburgh State of Emergency.

S R I, S R I, S O E is not directed to any office of solicitor.

S R I S.

O.E.

is directed solely to the offices of clerk, counsel, and mayor, and respectfully expect response from these offices and the officers leading them.

Not solicitors.

From the three offices, 30 days from the transmission state of the SRI.

We have no response, even though we have sent a reminder to Mr.

Lavelle, Mr.

O'Connor, there has been no response.

We find this to be irresponsible.

Mr.

Lavelle and Mr.

O'Connor, if he's listening.

And we find this also inconsistent with the Home Rule Charter, Article 8, 807, and that leads to A 10.

We are going to proceed for impeachment of you, Mr.

Lavelle, and Mr.

O'Connor.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chief Ikahana Helmakina.

Greetings and good day.

My title is Chief.

And I myself must agree with the previous speaker, who said that the mail shouldn't step down and teach yourself.

Because you can't be right by the people's financing.

Those peak coins have been a problem for city council since long before Teresa Kellsmith left.

And she was conscientious and truthful enough to say, hey, let's get this right down.

I think she's gone enough sure the consciousness of the entire council.

And so therefore, I'm urging more people to test for the bell to step down.

You cannot, cannot be what we clean with the people's money.

It's a great game wrong, make a breach of public trap.

So you must step down to allow someone to call ethical property that they bring to the table because you have to do nothing long over here.

First, Ricky Furniture.

Now it's not for me.

It's there.

I'm out of here.

The lady is reading what's your family name and talk.

But I think that's already integrated away with the fact that you just feel like you below the low need the people's money as your personal bank account.

And we all know that the bell knows you could have written that check yourself.

But no, you were going to put you down by the people and giving the people's money for what you clean, and it's wrong.

And you know it.

It would be very comfortable as Rick Earl and RPG.

You can't do a new comfort from the bail.

Shame on you.

You can the people's money to do what you want.

We have a little bit of the unlawful.

It was wrong with you to use and use the people.

Not fund any time that you want to find with the people's money.

And you should be back down, but they'll come in over.

We had a great run.

Now it's over.

Thank you.

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

You can state your name and neighborhood for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Hi, I am Lori Kolczynski, the general manager of Republic Services.

Republic Services acquired the prime the Pittsburgh's primary recycling facility in February of 2025.

We currently process all of the city's residential recycling.

Over the last 12 months, this facility has reduced city expenses by 1.2 million dollars through commodity rebates.

This proposed rezoning would make it virtually impossible to innovate and enhance this critical city infrastructure.

There is continued misinformation about our operation.

We have been described as always being a problem or a bad operator, but that is far from the truth.

Since we took over this operation a mere 15 months ago, we have spent 4.2 million dollars upgrading the facility.

We've cleaned the exterior of the property, we've addressed rodent elimination, we've installed fencing and new garage doors, we've upgraded the road and entryway, we've replaced outdated equipment.

Just ask your environmental services team about the changes they've seen in the last year and how this partnership works to support the city's sustainability goals.

We have 3.3 million slated for additional upgrades this year, including the rest of the framing and the garage doors to fully enclose the building.

We have also been accused of not being transparent with the neighbors.

This is another falsehood.

I first met with councilwoman Warwick in April of last year.

At that time, we had owned the recycling facility for two months.

I told her that we had work to do, and we just needed some time to get it done.

We have been true to our word.

In the past year, Republic Services has joined the Greater Hazelwood Community Collaborative.

We've hosted several community members and the councilwoman at the site, offering tours of our operation and answering any questions.

I personally have presented operational updates to both the collaborative and to the residents at a Hazelwood Initiative meeting.

We participated in job fairs at the local Hazelwood Library.

We hosted on-site learning with a Hazelwood Trade Group.

And we sponsored the latest Earth Day event in Hazelwood.

We also regularly support holiday drives, toy events, and school activities.

In conclusion, this rezoning would negatively impact Pittsburgh financially and its residents by unfairly targeting an essential city service that is in an appropriately zoned area.

And even more evident through these latest last-minute parcel revisions about targeting our specific facility.

Please stop this and vote this rezoning down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh hello, uh, my name's John Ashbridge.

I work with the Allegheny Valley Railroad.

Um just wanted to note um this is the first time that we've seen uh this amendment to the rezoning, so we really haven't had a chance to go through and really understand you know which parcels, which railroad parcels may or may not be um you know included or excluded.

So you know, we just like the opportunity to to review that.

Really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Yes, didn't you?

My name is Yvonne F.

Brown, live at 715 Mercer Street excuse me, that's the high rise up on Baffert is the 1090 apartment.

This morning I came and I was speaking, I spoke to the whole group, but especially to our president, because our president told me when I was questioning about a bus from the top of the hill down to Mercy Hospital.

Otherwise, we had to take two buses and come back to get to Mercy.

Um, and this I was looking through some papers.

I think this is 2018.

But anyway, I would come and say, Mr.

Lavelle, we need a bus, the seniors to get to the bottom of the hill.

He never would answer me, but we ended up on the elevator together, and he told me, Miss Brown, you keep coming down telling me about the bus county council.

So I did as he said.

Oh, I went to County Council, and my our councilman for our district is this heavy set large man.

And the reason why I say that is because he's a big man, like a fullback, and um I had made a statement.

I was one of the last to speak, and he they when I look at them, what what they do at the end is they all march out together.

So that's the end of the meeting.

So when he walks past, if I walk past, I said, Well, he's gone.

And I'm picking up my papers because you know I have a lot a lot of times.

I believe you need to see to see you remember when you see.

Okay, so I'm down picking up a paper, and all of a sudden I just heard uh screaming, and he's at me, scares me, and he's hollering, screaming and hollering at me.

You so and so and so and so and all I kept on saying, we'll see.

We'll see.

Okay, now the reason why that I'm coming to you and bringing this out is because this man is the main reason why Katina, the one that stepped down, which I said he should not have.

If you have listen, Katina made a statement, he apologized.

This man didn't make a statement, I mean made the statement that he will not listen to what we say, because he lives in the community, he knows what we need.

What kind of uh elected official is he?

What kind?

You think about it?

Now you, Mr.

Wilson, yesterday, I want to say something.

Usually um, like my daughter fusses about you in different ones.

But yesterday, when we had the meeting, you said that the people that didn't sign up would only get one minute.

And that's one minute.

I said, uh, but you didn't.

You took and changed your mind and said that they could get to three like everybody else.

And I want to thank you.

Thank you for doing that.

I know I come and I um speak bad about chins.

Because if you don't treat this right, thank you, Miss Brown.

Thank you very much for what you did.

Next speaker, please.

There are any further speakers.

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

The first committee is the finance and law committee.

Supplemental new papers, Bill 536.

Resolution amending resolution 840 of 2024, which authorized a professional services agreement and or contract extension with B2G now for the purpose of amending account codes and no additional costs to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 536, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers, Bill 509.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title II Fiscal Article 1, Administration, Chapter 218.

Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to clarify language to better align with budgetary practices.

Second.

Discussion?

I can explain this a little bit if uh even though there's no apparent questions.

I wanted to uh make sure everyone understood.

So this was brought to to us by the mayor's office, and um I when we typically currently when we um are approving a new grant, um application that is when and that requires a local match, that is when we have to um sort of set aside the funding for the local match, and then regardless of whether we get the grant or not, that money is frozen until that is at that point.

This is changing it so that upon awarding of the grant, that's when we would have to allocate and uh and um uh kind of freeze the local match and and apply the local match.

I'm not usually I'm not using the exact right language here, but wanted to explain it in plain terms.

Um, and so this is changing the timing of kind of allocating the money for the local match upon the award of the grant, not application of the grant.

And because in practice, what is happening is um uh when we're freezing that money, when we're allocating the money kind of uh at the time of the application of the grant, it is um it it's money that then we can't use during these very tight financial times.

This will still allow the city to council to approve the grant award and approve the local match.

It's just changing the timing of that upon awarding of it.

It's also not changing anything about notification of grant applications.

We will still get the weekly notice of grant applications.

So this is just during again very tight financial times allowing us the flexibility to move money around and not have too much that's frozen just because we're applying for an award, a grant award um that requires a local match.

So council member Warwick.

Um yeah, I was under the impression that the oftentimes when a local match is required that we need that the entity, whether it's Penn Dot or whatever, needs to have that confirmation up front that we have the local match.

Would you like to call um experts to the table?

Yeah, they're here to speak.

I don't I don't want to call on the URB, but yeah, I don't have the answer to that.

Uh Amanda Burkhart grants manager in the office of management and budget.

Uh, yes, generally they do require a financial commitment letter, but we just um indicate that we would include it upon award if awarded, like we would include it in the budget if awarded.

But but again, I I mean, and maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that it was actually like for example with Green Light Go grants that when you know that you have the match that your candidate like your your chance for getting the grant is significantly higher than if it's unclear whether or not like your chance of getting I mean it is that's my understanding from Domi.

I don't I don't know.

Yeah, so generally like there's general pots of funds that we could use, you know, like a lot of times for the trail funds we use paving match, you know, that's just general paving budget line items that we can point to.

And like if we get awarded the Green Light Go awards, then we point to you know, the intersection upgrades line item in the budget, so we have the money there.

Apologies, can you move a little closer to the microphone?

Thank you.

Sorry, so I don't understand.

So if can can you explain that again?

I guess I didn't understand.

Yeah, so we do have general pots of funds that we can point to that we get awarded, you know, for example, like the budget does indicate like signal upgrade like line item that we can point to that, and then we could use that when when we get the award.

We're just not uh tied to that specific intersection.

But see that can so I I guess I'm not sure I understand because in the budget process, so for example, right?

Like um, I think last year we set aside in the budget, I mean for Green Light Go, just for example, right?

We set aside in the budget the match for the Green Light Go grant for Mifflin and Innerborough, and my understanding is that because we had that budgeted that match set aside that that improves our chances of getting the grant because we have budgeted for the match yes um so with green light goes it's a different scenario and the majority of the grants that we actually submit are budgeted already.

So like 90% of the grants that we submit are already budgeted in budget so we can point to that line item and be more successful there.

But then I don't understand what this legislation is.

So the legislation is just not requiring us to assign job numbers and freezing funds to projects that may or may not come to head.

If I can interject on that so during these applications we are demonstrating to the awarder of the grant um we do have the funding available we're just not getting down to the absolute here's the exact count of let's say a local match of 50 grand is required.

We're not saying here's the account string the job number with that 50 grand we're showing we have the funding available to meet this but by essentially enumerating the exact like non-fungible 50 grand that we would use we've essentially frozen that money that we can't use in other day to day operations throughout the term of when we're waiting to hear back about the grant award or for some of the larger ones and we then wait a year or two until we actually receive the award.

There are my understanding and and correct me if I'm wrong there are larger programs like I think some from HUD and pendot ones where we typically see bigger awards that could be come to the city some of them do just as the nature of a programmatic requirement require proof that the legislative branch has approved that match coming but that's not the case for every grant especially some of the smaller ones that we're constantly going after and to stay competitive with where we have to respond pretty quickly to get applications in sometimes got it got it so then so you would apply for the grant but so and then I mean just to play devil's advocate um what if council what if you what if we get a grant and then council's like no I don't we don't you know for something I don't know something that we don't want to I mean it would be similar to to now just for sort of just changing the order of operations right now there were for example resolutions on today's agenda for the regular meeting of council approving us identifying specific very specific pots that we would use for this money very civic line items if council voted that down it would it would essentially have the same effect we then can't pursue it further it would just be changing the order of operations of when council takes that exercise on top of that if we do win a grant award and then try to identify a pot of funding and council were to say while it's on the table no we don't want to use that account we want to use a different account council has that power now and council would have that power if this amendment is adopted as well council's power is not diminished it's just really a change in the order of operations to keep funding flexible while we wait to either hear about the grant award or actually receive the funding.

So I will I can give you a scenario in my district that sort of happened it was sort of before I joined council and then right when I you know so there was a project and I'm not gonna name the because it's ultimately it it will end up being a good project however it was a a street improvement project right side of lots of street work done um on a street that really that nobody I mean it was a project that nobody asked for I will say right and there was lots of frustration in the community that we were spending a million dollars to improve this one stretch when you know another far more used stretch was but the response at the time and this was for me as counsel was well we already got the grant like we can't leave money on the table.

We already got the grant, so we have to do it.

And if we don't do it, then it's like, you know, that hurts our credibility as a grant, you know what I mean?

And all of this, so it was it was, and that is why I actually introduced the legislation to have the grant application list come every come every week, right?

So that we could review and see sort of what's in the works.

Um, you know, uh I recognize you can't you can't account for every scenario, but that you know, once you have the grant, it's it's harder for the council member to say, well, you know, I would have rather you applied for the grant for this other thing that we that you know I've been wanting in my district or whatever, right?

Yep.

Um once we're offered an award, we can always decline to accept it.

That's council allows us, approves us assigning the grant agreements.

But we can decline to accept it, but what we can't do is change what it's for.

Some funders you can, but most you cannot.

Right, correct, right?

Okay, well, I'd I'll just those are my concerns.

I'll just leave that there.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross and then Councilperson Charlotte.

Thank you.

I think I um had the same kind of nature of kind of questions.

Is there a way to kind of cut slice this so that we do a little of both things?

Um very similarly over the years, right?

We're very appreciative to get grant seeking, right?

We're always like, yes, thank you for the outside money.

We really, really, really need it, and and we could, you know, we've tried to expand the capacity of the grants management office, and you know, our are um trying to make sure that we're not um neglecting to apply for grants that might be out there, those kinds of things.

So it's all it's very welcome money.

But on the other hand, it is also true that sometimes the public is in the dark about what an administration is aiming for for projects, and then maybe even opposes them.

And so that's a that's a waste of everyone's time and energy and effort.

If we could align these things better, it would be better.

And having it on the agenda, because we don't know everything, we can't catch everything, like having it on the agenda earlier in the public's eye helps us, you know, that uh transparency um happens earlier in the process.

But on the other hand, I totally get that we don't want to have funds frozen in a JDE line for sometimes this is very long grant seeking cycles, right?

When and we need them to be fungible, we need them to be able to move.

So did I hear you say that 90% of the grants um have their money allocated in the budget?

So of the volume of dollars or volume of applications, kind of like where's your 90%?

The volume of uh application, because some of it are like the big tip grants or something, right?

It's like SPC and it's bridges and it's huge, and and we we vote basically and the public knows about those projects line itemed in the capital budget process.

Yeah, cool.

And then so some of the other ones, like I had one in my district as well, and I talked to the administration about it, because I was like, oh, the administration has set aside match money for the C2P2, and I honestly can't remember.

Are they DCNR, DCED?

They're like community conservation or something.

And um, you know, we don't know if we're gonna get that grant or not.

We know that it's uh it's uh uh a project that's had like years of community process around and it's great timing, and it'd be great if we get it.

Um so we know that it's kind of like almost a community-driven um application, working with planning department, all that kind of stuff.

So we know that that's not problematic.

And then so then the question is, well, do we really have to have that money JVE number set aside if we don't?

Um I'd be interested to know whether, like, if you say 90% of the dollars kind of are voted on already in the capital budget process, how big is the 10%?

Like, is that a hundred thousand dollars a year?

It's more than a hundred thousand.

Yeah.

So generally we run into projects that like that aren't in the budget when we're looking at long-term federal opportunities, you know.

You know, so opportunities that aren't gonna hit for two, three years that we wouldn't even find out about.

So that's what we're looking at.

So those are generally a larger number than like the smaller state grants that we receive, but it's just a very small portion of the amount of grants that we have.

Yes, I don't I'm wondering like how to do both.

So if those those sound like they are larger amounts, but they weren't already discussed, and the public may not know that you're applying for that project.

Um so how do we do both?

Like, how do we also get the kind of citizen input earlier without having the money locked away unnecessarily, possibly?

Because we don't get, we may not get even half of those grants that we apply for, right?

Like maybe would be getting like 10-20% of them?

Yep.

Yeah.

So well, you don't want to lock away 90% of the money you don't have to lock away, but on the other hand, where's then there's no real public like um discussion or way for the public to notice it?

So I'm wondering if there's a way for us to do both.

I think the grants application notice um is still a little post hoc, right?

Um a department might have worked on something for a very long time without public input.

Um and then we get the notes that they're applying for it, but it's too late since they've applied for it to tell them that they're off base, and maybe again, if they've done one intersection over, or come at it uh from with a different input, they'd have broads, you know, widespread support, that kind of thing.

So um, yeah, I'd be interested to see how maybe we do both a line, you know, having the the funds flexible, but also incorporating maybe if it's over a certain dollar threshold, you know, smaller projects, you're applying for a hundred thousand dollar grant with a ten thousand dollar match, you know, it's probably not doing that much harm.

Um, you don't want to waste a lot of departmental time, or maybe the public won't, you know, it can't be due too much that is um they'll oppose.

But for something uh at a higher level or a bigger thing, usually I mean you can work on these grant applications for months.

Some of them are I've I personally way in a different lifetime, you know, worked on one for several months at a time, and there were like 20 versions of it, you know, by the time it got submitted a federal grant.

So we don't want to make sure, you know, make sure that we're not like wasting staff time either, kind of going off in the wrong direction.

So I don't know.

Those are those are my current thoughts.

You have any response before I give up the floor.

Um and Amanda speaks this better than I can, but generally, one one concern that I know OMB and the grants team has with the idea of setting a dollar threshold for then putting it through the normal three-week legislative process.

That there are times where we for better or for worse, we learn about grants sort of at the last minute, or even if something where it's a council member or a community group might flag for us like, hey, here's an issue that just hasn't boiled up to it's been on on the front of everyone's minds yet.

And we may have team might know, oh, this is uh just using a random example.

There's a landslide issue.

There could be a landslide grant.

Available at just happened recently, we the application happens to be within a few days.

We want to act quickly.

Um, like councilwoman Warwick said, like we can't always plan for every single possible instance, but when it comes to both grants and having the availability to move our money, especially in these tight times, we want to maximize that flexibility as much as possible while still making sure that when we do have to move money or do get an award, that we're not disrupting the council process of still having council vote to accept the money and then vote to actually pledge that match.

We just want to be able to do it at a time where we know the grant is coming, we know it's incoming, we're now gonna be able to get to do the project with council approval.

We just want to have the flexibility that comes with not sequestering that funding as soon as we hit the submit button on an application.

I hear you.

Without also having spent a bit of my life as the grant writer, if you're hearing about it last minute, it's probably not a huge award.

Or you will you wouldn't be able to adequately apply for those funds, right?

Um the bigger the the bigger the pot, the more the more time and energy and effort goes into the writing of it.

I don't know if we've got that's just same experience, Fandom.

Yeah.

The bigger issue there though is the amount of money.

So a lot of times, you know, like working with Domi, they don't get me a budget until three days before the grant is due.

So like isolating, you know, like an up to number even would be difficult.

So we were working on this one federal grant and it started off at eight million, and then by the time they reworked it two days before the grant was due, it was now 11 million project.

So that's still significantly more than like a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand.

Right.

Yeah.

But like if we would have to go through and like legislate that award.

Well, no, I'm not saying that.

I'm just saying that there's some flag for I don't know, some other public process or notification.

If you're working on an eight million dollar grant, um it would be better to get some ground truthing on it through the council person or having some other legislative process that's not a JDE number, something different than what we're doing now.

But still some discussion of it at the council table.

Um because you're not working on you're not working for a week on an $8 million grant, right?

And um, and an eight million dollar grant is gonna be a substantial project of size and public impact that will have some feedback.

And it would be very hard for any city council to turn down that eight million dollar grant, even if the public is mad about it.

So that's why why put ourselves in that position?

We we shouldn't be doing things that the public is gonna be really mad about, right?

So, you know, how do we how do we do both?

I think it's still worth some time and attention.

So, okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilperson Sharlin.

Yeah, I'll be relatively quick here, but this is a problem that I think um myself and uh actually it was Council Wilson's chief of staff back when we were staffers together, identified.

Um, and it's the the I don't can't name a lot of grants, but the one that I do know very well is Greenlight Grow.

Um and so when we apply for a Green Light Go grant, we're just for a traffic signal upgrade, about $500,000.

We have to find $500,000 for that.

We hit almost every Green Light Co grant uh successfully.

So a Green Light Go grant takes that, takes what the city has to pay down to $100,000.

The state pays $400,000 of that.

So instead of doing five times as many signal light upgrades as we we could, we have to find all this money on the front end, and then on the back end, hopefully, you know, and Mike and his team do the grant, um, and we get the money back, and you know, we're able to receive that way.

Instead of having the community process on the front end of saying, hey, let's do five times as many traffic signals as as we originally said we would with the money that we have, we now have to have this laborious process where we find, you know, find all this money, lock up our budget, and we we do less traffic signal upgrades.

We have less community process about what traffic signal upgrades need to be done.

It's kind of a no-brainer, we should you know take this money um and make it as easy as possible, you know.

And I understand that, you know, maybe we don't ultimately don't want to take that money if we do receive the grant.

But let's let's make this uh especially in lean times.

Let's make this as efficient as possible.

And I think that's what this does.

So I've been looking for this for years, probably six years, I guess or so.

So I'm glad we're able to do this today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As we kick off second round, um, question based off of that comment.

Um it's my understanding that as Councilmember Warwick pointed out, like there are some programs where it's not us, it's not this legislation that's impacting it.

There are state or federal regulations that require like perhaps a JDE number.

Is Green Lego one of those, or is that it like in that instance, will this fix that issue, or will that um I'm just curious.

Will that yeah?

Most um most funders don't require us to have a J D number.

Okay.

Um some funders require that we submit legislation uh authorizing us to apply.

Um, other funders do not.

So okay.

And then my second point is I I I really appreciate like the like all the possible hypotheticals and the the consideration of the grant writers' time here.

That said, I I can't think of too many instances.

There's maybe one instance I can think of where we've received the dollars and it either is an opposition of what the council member wanted or what the public wants.

I and if it's 10% and then it's like so few and far between that we're experiencing a grant award that is in opposition of what the public wants and it's still being public and it's still there's still an opportunity, like even it might be hard, but like there's still an opportunity for the public to hear it and the council to hear it.

We are the representatives, we also get the grants list every week.

I feel like there is no one perhaps an internal policy of maybe large grants, go to the council member and talk with them, but not I think this is fixing a a critical issue and um and allows us the flexibility that we need in these lean times without um uh and the harm that this causes outweighs any potential future hypothetical harm that may or may not come to fruition of like wasting a grant maker a grant writer's time.

I I just I think this one outweigh the other.

So those are my two cents.

Um council member Warwick.

Yeah, I just just to sort of give a little context for the grants list.

Um that was I mean that was what we were looking to address, right?

With the list.

So initially um I had wanted to have every grant come through council for a vote, right?

Like b for the application and talked with the grants team, um, and it was like that is not right, like that's just too onerous, right?

That would just m clog up the the process, which is already has some tight timelines as it is.

So that was kind of like the compromise solution was uh the weekly grants list.

And I will say I I look at it maybe not every week, but I look at it frequently, and um it's a very helpful list not only for just kind of seeing what what we're applying for, but also for um if there's something where there's like a TBD and you know of something in your district being like, hey, you know, here's an I if if if you're if you're still mulling this one over, um, you know, this is something that that I've got in my district or whatever that that could be a a good fit.

Um yeah, I I I think oh actually, if uh if you don't mind interrogatory, uh councilman, we had spoken at one point about a grants, but we're kind of getting a little off topic, but about like a grants fund, meaning like there was like a a pot of money that we could use for these matches.

Is that what you were referring to earlier?

If we're allowed interrogatory, that was one of the ways that we were trying to combat this problem.

Also at that time, I don't think we realized the financial situation, and maybe maybe members did, but myself and uh Mohammed did not.

Um, I don't know that the there would be no way to do the grants fund right now.

Right.

Um, like we don't have the money for that.

This I think is the next best option, um, you know, for where we are right now.

But again, both both ideas were kind of are solving the same problem.

I mean, I know for myself, I'm comfortable with the grants list because I know that I look at it, right?

So I you know, I I know if there's something that's in my district that I don't recognize, I can immediately um, you know, contact the director or whatever.

Um, speak on the um public notice, uh we do generally with these larger grants, we do get letters of support from the community groups to support our application to show the funder that they are actually wanted in the neighborhood.

Like that's generally one of the questions that we have to answer.

So we do reach out to Bike Pittsburgh.

Um we did one in Lawrenceville, so we reached out to the two groups there.

So we do reach out to them and let them know and see if they can support our applications.

Okay.

All right.

I mean that that that's all for me.

I just, yeah, thank you.

Seeing none.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, I didn't know if that was a councilman Wilson.

Thank you.

All right, so my understanding is that if a grant requires there to be matching funds that we show until we're either accepted or not, whether we're granted or not, you'll do that.

That's still part of.

If the grant requires it, we would you would point to those funds and say these are the funds we would use.

Yeah, and we can even um say that we would put it in the budget for the future year.

So we can so then we meet the requirements.

So then if a grant doesn't require as much stringent, no stringency.

Like would you we would figure it out essentially whenever the time comes?

Yeah, I mean, in the application that city stalls a demonstrate, like if we were I'm good.

Okay, goodbye.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 509, please say aye.

Abstentions.

No, affirmative recommendation.

Bill 510.

Thank you.

Resolution authorizing the city to quit claim any right, title, and interest it may have in and to the property identified as 6491 Stanton Avenue, 11th Ward to Grace S and Chibukum Arana for 200 relating to the full and final resolution of a long-standing scrivener's error in the chain of title.

Motion approved, second.

Second.

Discussion?

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate the um uh attorney in the solicitor's office talking to me about this.

There is, I just want to know that there's really no map of the parcel boundary in the legislation, and since it's correcting a scrivenor's error, um uh council members, we should probably like pass this today, but I may ask for there to be another attachment because it just it's keeps you know, it doesn't actually show the parcel boundary, and that would probably help for the legislative record.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Thank you.

Further discussion, seeing none, all in favor of bill five ten, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation, bill five eleven resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Omar Cadenas in an amount not to exceed three thousand six hundred dollars over one year in full in final settlement of a claim for damage to his vehicle on Eiler Street from an accident with the city police vehicle on March 17, 2026.

Motion approved, second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 511, please say aye.

I affirmative recommendation, Bill 515.

Excuse me, resolution amending resolution 747 of 2025, which authorized the mayor and the director of city planning to extend a professional services agreement with Bromberg and Associates LLC for effective communication services by exercising the contract option to extend the term for six months and by increasing the total spin by one hundred and twenty thousand dollars for a new not to exceed amount of seven hundred and seventy-eight thousand nine hundred and seventy-six dollars.

Motion to approve discussion, second, second, councilman Wilson.

I've seen an amendment here, and I know it's sponsored by you.

Would you like me to make the yes please?

Uh motion to amend bill five fifteen, second, which reduces the amount to 75,000 for the amount not to exceed.

Thank you.

Discussion, Councilmember Warwick.

Um, I just if there's anyone here who can speak to this, I want to ask what what the effective communication services are.

Yes, this is our um ASL interpretation services.

Oh, got it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, further discussion on the amendment.

All in favor, Councilwoman Gross, did you have a question?

Comment?

No, no, thank you.

Uh all in favor of amending bill um 515.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Bill is amended.

Further discussion on the bill as amended.

Seeing none, all in favor of bill five fifteen as amended, please say aye.

All right, aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you.

Takes us to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

Motion to approve, second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Affirmative record or P cards are approved.

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

Bill 499, resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of common plea catering in an amount not to exceed 16,450 for catering services during the NFL draft operational period.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

I do have a question.

I can't quite keep straight what is what was included in the reimbursement or the contribution from the state and what wasn't.

I don't know if you have the answer to that or if I do not.

Ms.

White wants to join us.

Good afternoon.

My name is Takina White, Assistant Director of Public Safety.

So we received $2 million from the state for for reimbursement for uh spending local spending for the NFL draft.

Does that cover this?

So we submit it, and then we will be in re-the practices that we would be in reimbursed at a later date, yes.

At a later date.

Um but this is not somehow outside of the boundaries of what will be allowable.

This is actually a part of it as a part of the submitted a couple days ago.

Okay, okay.

So assuming this will be reimbursable.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That was my question.

No problem.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 499, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 500.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of public safety on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh to enter into an institutional review board authorization agreement with the University of Pittsburgh, allowing the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board to provide oversight of research conducted by the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 500, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 501.

Resolution adopting the Allegheny County Hazard Mitigation Plan is the official hazard mitigation plan of the City of Pittsburgh.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

I am full of questions today.

I do have a question about this if someone is able to come to the table.

Welcome.

You can introduce yourself for the record.

Adam O'Mill, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator.

Thank you very much.

So I have this hazard mitigation plan in my head because our former planning director really was adamant about the city adopting a hazard mitigation plan to help us unlock future federal funding that can that is only allowed once with the city has a hazard mitigation plan.

I was never quite clear if we had adopted the county's hazard mitigation plan in the past.

Is this the first time we're doing this?

And is it really that easy or what like what steps were involved in in adopting this or can contemplating the counties as the cities?

Right.

So the city has adopted it every five years since 2016.

Okay.

Uh planning for this began back in 2025 through Allegheny County and their contractor.

A series of meetings where we discussed with all the other municipalities what hazards were subject to.

Uh human-cause natural disasters.

We also worked very closely with city planning on this, so they got our input on it.

Um and then from there they developed the plan.

So fully involved with the city along with other 130 municipalities.

And so is there something that we would have to do in addition to this to be able to unlock that magical spending that might not be that funding that might not may or may not be there at this point but could be in the future, or is does this constitute a plan such that we could we would be eligible for that?

This does unlock the hazard mitigation funds.

Great.

That's all I was wondering.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, thank you very much.

All in favor of Bill 501, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

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

Deferred papers, Bill 300, resolution providing for the issuance of a warrant in favor of a Felino Construction inc.

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

Motion to approve discussion.

Discussion, Councilwoman.

Yeah, can I have uh director up, please?

Good afternoon.

Afternoon, John.

Uh John McClure, Director of Public Works.

I've been holding this uh particular invoice for a little while here while we received some backup uh in addition to the blanket uh invoice they sent us.

Were you okay with what they sent and they backed up?

You can approve to attest to that that's you know what they did, yes.

That's the only question I had.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 300, please say aye.

Aye, affirmative recommendation.

Thank you very much.

New papers, Bill 507.

Resolution authorizing the mayor, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the solid waste infrastructure for recycling grant program, any amount not to exceed 1,666,217 to revamp our curbsite yard waste collection program, motion to approve.

Second discussion, seeing none, all in favor of bill five oh seven, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Congratulations to all involved.

Bill 508.

Resolution providing for a reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the construction phase of the West End Trolley Trail project and providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed one million dollars, reimbursable at 80%, any municipal share of commonwealth incur costs at a cost not to exceed $4,000.

Motion to approve second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 508.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 516.

Petition from the residents of the city of Pittsburgh requesting a public hearing before city council regarding maintaining Serpentine Drive in Shinley Park as a pedestrian and bike only through way.

The petition is valid in accordance with the home rule charter.

Motion to approve um discussion.

Second, second.

Second discussion.

Councilwoman Salonetra.

I'd like to call for a public hearing under the uh requests made by um by the city residents for serpentine drive.

There are second second all in discussion.

All in favor of a cable cast public hearing.

Please say aye.

Aye, we will.

It has, I believe, been scheduled.

So it is on the calendar.

Um is there further discussion on bill five sixteen?

Okay.

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

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

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

Supplemental new papers, Bill 544, ordnance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 7, Business Licensing, Article 9.

Amusement Businesses with a new chapter, Chapter 774, licensing of mechanical amusement devices.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion, Councilman Wilson.

I'll refer to the bill sponsor.

Thank you, Councilman.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to say uh I apologize.

I've had not had the opportunity to speak to each and every member yet regarding this.

We did touch on it a little bit when we were up in Harrisburg and got to speak to some of the uh state officials on it, which was helpful.

And um, but we will have plenty of time to go through the ins and outs of what I'm proposing.

So I want to begin with saying I first started to entertain introducing this during the time when we were proposing a property tax.

I wanted to look for this was to me was an alternative to property tax.

I was no secret, I was against raising our property taxes.

However, I will say, you know, after learning more of the situation we were in, I believe it was the right thing to do.

And uh wasn't fully informed as to our financial difficulties at the time, but I believe that was the right thing to do.

And so in doing so, and as the public knows, we passed, you know, 20% tax hike on our property.

Since then, you know, we found out we received a really transparent and realistic look at our fan financial situation through the administration, which I thanked them for.

I think at least now we we know where we stand.

Um so I decided that we needed to also move forward with this as well, because we need to generate more revenue for the city of Pittsburgh.

You know, especially when we look back at the facility usage tax, uh, known as the job tax that we lost millions of dollars a year on.

And on top of that, the reassessments of our skyscrapers downtown really put a hole in our budget as to what we were expecting to budget for.

So I decided we we better pursue this as well.

Only it's just one small measure to um hopefully bridge the gap between our deficits, but it's a measure.

And we did it in three different ways.

First, I want to tell you this is not a new tax.

This is nothing new to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

There are um one fifth of the municipalities and boroughs throughout the Commonwealth actually, you know, um have this tax already on the books, some for 40 years.

So so this is not a new tax.

Um, what I liked about it, and the reason why I pursued it initially was that the fact that it is not on the backs of the homeowners.

I never like to raise taxes, but again, we're we may not be large in population, but we are large in expenses.

It costs a lot of money to operate the city of Pittsburgh, whether it's our public safety, public works, um, bridges.

We can go on and on.

We have big ticket items that we need to finance for.

Last year we ran a deficit.

Um the first quarter projections for this year tend to point to us running a deficit again this year.

So I will my goal was to get this in place, something that we all agree with and can work on, so we could budget for it next year in 2027, because uh if we go three years in a deficit, I think that triggers the state is allowed to come in and declare us bankrupt and you know, take over our finances, which I don't want that.

I know my colleagues don't want that.

I know the administration doesn't want that, so so this is just one small measure.

It is a tax, it's not on the property owner, but um it's effective.

We guesstimated, I will say, and it's hard to figure some of these things out, and a lot of these things will be vetted out as we move forward with our conversations.

But um two to three million dollars of possible revenue for the city of Pittsburgh.

That's our best guess.

We did it in three different tiers.

Tier one would be skills games, um, that is poker machines, you know, the fruit machines and um things of that nature.

Tier two, now that would be tax at a thousand dollars per unit.

So I don't know about you all, but I see them everywhere, right?

Um, you know, the the demand is there, they're obviously making a lot of money from these skills games.

I have people have garages set up with skills games in them.

And um, you know, so so we're gonna put it initially a thousand dollar tax or fee, however you want to phrase it, but it's a tax and it's actually a privilege tax to have this machine per unit, excluding obviously the casino.

They're exempt.

Tier two would be the claw machines with the animals or really any machine that you really get prizes for.

Um that would be set at $100 per unit.

Tier three means dart boards, jukeboxes, pool tables, pretty much anything you plug in.

And that would be a very modest $10 per unit.

So if you have four of these games, it's $40 extra to you a year, whether you're a restaurant or a bar or you know, whatever it may be.

So it's a very modest ten dollars there.

Um I'm gonna need to hold it for a public hearing today, but I did want to just bring you up to date as to why and how I got to the point I'm at.

I know I've talked to many of you about this in the past, but not in depth.

In fact, it took us a while just to get the information.

I want to thank my staff and Sean Carter and Bike Plavchak for for the research, and and Melissa, who did a wonderful job for us researching the other surrounding municipalities that already impose this tax, and we've used them as a gauge.

Um, and of those, I will tell you we took statistics from Avalon, Blonnox, Brentwood, Scott Township, Wilkins Township, and I believe Elizabeth Forward.

And to the best of our ability, we came up with a formula that we thought would you know um gauge where what revenues the city of Pittsburgh uh would gain from this.

It's not exact, and there's a lot more research to be done, but but it's a starting point.

And through that, we came up with an estimation of about two to three million dollars per year annually.

I tend to think it's gonna be core more towards the three million, but um again, we have to do some more research to figure that out.

Uh important notes I want to make is that this is not on the backs of the tax of our property owners and eventually gets you know forced on our renters.

So so I like that about this from the beginning.

I stepped back from it a little bit once we approved the property tax again, which I'll admit that at the time I didn't feel like we needed, but now having a more clear picture um and transparent picture from the administration, I I believe that we we were forced to do that, and I believe we're forced to look at uh avenues like this, you know, uh revenues like this.

Doesn't mean I want to tax our way out of things.

Um this is again nothing new.

Many municipalities, many cities throughout the commonwealth have been doing this for ages.

We had a um conversation with our law department.

There was no immediate red flags that our law department threw up, but but those conversations will continue, and I'll open it up to other members, but I just want to say between now and the public hearing, we wish to coordinate and consult with number one council members.

Okay, I want us, I will meet individually or as a group or however to get your thoughts on it and to make sure our Ts are crossed and our eyes are dotted so that we get to the point where we can implement this.

Um obviously the administration will be in on all of those talks.

We have to bring PLI in because there's gonna be an enforcement measure that we have to figure out, and um, and and you know, they're gonna help you know we're gonna we're gonna all just put have to put our heads together and figure out how we're gonna do that in the finance department.

So so over the next three or four weeks, uh, you know, I hope and plan to sit with all council members first, the administration, and anybody else pertinent to this in implementing this.

Um we could amend as we go.

Um nothing is concrete here.

We nothing is finite.

We put the amounts on it, judging by what the market dictated.

Do you know the market dictated skills games were everywhere?

Basically, you know, um, we didn't want to hurt the people, you know, with uh with the dartboards and and the pool tables or impose a big tax on them.

I think that's very modest.

Ten dollars per unit.

And again, I don't like to impose any taxes, but uh, I think we better figure out a way for additional revenues for the city of Pittsburgh.

On top of taxes.

Of course, we have to look at our spending, we have to look at, you know, maybe not hiring through attrition when people retire if we can get through with a leaner workforce.

Um there's many ways.

This is just one, I just want to reiterate this.

Is this one small way that I feel we could be financially solvent here in the end?

So with that, I will uh you know, take any questions as to the point where I'm at with it from many council members, but again, we'll have to hold for a public hearing, so there will be no vote on it today.

But um with that, I'll turn it back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilperson Charlotte.

Yes, uh, so I'm excited about any opportunity we have for new revenue.

Um I think this is a uh uh generally like an idea that we should explore.

Um I'm I'm trying to figure out if my friends will save money or spend more money to start taxing their touch terms.

Um but I will, you know, I do want to explore that a little bit more.

I I actually have uh a call in to some of the bar owners to understand a little dynamic of that.

Um, but the other thing, the other really important piece of this, um, and talking to friends that you know that work in Harrisburg and and work around Harrisburg, it seems like the most pressing issue in Harrisburg right now is what we're gonna do with these uh these skill games, these these games of chance that that they have up there.

Um and how we're gonna, you know, how we're gonna generate revenue off of that.

I do wanna, you know, make sure that if it's something that that there's no way for us to stop, that we do um we do make sure to get what's ours on there.

But at the same time, you know, I I do think that someone needs to say, and I don't think anybody in Harrisburg, you know, can say this, so you know, hopefully, hopefully we can say this, that it it is a kind of a dangerous thing to look at uh folks playing these these games in a COGO's or in uh Delhi or or wherever they are.

Um, you know, people aren't it this is not like a night out at the casino.

This is, you know, the the this really is a tax on an addiction.

Um and it's it's a really kind of a sad thing um when we see see that happen, see that exist in in a uh space like that.

Um, you know, if you've if you watch as much local news as I do, you saw how heated the election got uh in the primary here between some of the the folks running for um you know for the the Senate seat outside the the county.

It was it was truly a proxy war between you know folks that believe that we should have more gambling available to you at every gas station through in the state and folks that believe that we should have more gambling on your phone.

Um that that's really what we were watching when we're seeing that.

And it it it's not it's not a fun thing.

This isn't like uh, you know, a night out with friends and you know, playing a little blackjack.

This is you know, really a scary, scary industry that that we've got there.

So I I do want us to have c some caution as we we talk about this.

I mean, I I would like to to tax it out of existence if if we have the opportunity to do that, but I you know I don't think that's that's within our power here, but um, excited to to see what what this entails and uh thank you for uh for moving forward with this.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

I appreciate the way that this is written so that it's very clearly, you know, not exceeding our jurisdiction by creating new tax.

It's a fee, right?

So these are fees on um the various types of amusement of mechanical.

Well, it's mechanical.

Oh, okay.

So it is a so it is a tax.

It is a tax, but it was within the jurisdictional um powers that we have.

That's right.

And oh excuse me, I don't, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah.

But um, yeah, and and we took the model of you know, again, uh one fifth of the entire commonwealth cities and municipalities already impose this tax.

So again, this is really nothing new.

We we looked at it and kind of tried to conform it to what we feel the city of Pittsburgh will benefit in revenue by, but um, but yeah, the precedence has been set, and again, I I don't want to get ahead of our law department, but our initial conversation was, you know, that they don't see any real red flags.

They want to talk to us about some of the things, and there's gonna be a lot to talk about, and you know, moving forward.

But um, so yeah, we're we're in compliance.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you for introducing this anyway to increase revenue is you know something I think we should all support.

Um just for for, you know, because I did hear from uh a few of my local small bar owners, right?

Bar and restaurant owners who were very worried, like what our pool table, you know what I mean like we're barely getting by and just our our our pool table or our dartboard uh so and I appreciate the clarification so that would you know the those those types of games right that are not the slots right those are the tier three and that is ten dollars per unit per year so you know very a very very modest uh modest tax for for those types of games that's not you know the the big ones are the that's right and we intentionally did it that way because you know that's amusement only basically um the second tier would be if you want a prize and you know um the club machines and you know other machines like that and uh obviously the the market you know we didn't want to get into the weeds as to illegal gambling and skills games so so that's why why we put it a mechanical devices uh tax on it it covers everything modestly for simple machines like that if you have three or four it's 30 40 50 bucks a year um obviously the demand is on the skills games and I know the state is talking about it and if I could reply to councilman charlans uh we don't know what the state is going to do we really don't we do know that the will is there for them to take this up whether they tax the revenue on it whether they tax the units like we're doing we don't know if it's gonna supersede what we do but we are having conversations I will be having conversations with my state elected officials that if it does if they do proceed and put a tax on it um and if it if it supersedes what we're doing uh you know we want to make sure that we get the benefits back from whatever tax that they imply so so we're we got a close eye on that I don't think it should stop us from moving forward I think if they decide to tax say the revenue on each machine which they can do and there is verification from each machine um for them to find that out then I don't think that should affect ours ours is a privilege tax meaning if you want this machine in your establishment that's gonna cost you if it's a skills game a thousand dollars per year if it's as simple as a dartboard then ten dollars so yeah um yeah again it's a small way but um I'm not real concerned I'll leave it up to the state to regulate and decide what's legal what's not and what kind of taxes they could put on it but I'm just trying to keep us clear of that conversation until they do what they do if they do what they do so we have no way really of telling at this point.

Well you unfortunately are giving my children another reason to ask for the claw machine for money for the claw machine it's helping the city mom it's helping the city and you know there's no way for us to know the profits of a claw machine you know I I do intend on having conversations with bar owners and restaurant owners and and this is not bar and just restaurant owners maybe with the cloud machines and pool tables it is but again the skills games are everywhere.

I have a gas station I won't mention they have a whole garage with 30 or 40 of them.

It looks like a little mini casino.

So I say we let the casinos be casinos and you know I feel like it's kind of getting out of control but I'll let the state worry about regulating or taxing that um we're just looking to put a fee or a tax on each individual machine.

So we could kind of stay clear that conversation if what the state does changes that then we'll just address it to Tom.

Yeah any further sorry further discussion councilman Mosley interrogatory sure uh just a quick question which tier the jukebox is falling again jukeboxes would be tier number wait a second that would be tier number three that would be 10 dollar fee yeah so jukeboxes you know that's really just amusement only there's no prize there's no I don't know how they're making their money I'm not gonna assume they're you know gambling with the skills game so but you know um obviously that that's what's a demand but this is strictly amusement, so there's no, you know, um right gifts received basically so yeah, so that would be in that category.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's one of the question.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Uh is there a motion to hold for for a hearing?

Yeah, I'd like to motion to hold for a public hearing.

Second, discussion?

Second.

Seeing none, all in favor of holding bill 544 for a cable cast public hearing, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill be held.

Deferred papers.

Bill 1993.

Bill 2025, 1993.

Ordnance amending the Pittsburgh Code Title IX Zoning Code, Article 1.

Introduction and Establishment, Section 90203 zoning map to rezone parcels from the RIV GI, Riverfront General Industrial Subdistrict to RIV IMU, Riverfront Induction Industrial Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Hazelwood neighborhood of the 15th ward 30 and in the 31st ward.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

All right.

I'm gonna hand this over to the bill sponsor.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh motion to amend by substitution.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of amending Bill 1993, please say aye.

Aye.

Uh bill is amended.

Further discussion on the bill as amended.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 1993 as amended, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

New papers, Bill 513.

Ordnance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title IX, Zoning Code, Article 1, Introduction and Establishment.

Section 90203, zoning map to rezone parcels 125 G13, 125 G 14, 125 G15 from residential single unit detached low density to urban industrial in the homewood west neighborhood.

Motion holds cable cast public hearing.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of a cable cast public hearing for Bill 513, please say aye.

Bill be held.

Bill 55518.

Ordnance establishing an East Carson Street Improvement District for the area shown on exhibit A at the behest of the East Carson Street Business District Advisory Committee.

Property owners and business owners to be benefited with specific improvements to be undertaken, including but not limited to financing of said improvements, method of assessing specific properties to be benefited, establishing a neighborhood improvement district management association to conduct administrative procedures for the neighborhood improvement district, providing for the establishment of a separate account for deposit and withdrawal of project funds and providing for the cost thereof.

Yeah, that's what I would like to do.

Second discussion.

The vacancy rate on East Carson Street from 24% to about 16.4%.

Years before, you know, this group was together.

There were multiple iterations, multiple attempts to do this.

Famously, both Southside and Lawrenceville tried to do this kind of at the same time period.

Um, and unfortunately, neither of those those passed, uh, but we're we're looking at it again.

We've got some really strong support.

About 94% of respondents in our surveys have said that they uh wanted to try this uh to try to do an improvement district on East Carson Street.

Um so uh the next step here is uh public hearing.

All the owners that are affected, um, all the property owners and all the tenants uh comedianly will be mailed next uh you know, in the next week or so.

Uh my office will be stuffing envelopes and we'll be letting them know about a public hearing to have that will have sometime in July.

Um, you know, and the hope here is that we can uh raise revenue locally on East Carson Street, fund uh an organization that will uh you know be controlled by the property owners of East Carson Street and be able to respond to their needs.

Um so this is uh I again I I think the most important legislation that that we can really look at for East Carson Street to really solve our our problems moving forward.

Um and I'm I'm really excited about it.

So uh with that uh I guess uh I would ultimately like to hold for a public hearing.

Sorry, thank you.

Any further discussion?

So we have a motion and second on holding for public hearing.

Any further discussion on the bill.

Seeing none, all those in favor of holding Bill 518 for cable cast public hearing, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill be held.

That moves us to recreation youth and senior services committee chaired by Councilmember Warwick.

Bill 512 resolution amending resolution 388 of 2025 authorizing the mayor and director of the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into a professional services agreement or agreements with Starfire Corporation for an enhanced fireworks show held in conjunction with the City of Pittsburgh celebration of the 250th anniversary of Independence Day by modifying the code account to include grant funding and by increasing the amount by 261,800 for new total costs not to exceed 514,000 over three years.

Motion to approve brief discussion, discussion.

Yeah, just to say um, you know, our our city parks and special events team put on a really great Fourth of July every year.

Um it's funny because um we were actually nominated by CBS or something, but we were nominated to like for a compet for a contest to like you know vote and on who has the best uh celebration, and uh I shared that on social media and it got more hits and shares and whatever than anything I've ever posted ever.

So it was really kind of sweet to kind of see how excited Pittsburghers are, how much they like this this event and um and uh how excited they were about that nomination.

Uh so I hope we win that.

And I know that this is gonna be really uh super, a really great it's gonna be really great this year.

So I'm very excited to see what uh what our team puts together.

Further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 512, please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation that moves us to an innovation performance asset management and technology committee chaired by Councilwoman Gross.

Bill 502 resolution authorizing the mayor, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the director of the Department of Innovation and Performance to enter into an agreement or agreements with Bloomberg philanthropies for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the youth climate action fund any amount of $50,000 to strengthen how cities partner with young people to develop local climate solutions.

Motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

Discussion?

Yeah, we have a few people here from INP, so I uh hoping they would come to the table and tell us about this exciting project.

Thank you.

You can just have seats and introduce yourselves for the record.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We actually won the first place for the fireworks.

Oh, we won.

Okay.

I was going to ask about kind of a financial gift, those are fireworks.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Phil Mayan.

I'm the Assistant Dave Terrafostus and Ability and Basy Dance in City Planning Department.

Good afternoon.

I'm Chris Pelasco, Senior Manager of Digital Services and Chief Data Officer from the Department of Innovation and Performance.

Sorry.

I'm Andrew Hayhurst.

I'm the senior manager of innovation in the Department of Innovation and Performance.

Great to um let us uh tell the public what we're looking at here.

Yes, so all of us are incredibly excited about this.

We won a grant for $50,000 from Bloomberg to try and engage youth uh throughout the city of Pittsburgh to take on some of our biggest challenges around climate and uh our climate action committee.

So like it's very exciting.

I kind of laid out I wanted to make it very simple and lay out what we were trying to look at doing, but essentially we want to go out and work with some of the the bigger name, it doesn't matter, some of the the groups out there that engage youth to work on climate action.

Um this just lays out we can essentially give up to $50,000 in microgrants, up to $5,000 per project.

And uh the goal is to try and get you know up to 50 projects that we can have proposed out there, and then we'll create a selection committee that will you know decide which projects we want to fund and move forward with that.

But the idea is if we can do this quickly, we can also get additional funding from Blueberg.

That's what they said.

So the faster that cities give out, though they may double the amount that we give.

So hopefully we want to we want to stand this up so that in July we can start accepting applications from cohorts.

Uh our team will go out and kind of talk through what our climate action um plan is and do some human-centered design activities to get like problem solving and brainstorming from from use age 15 to 24, and then have them come up with projects that we will then fund.

Well, this is great timing.

Um we've been talking a lot about youth in the age range of 15 to 24 in the city of Pittsburgh lately.

I think Councilman Mosley just hosted a big um uh and thorough post-agenda last week.

And the public has suggested that we find more things for people in this age range to do and to feel meaningful, right?

To make the project meaningful and not just, you know, uh like lip service, I think is the way um it was framed.

So um you mentioned cohorts, were those age cohorts themed cohorts.

What kind of cohorts are you thinking of?

Yeah, um, I think we were trying to help kind of group them by organization, you know, like which organizations wanted to come forward to make um, you know, resources available to their um to the youth that they already work with and help them raise the voices of those youth to carry out um activities that the youth come up with.

And so in front of us we have things like 412 Rescue or Grounded, and these are groups that work with either food redistribution or um land care type activities, boys and girls clubs which are kind of more after school time, up-school time, and sports um assemble as kind of crafting and arts um workshop, STEM workshop, Tree Pittsburgh high school and university students.

So I guess right now you're just kind of getting suggestions from the public, but then you'll be between now, which is we're almost at the beginning of June.

So you basically have June.

Yes.

To figure out kind of how you're putting parameters on the grants requests.

We're gonna stand up and engage PGH, a page that will then allow cohorts to apply, and um, you know, we will give them resources to go out and help kind of lead these uh events with with youth.

Um so that's the idea though, is that we'll use engage PGH, like that that known website.

Um, and we'll also use that page to ex you know to to get the applications in.

So like when the students have put together applications, they'll be able to submit through there.

How soon if if someone sees this today or is watching right now and wants to get in touch with you is the engage page going up momentarily it's um can they reach out to one of you yeah absolutely they can reach out to me for sure um andrew dot hayhurst at Pittsburgh PA.gov I regret that um uh but I the timeline on the engage page we just had our first coaching session with Bloomberg um philanthropies and so we're we hope to get that up in the next couple weeks and then we'll be some press around that once we do okay so fantastic so watch out for media watch out for the engage page going up and if you've got opportunities for um reaching out to youth who are city residents um and have ideas for getting them to apply or can help them apply for mini grants for climate oriented action and the city's current climate action plan is also on the city website somehow I'm sure it'll be linked on the engage page it's 2.0 3.0 what are we on 3.0 it's 3.0 reading 3.01 member of the public if you're out there don't read the old one read the new one um and align some projects that are meaningful impact for microgrants for climate solutions got it okay thank you that's all I have madam chair thank you further discussion congratulations this is terrific and look forward to seeing how it comes together thank you so much thanks to all seeing none all in favor of bill five oh two please say aye aye affirmative recommendation that moves us to intergovernmental and educational affairs committee chaired by councilman Mosley Bill 503 resolution authorizing the mayor director of the Office of Management and Budget and the director of the Department of Public Works to enter into an agreement or agreements with the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the economic development initiative community project funding in any amount not to exceed 25000 to recreate community at the Thaddeus Stevens Recreation Center.

Motion to approve second discussion seeing none all in favor of Bill 503 please say aye.

Affirmative recommendation Bill 504 resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant issuance of three warrants payable in favor of connect congress of neighboring communities for one year membership dues for all three branches of government and an amount not to exceed 27,563 dollars.

Motion to approve second discussion seeing none all in favor of Bill 504 please say aye.

Aye affirmative recommendation Bill 505.

Resolution amending resolution 680 of 2020 entitled resolution authorizing a cooperation agreement or agreements with the urban redevelopment authority of Pittsburgh in connection with the URA's application for a redevelopment assistance capital program grant of up to one million five hundred thousand dollars for the former homewood school project council district nine to increase the total grant award adjust the match and assign an additional job number motion to approve discussion seeing none all in favor of Bill 505 please say aye.

Aye rise affirmative record recommendation Bill 506.

Resolution adopting plan revision to the city of Pittsburgh's official sewage facilities plan for 2200 Railroad Street at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve second discussion seeing none all in favor of Bill 506 please say aye.

All right affirmative recommendation that exhausts our standing committee's agenda we do have meeting announcements tomorrow Thursday May 28th at 130 p.m council will hold a cable cast post agenda pertaining to Pittsburgh's noise ordinance as it relates to restaurant and bars.

I will be chairing that.

I hope to see you all there.

Next Monday, June 1st 2026, Council will hold a cable cast public hearing on bill 2026-426 as it relates to zoning in the north side.

Also, Council will hold its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd at 10 a.m and their standing committees meeting on Wednesday, June 3rd at 10 a.m.

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

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

Is there anything for members?

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

All in favor?

Meeting is adjourned.