Good morning and welcome to the standing committee's meeting for Wednesday, July 22nd, 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.

Charlin.

Mr.

Coghill.

Miss Gross.

Mr.

Lavelle.

Mr.

Mosley.

Miss Salonetro.

Here.

Miss Warwick.

Mr.

Wilson.

Here.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

Here.

Five members present.

Thank you.

Our next order of business is to amend the agenda.

Can I get a motion, please?

The move.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

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 uh that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or maybe 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.

And our first registered speaker is Armin Sami.

Hello, council.

Good morning from New Orleans.

Um, virtual today.

Uh wanted to give some public comment on trade.

My name is Armeen Sammy.

I'm a resident of Friendship in Pittsburgh.

And I'm here requesting more information before council votes on the downtown trade.

Um, in my read, the promise of of trades in general on this trade is this.

If we invest in downtown now, that investment will pay off in the future by increasing tax revenue.

I like the core promise of that.

I'm not convinced that the downtown trade does that.

If we compare the implementation plan posted by the URA for the downtown trade versus the Manchester Chateau trade, the Manchester Chateau trade felt concrete.

Uh if you look at it like to uh for example, it says um if we need a if we want a Ferris wheel, we'll need to restore the river bank and have upgraded utilities.

And so that's an investment we need to do today to generate the tax revenue in the future.

Um I can see how the upfront investments there are needed to realize the future revenue.

The downtown trade implementation plan feels much more amorphous to me.

Um all the projects it lists are projects that are already planned or in the pipeline.

So it feels like it's capturing revenue from projects that would happen with or without the TRID.

And to me, that's not how this should work.

Um to me, the TRID should make improvements that create future tax revenue.

And if the downtown trade does that, I have not seen evidence.

Um I've emailed the URA, I've read the documents, and I I can't find any evidence of that.

Um I do see an amorphous bucket promising 168.5 million dollars for quote potential future development, but it's not clear to me that the trade is claiming to create that future revenue.

I think it's just saying that those are projects we don't know about but are likely to happen with or without the trid.

Um so here's what I ask.

If the trid is expected to increase future tax revenue, the implementation plan should show that.

Uh the implementation plan should distinct distinguish between development that's already expected and development that's projected because of the TRID.

Um so I ask council for more details in the implementation plan before voting.

Uh thanks for your time.

And uh hello again from New Orleans.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mel Packer.

Morning, Mel Packer 623, Kurtlow Street, Point Breeze.

Remarks about the downtown proposal.

For the purpose of my remarks, we will accept that today that Pittsburgh, while truly part of Appalachia, is seen by most of the US as part of the Midwest, including by business leaders, and at the very least has to ties to the traditional Midwest.

From the Guardian Weekly magazine of July 10th, 2026, quote, since the pandemic, thousands of Americans have moved to the Midwest from other parts of the US.

It is bouncing back.

The Midwest is the only region where all states have gained population from July 2024 to July 2025.

Midwestern metro areas make up majority of the fastest growing metropolitan areas over the last two quarters.

People are moving because of lower cost of living, more temperate climate, and end of quote.

But then from my own reading, and developers know this as well.

They're moving because the west is burning, the south is going underwater while heating up, the east is losing its coast cost coast to oceans, and of course, housing costs and developers know that.

The population is going to continue to increase in this area.

Fast forward, why are developers interested in taking on projects in Pittsburgh?

Let's try a little capitalism 101 or economics 101, which apparently some city officials never took.

One, what is profit?

How do you make it?

Profits is money gained by selling your product for more money than it took you to make it.

Two, what are developers do?

They erect large structural units for the purposes of business or residential use, charge more to purchase or rent them than it costs to build them, thereby getting profit.

Three, are developers stupid.

No, they're not.

The proof is that they only build those structures when they know the future profits are coming.

Four, will developers bill when the future looks bleak for the possibility of profit making?

Of course they won't.

Five, why are developers seemingly racing each other out of the gate to develop structures in the city of Pittsburgh?

Because they know there's money to be made here.

Pittsburgh is going to continue to grow in population as it is already, and it will attract residents who can afford the developers' prices.

No one can ignore that there are literally thousands of upscale new units on the board or in the construction in neighborhoods all over the city.

Number six, when developers sense looming profits for their efforts, do they need financial incentives to build in this city?

Of course they don't.

They just want to make money.

But if they can run a con game on city officials who think that somehow developers will walk away from profits unless they give a financial awards, they will certainly take the offers.

So it really comes down to simple economics.

Why do we need to bribe developers to build more units when they're already doing it and want to do more?

Why do we offer incentives to companies that have been winning tax appeals big time, yet somehow believe they won't fight tax increases down the road to pay off the bond?

Well, who do our city officials love the most?

The residents who make the city work and elected them or the developers who contribute to their campaigns.

We know the answers, and you should just say no to this trid.

It is not and will not benefit anyone but the developers.

It will do little or nothing for those who make the city work.

The builders and developers are here.

More are coming.

We don't need to bribe them to get here.

They're coming and they're smelling blood.

Don't make it our blood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ken Regal.

Good morning, members of council and attendees.

My name is Ken Regal.

I've lived at 6465 Jackson Street in Highland Park for the past 40 years.

I'm here today to express my objection to the proposed downtown transit revitalization district.

The proposed TRID is a sort is the sort of public-private partnership in which the public bears risks and costs while the private sector reaps the benefits for itself.

The TRID plan calls for public borrowing of up to 200 million dollars, of which 80% would be given to a select group of private owners of highly valuable downtown real estate.

Only the other 20% of this public money would be available for public needs of any sort.

And even that slim share would be only for downtown, not the needs of most of the neighborhoods that you each represent.

The theory behind this corporate welfare is that it will cause so much development that new property taxes will enable us to pay off the bonds and after 20 or perhaps 40 years still have new tax revenue to help the city meet its present and future needs.

I'm sorry, I misspoke.

None of its present needs at all.

Only some unknown ones far into the future.

Now what's wrong with this theory?

First, real estate is real estate development is an inherently speculative business.

These owners, many of themselves from out of town with vast resources invested across the nation, want the citizens of Pittsburgh to mitigate their risk without sharing in the rewards.

Are there plans so iffy that they are unwilling to risk their own capital without major taxpayer help?

If these risk-taking entrepreneurs can't make money, some of them building only for the luxury high-rise market, uh luxury housing market, they should either scale back their ambitions or sell their property to someone who thinks they have a better idea.

According to what I learned in college economics class, that's how capitalism is supposed to work.

Second, many of these private interests are already feeding at the public trough.

Some have already been announced as beneficiaries of Governor Shapiro's downtown development plan.

One received a $1 million state redevelopment grant six years ago, is still vacant, and was lobbying the state for 10 million more just last year.

Others are receiving or likely eligible for LERTAs, the downtown enhanced LERTA, Pennsylvania housing finance funds, or if they were so kind as to build some low-income affordable housing, federal low-income housing targets, uh, tax credits.

Finally, nothing in the TRID plan puts any public obligation on the recipient recipients of this taxpayer large S.

No affordable housing targets, no public amenities, no improvements to public transit except in the name of the district.

No, nothing.

And this plan would impose these corporate welfare priorities and debt service obligations on city councils for so many years that those future city council members might not even be born yet.

There are more reasons, but I'm out of time.

Reject this plan and focus the city's resources on addressing community needs, not private greed.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joanna Deming.

And on deck is Pete Schmidt.

Hello.

Um, good morning all.

My name is Joe Deming, I live at 447 Marshall Avenue in Perry Hilltop.

I'm here to ask council to vote now on this resolution authorizing the adoption of the downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District.

The City of Pittsburgh continues to get more expensive, and solving the problem is also getting more expensive.

Neighbors, grassroots, and community-based developers must be trusted with significant resources if this is gonna change.

Neighborhoods like Perry Hilltop and Fine View, where I have been working and living for more than 20 years, need a serious investment of intentional capital to secure livable communities where we can thrive.

We are waiting for significant resources to finish the work the city has started.

Activating community plans, finishing the renovation at Fowler Park.

We have a pool that's still sitting vacant when it was supposed to open this summer after five years of wait.

We have a gym building in this park where it is sitting vacant.

It was started before my tenth grader was born.

Significant dollars are needed to implement the twice neighborhoods plans at Allegheny Dwellings that was completed three years ago.

Significant dollars are needed to provide deep subsidy and complete more permanently affordable homes.

Significant dollars are needed to renovate hundreds of vacant properties that remain.

Dollars are needed to support our urban farms and provide local markets where people can buy healthy food.

Instead of putting this money into downtown the strip district and parts of the north shore, money needs to be invested in communities like ours.

The plan is based on a loan that may not be paid before myself or many of the people in this room die.

My kids will be grandparents by the time the debt is paid.

Do we want this legacy?

Capping tax revenue in our most productive income producing areas for one-time influx that just benefits that area.

I live in the north side.

We've invested in the North Shore, and the people know the money trickles up the hill.

Once we invest in the areas, what do we have?

How does the community benefit?

We need to look at things like rent control, investing in permanent affordable housing for people at 50% or lower AMI.

We need to invest in our neighbors and our community.

We're really gonna see the change we want in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pete Schmidt, followed by Kim Smith.

Good morning, Pete Schmidt, uh, Mexican War Streets Northside.

I am the Western Pennsylvania director, district director for SEIU Local 32.

For decades, our union has been committed to fighting for and improving worker protections and raising living standards for the people who call this city home.

We strongly support investments that strengthen downtown Pittsburgh and make it a place where all Pittsburghers can thrive.

We want a downtown that we can be proud of to show visitors, businesses, future residents, and a place we can all call home.

We also recognize that Pittsburgh's commercial real estate market is facing serious challenges.

We appreciate the efforts of the mayor, city council, the URA, and other stakeholders who are working to position downtown for long-term success.

But there is another crisis that must be part of this conversation.

Workers are losing their jobs, their benefits, and the protection they have fought for and earn over decades.

In just a moment, you will hear from one of those workers, Kim, who has been an integral part of her building for over 30 years.

Workers like Kim have spent their lives cleaning, maintaining, securing, and operating these buildings that helped make downtown Pittsburgh a success.

Their hard work created value for these properties long before conversion projects became a reality.

We understand that the proposed trade represents the latest in a series of public investments that's over hundreds of millions of dollars.

But public investment must also support the workers who are the foundation of the tenants' experience in these buildings.

Across Pittsburgh and throughout Pennsylvania, commercial to residential conversions are resulting in the loss of good union jobs.

Longtime workers are seeing their hours cut, their benefits eliminated, and their jobs disappear altogether.

When developers and property owners receive public support to facilitate these transactions, too often the workers who built and sustained our downtown are left behind.

A real-world example is unfolding right now at the former Alcoa building, now known as the residences at Alcoa on 611 William Penn Place.

Before its conversion, the building employed 12 janitorial workers, earning family sustaining wages, affordable full family health insurance, and pension benefits.

Recently, the last two workers were displaced by PMC Property Group.

In less than a decade, a building with 12 family sustaining union jobs, then cut to two through conversion, is now reduced to zero.

We cannot afford to let this happen.

Pittsburgh is a union town that matters to me, and I know it matters to all of you.

Public investment should not be a subsidy to promote racing to the bottom.

The success of downtown cannot be measured solely by occupancy rates, development projects, or tax revenue.

It must also be measured by whether the people who have worked there for decades can continue to earn a decent living, support their families, and retire with dignity.

We are encouraged by the recently added amendments that will accomplish the following.

We believe the I'm sorry.

We believe the these amendments will not protect just protect workers but also secure the city's investment by ensuring stable, high-quality operations that improve property values in downtown.

As you consider this proposal, we ask that you ensure public support.

Thank you very much.

Comes with accountability and thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Kim Smith, followed by Stephen Kelly.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Smith, and I worked as a cleaner at the former Alcoe Building, which is now called Regional Enterprise Towers where we're nearly 40 years.

Over the years, the tenants became much more than people I worked for.

Then came my friends.

You can do it.

I can't take a moment.

Take your time.

I can't read the okay if I if I read the rest with Kim.

Thank you.

She's never received any complaints about her work, only compliments.

People have even been emailing the building manager in an effort to save her job and calling on PMC to do the right thing.

She cleaned three floors and always did her best to ensure tenants had a clean, safe, and welcoming place to work in.

When PMC came in, a manager at PMC told her they wanted to keep her because the tenants cared about her.

They recognized her value and the relationship she had built over decades of service.

She was excited because through collective bargaining, she's been able to win health care.

Four weeks of vacation, six personal days, and a union wage of $22.17 per hour.

Before the union came in during the 1990s, workers earned little more than minimum wage, which, by the way, is still 725 in the state of Pennsylvania.

Recently, herself and another cleaner were laid off, kicked out by PMC through no fault of her own.

In an instant, 37 years of hard work, dedication, and relationships were taken away.

Even though she had never received even one complaint about her work, she has to ask how much of it really keep to keep a longtime union worker, a Pittsburger, to respect her work hard work by providing decent wages and benefits.

PMC can afford to keep both her and her union.

Instead, they have chosen to eliminate an important union job in order to increase profits.

That building feels like her second home.

She spent nearly four decades there and planned to stay there until retirement in a few years.

She feels deeply hurt, disappointed by the way she was treated.

She cannot afford to lose her junior, her job simply because they want to save money.

After 37 years, she deserved better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephen Kelly, followed by Layla Vloat.

Float.

I have been a member of 32 BJ for 15 plus years.

I have seen many of you at our rallies and our fights, but none could be more important than the ones we are facing now.

32BJ is aware of this the challenges that Pittsburgh faces.

This is why we urge you to protect good union jobs.

These jobs provide hope for people who cannot afford to go to college, for people who may have fallen through the cracks, and see little hope for the future.

These jobs must be here for them.

There are companies coming into Pittsburgh with the idea that they are going to break our union.

There are companies coming into Pittsburgh with the idea of union busting.

To this, we say no.

And we urge you to stand with us as we say no.

One of our workers, you just heard from her, had through over 30 years of service.

Was thrown out of her building for no fault of her own.

We tried to talk to PMR PMC.

We tried to reason with them.

But they basically said we do not care.

And we ask you not to allow these companies to come in here with their money and their cheap union busting tactics and destroy good union good union jobs.

Someone once said to me, the easiest way for a poor man to get into the middle class is a union.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Layla Vloat, followed by Bernadette Mosey.

Good morning, members of the council.

My name is Layla Vlott, and I live in Central Oakland.

I have recently moved to Pennsylvania and attend the University of Pittsburgh.

I live in campus housing, and as someone who is new to the city and who I directly affects, I want to become a more involved member of the Pittsburgh community and understand the decisions that shape it.

As I look through today's agenda, two items really stood out to me.

The downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District and the proposed donation from UPNC for emergency medical services.

As a broke college student, I reply, I rely on public transportation to get to class, explore the city, and connect with other people.

Investments like these can strengthen downtown transit and have the potential to make Pittsburgh more accessible, encourage economic activity, and create a safer, more connected uh community for residents, workers, students, and visitors.

I think this could be an excellent use of city funds.

I hope these improvements continue to prioritize reliability, accessibility, and the needs of people who have to use these services every day.

I was also happy to see the proposed UPMC donation and support to new EMS vehicles and equipment.

Just the other day, I was walking to class and saw an ambulance pull-up to help someone on the street.

It's encouraging to know that help is available when needed.

Emergency medical services are important to every community, and investing in these services and equipment can help ensure that first responders have the resources they need to provide fast and high-quality care.

As I mentioned, I have recently moved to Pittsburgh, and that comes with its own worries.

So it's really comforting to know that if I need help, it would be there in a timely manner.

This is an investment that can have a real impact on public safety and in the lives of people across Pittsburgh.

Although I'm new to the city, I appreciate the opportunity to attend this meeting and learn more about how local government serves the community.

I look forward to becoming a more engaged resident and continuing to participate in conversations like these.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bernadette Mosey, followed by Madeline McGrady.

Um, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay.

Um, this plan is good in theory.

This plan is good in theory as I have sat here and I have said that we need our empty buildings turned into housing.

But this plan is baiting the town folk to believe in a fake bill for mixed affordable housing.

Make no mistakes.

This is a King Trump like Kingdom plan.

Take and take and raise and raise our taxes to first pay you, then pay the royal subjects, the developers and the contractors and the LLCs.

All will the seniors, veterans, disabled, and families or forced into poverty and streets for your LLCs and developers to fatten your pockets and receive tax breaks.

We can't get tax breaks.

They are denied, we are denied real help.

Did you know that Allegheny County Link describes what how they describe the homeless?

Not living in a car, not living in grandma's basement, not living in an abandoned URA property.

There's so many of them and other abandoned properties.

You must be living in a tent on the ground.

I repeat, you must be living in a tent on the ground.

But if you live in a tent on the ground, guess what?

Another tax paying entity.

I I love them, the police.

They they come and they take you and they arrest you for living in a tent.

The circle of street life begins.

So our taxpaid housing departments first force you to live in a tent in order to attempt to help.

Then send another taxpaid entity, the police to remove your tent status.

And now King Trumpelperg wants to arrest tax-created tent city homeless people, then place them in massive homeless detention centers.

More taxes.

All of those people are just gonna get it right back.

This plan needs honest local small business remodelers and construction workers who have the skills.

Kind of like the builders, Mayor Gandhi got slammed for knowing and trying to utilize.

This is like when you are blocked, when you block the small vendors in Pittsburgh.

Now you're continuing to block the same builders, the small, the small families that are builders and construction workers.

Redo this plan to only utilize small locals to build.

Help them get started.

Be transparent.

Affordable housing.

Look into New York's generational leases.

They are amazing.

I lived in New York.

They are amazing.

A generational lease.

They're locked into an affordable price, and they have an all list that listed out in a legal definition on how your mother can move in, your your the other people in your family can move in, and that home is their home for generations.

It works.

Whoever is running your housing authority, needs to lose his job and live in a tent.

Our next speaker is Madeline McGrady, followed by David Bunkoski.

Uh, good morning, council.

Um my name is Maddie McGrady.

I'm a co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table and a renter in Highland Park.

Uh we are the Housing Justice Table coalition of organizations and independent advocates working to ensure that safe, healthy, and truly deeply affordable housing is treated as a human right in Pittsburgh.

I'm speaking today to urge council to vote no on the downtown TRID proposal.

At its core, this proposal would borrow against and divert future public tax revenue to subsidize private development.

It only firmly commits 10 million of potentially up to two million dollars in borrowing to public infrastructure and makes no guaranteed commitments to public transit.

Public dollars should be leveraged to serve the public first and not to protect the profits of speculative real estate investors.

Our public dollars are one of the most powerful tools we have to shape our city.

Those dollars should be used to expand non-market housing options, public housing, limited equity cooperatives, and other forms of social housing that are community controlled and that prioritize keeping people stably housed and protected from displacement, not profit.

Instead, this proposal prioritizes subsidizing private development without any evidence or guarantees that it will produce the deeply affordable housing that we actually need, including housing that meets the needs of families and workers.

We can and must require far more from the private sector than is outlined in this proposal in exchange for public money.

Secondly, there has been a truly deplorable failure of the URA and the city to be transparent and to be meaningfully to meaningfully engage the public around this proposal.

Um I had the file of rate to know requests to get the planning study and um the PA TRID Act chapter 9 explicitly states that community and public involvement are required in the development of a trid, and that a public meeting must be held in order to explain the purpose, components, and alternatives to a trid.

That plainly did not happen.

And I think I we should all agree that robust public engagement and giving the public the opportunity to even understand what is being proposed here is a necessity, regardless of your you know, theory of economic change.

This was not transparent.

There was no opportunity for the public to learn that this was happening, to understand what was even in the proposal, to ask questions, or to give any input whatsoever before it was forwarded by the URA to the taxing bodies for a vote for a vote.

That is crazy.

Um I appreciate the post-agenda meeting held on July 1st.

Um, thank you, Councilman Mosley.

That conversation did come too late after the study had already been commissioned and paid for with public funds, and it was not sufficiently publicized to be meaningful.

A robust democratic process is not a formality.

It is how we ensure that public money is accountable to the public and aligned with community needs.

Tax-paying residents, including struggling transit writers, families, workers, and small business owners deserve a clear and honest accounting of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs before our elected officials vote to divert tax revenue for decades.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Boinkosky, followed by Bobby Sanford.

Is David with us?

Bobby Sanford.

Is Bobby with us?

We will come back to Bobby.

Our next speaker is Demetria Penny Harris.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Demetra Penny Harris.

My apologies.

It's okay.

I live in the Allentown section of Pittsburgh.

I'm here to ask you to vote against the downtown transit revitalization investment district.

I always feel that the public should be involved in things that this council is doing or plans to do.

I met my councilman, Bob Sharlin, when I first moved into my building.

I was happy that you took the time to talk to me and answer questions that I had after the meeting.

It led me to believe that you are someone who likes to involve the community.

I was shocked that I didn't hear about this from your office via a letter to our tenant council or by mail.

If I was not a member of PA United or Pittsburghers for Public Transportation, I would not have known about this.

I feel that this should not be passed without public opinion.

I also feel that taxes should go to programs that people need.

Homelessness and affordable housing are two examples of where money from taxes can go.

I'm sorry.

Some of that money should go to programs for them after all.

Aren't they our future?

When I finish here, I am going to start conversations with everyone I know and some I don't know.

I'm going on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.

I'm going on a bus, I'm going off the bus.

And I might even talk to some people in the elevator.

I just want every single body that votes to be informed because I am in an informed voter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Liretta Payne, followed by Laura Perkins.

Good morning.

My name is Liretta Payne.

I live in a Hill District and I'm representing the Hill District Consensus Group.

We have had many meetings in the Hill District regarding the trip.

And the consensus is across the board that instead of giving money to developers, these monies can be used for community land trust and co-op housing.

This is an effective way to create to create inclusive communities, is to have a community land trust with co-op housing built on top.

They're a form of permanently affordable housing in which a community-controlled organization retains ownership.

That land is could be in the houses, could be for lower income households.

In exchange for purchasing homes at below market rate prices, owners agree to resell price restrictions that keep homes permanently affordable to subsequent households with similar income levels.

Meanwhile, the sellers are still able to build some equity.

A community land trust provides stewardship for housing units land, such as preparing home buyers for purchase, supporting owners through financial challenges.

Or community land trust are considered a prime tool for allowing residents to return a stake and gentrifying areas.

That's because the initial subsidy remains with the building and keeps it continuously affordable over time without requiring new influxes of public money.

So it's self-generating.

Community land trusts have benefits in weak market areas as well as their stewardship protects communities by ensuring fewer foreclosures, better upkeep, and stable residence.

Community land trusts and co-ops bring sustainable home home ownership within the reach of more families supporting residents who want to commit to their neighborhood long-term.

They provide an avenue for a community to have a say in redevelopment plans.

So this is how we can spend the monies instead.

But our revenue, income revenue can be um increased with home ownership as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Laura Perkins, followed by Eva Mitchell.

Hi there, Laura Perkins, resident of Bloomfield.

I'm here uh to ask you all to vote no on TRID for many reasons that have already been said.

Uh this process has lacked a lot of transparency, um, which could be illegal.

So just to cover your backs, you might want to be more transparent, especially.

I know this is not you, but the URA um has pushed this through very suspiciously.

Um what is what are we trying to achieve with this?

Um are we trying to um put more money into public transit?

Um, because we could do that directly.

Um I see that uh we would have to take out a loan for 50 million dollars.

Uh Pittsburgh Regional Transit receives 50 million dollars per year in affairs.

Why don't we make uh fares free for a year with that uh 50 million dollars?

I think um what I'd like to ask city council members what city initiatives have you had to vote against simply because we do not have the money?

Um, because if we are foregoing 200 million dollars in taxpayer money, um, why don't we put that 200 million dollars over 40 years to things that you have said you would love to fund if you had the money?

Um, specifically what revitalization issues, because this is a transit revitalization, supposedly.

Um, what revitalization revitalization issues have you hoped to fund?

Because we can fund that with the money that you're giving straight to developers.

Um, how many of you said that taxes are too high?

Uh, because if we're just giving it to developers, uh, we wouldn't have to have that issue.

Um, I'd like to encourage everyone present in this room and everyone listening.

Uh, once uh council members uh cast their votes to investigate uh developers' campaign donations to city council members.

Specifically, I'm going to call out Bobby Wilson and Bob Charland, uh, who seem to support these uh issues.

Um that's it.

Vote no on TRID.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Eva Mitchell, followed by Amanda Nietrauer.

Is Eva with us?

Come back to Eva.

Amanda Neetrower.

Yes, good morning, I'm in the Nietzsche, Sheridan resident.

I am calling in today in opposition to the downtown trend as it's presently proposed.

In the early 80s, Reaganomics, or as we know, is trickle-down economics became the economic compass of the country, where we incentivize the wealthiest businesses and individuals by getting them tax breaks, which we know widened the economic divide.

At a time when child care centers are closing or becoming less accessible, hurting working families.

At a time in the West where we have crumbling streets, crumbling sidewalks and homes collapsing in on themselves, and when we have a citywide lack of safe third spaces, programming or infrastructure for our young people.

At a time when senior and caregiver services across the county have waitlisted all new applicants because they lack the funds to support the growing need for services.

At a time when our school district finally gets a financial infusion from the state after decades of discriminatory practices, underfunded the district, leading to the crumbling schools and underpayment of teachers.

You all want to borrow against the taxes of the city, county, and schools, to put into a fund for developers who don't even live in the city, whose main purpose and goal is to make as much money as possible for their investors.

And you do this with little to no information on what we'll actually get.

You want to hand them grant money, not low interest loans, free money to develop in just a single area of the city.

Instead of understanding all the ways reagonomics hurt everyday Americans as a cautionary note, you want to push what I call trickle-down development.

Somehow giving these folks our money and developing private infrastructure in a space we know the majority of us are not welcome.

Vetting that it will generate a boon in tax dollars.

It's supposed to radiate throughout the city a few years down the road.

People are struggling to eat, pay utility bills, and stay in their homes now in real time.

People are suffering and their lives are getting worse.

And instead of proposing ways to support mom and pop developers who live in our neighborhoods, and revitalize decaying and vacant main streets by supporting small business and entrepreneurs, where we know there's a much greater and more immediate return.

This gift to developers is what you are proposing, is both uncreative and irresponsible.

I urge you all to actually go through a public process, have greater transparency, allow much greater input, and not to give our money away at a time when you raise all of our taxes and we are all struggling now.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dean Mugianis, followed by Terry Minor Spencer.

Um, hi.

Um can you folks hear me?

Yes, we can.

Dean Lujanis, um, I'm a board member of Pittsburgh's for public transit, and I live in the South Side, and I'm testifying today to urge council to vote no on this proposal, because this proposal actually does not meet the guidelines for transit revitalization investment district.

Um the URA in their guidelines says this TRID projects are primarily transit-related public infrastructure improvements.

We've heard other testimony that 80% of this is going to private developers.

Um even beyond that, um, page two of the implement implementation plan, dated on March the 20th, um, lists a long table of specific um private investments.

What's going where, how much, um, in great detail.

You've got to go to page eight before you hear about what's going to go to public transit um and infrastructure.

Um, and I'm gonna read that.

Don't worry, it won't take long, it's one sentence.

It says this.

The TRID framework supports investments in public transit supportive infrastructure, including improved pedestrian connections to transit stations, enhanced streetscapes along key corridors, stationary improvements, and public realm upgrades that increase safety and accessibility for transit riders.

Forgive me for speaking bluntly, but this this reads like the person who was uh charged with drafting this was told, throw some transit sounding stuff in there because you we you know we've got to we've got to check that box.

Um, I am urging uh and you know, um it's uh if we had a gloriously robust transit system, it might be you know understandable to play a little fast and loose with what meets guidelines and what doesn't.

We do not have a gloriously trans uh uh robust transit system.

So I'm urging council to not take um public infrastructure money, um, especially um money that's meant to benefit the transit riding public of Pittsburgh and give it to private developers.

Um, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry Minor Spencer, followed by John McNulty.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good morning.

Um, yes, my name is Terry Mani Spencer.

I live on the west side of Pittsburgh in Sheridan all my life.

Um, first and foremost, I want to say thank you to Pittsburghers for public transportation for making sure that we are informed of uh what's going on with this trip proposal.

Um I'm calling in today to ask City Council to vote no on this trade proposal.

Uh once again, we find ourselves begging city council to support us.

Once again, we find ourselves begging for resources.

Once again, we find ourselves begging for leadership to lead for us and not developers.

We find ourselves once again begging for public dollars, whether borrowed or generated from tax revenue to be issued and invested across our communities.

Once again, we are begging city council to not just look outside your front door, but look at your district.

Your district is in disarray.

Your district community members are investing in their neighbors, not you.

Once again, we are asking the members of City Council to listen to your community and not private developers.

Our communities should be invested from Fairywood to Fine View, from Brookline to Bloomfield.

Our resources should be allocated through the uh our annual city uh budgeting process with public input.

This private conversation and these backdoor deals, they have to stop, y'all.

They have to stop.

We are begging you to once again invest in us and not private developers.

We are saying again, vote no on this trade proposal.

We don't know how this is going to help us with this 40-year commitment that you have on the table.

40 years, not four, not 14.

Invest in us for four years.

That's what we are asking city council.

And with that, please vote no.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John McNulty, followed by Margo Nikitas.

Hello, good morning.

Um, name's John McNaughty, I'm from Elliott neighborhood.

And yes, I would ask counselor to please rethink uh the TRID proposal here.

Um, I'd like to start with the improvement part of the uh transit revitalization improvement part.

Uh let's just take uh the strip district.

Uh we have improvements uh very recently.

We have the expansion of the Heinz History Center.

We have the success of the terminal building.

I go down there quite a lot, and you know, if you ever hang out in the strip district, it's usually a daytime or early part of the day.

Now it's really vitalized even in the evening.

Uh, you have the new feature like the Pittsburgh Walk of Fame, and there's going to be more famous people, and I think it's going to bring in people from around the country, and they're going to be really surprised who some of their greatest stars actually come from Pittsburgh.

It's better than the one in Hollywood, by the way, because we actually have an explanation of a little bit of the background, and it's not getting trash like the one in Hollywood Boulevard.

Uh, that's just a strip.

Let's go for downtown.

Because of the NFL draft recently, we got all kinds of improvement to Point State Park to the new market square with the nice little awning they have over top there.

Arts Landing.

I mean, what an awesome.

Has anybody not been there yet?

It's a really really nice park.

When I think of that Goodyear tire store that had no business being there in downtown.

And now, you know, you're watching concerts outside, and Picklesburg just happened this past weekend.

Um, that goes along with the other festivals.

There's always something happening downtown, if it's Anthrocon or it's the Art Festival, if it's a marathon or some sort of uh race.

Uh I heard that there's um proposal to help improve Smithfield Street corridor to make that uh more of a revitalized area.

Uh the North Shore.

Uh we have the Mike Drop, we have Esplanade.

There are so many things.

It's already a winner.

The three areas we're talking about are already improved.

And they're gonna bring in people already.

My proposal is that you think about uh the outlying areas.

It's what I call sustained vitality.

If you invest in affordable housing and you invest in transit, like I'm from the West End, you would help a lot of people that live where I live, would love to come down more.

I do, because I live without a car.

You could have more people living without a car.

You could have a dedicated bike lane uh to make uh neighborhoods like Allentown, Brighton Heights, Springfield.

When you have more people that want to live in the outlaying communities, they will come downtown and they will sustain that vitality for years to come.

We could even think outside the box like why not have affordable housing down the Ohio River corridor towards McKees Rocks and have boat transportation downtown.

How cool would that be?

That would be a draw of it in and of its own.

Lastly, for people living downtown in well-to-do places, you could go to a place like the Old Stone Tavern, the West End by a bike trail.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Margot Nikitas, followed by Randall Taylor.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Margo Nikitas.

I'm a resident of the South Side.

I'm a member of PPT, Pittsburghers for Public Transit, who I want to thank for letting us know about this proposal today.

I'm also staff on the United Electrical Workers National Labor Union representing tens of thousands of workers across the U.S.

That's been headquartered here in downtown Pittsburgh since the late 1980s.

I want to urge council, uh, and particularly my council person, Bob Sharlin, to vote no on this proposal.

Um this proposal is not going to benefit individuals and people of Pittsburgh.

It's going to end up benefiting private development.

And one thing we know in both PPT and the UE is that putting hands in the money of private developers doesn't benefit the public.

It hurts the public.

In fact, the UE is slated to move back into a building down on at Ford Smithfield Street that is one of the partnerships between the URA and private developers.

I hope that building ends up being great and we're happy there, and there is enough affordable housing.

We know we're in an affordable housing crisis, and we're in a transit crisis.

And that money should not be diverted to private development.

Uh, this reminds me uh as a longtime Chicagoan when Mayor Daly leased the parking meters in Chicago for 75 years in a failed attempt to get the Olympics to come to Chicago.

That deal hurt the city, it hurt citizens, and they're desperately trying to get back control of the parking meters so they can get more revenue back going to the public.

Uh I was late to this meeting today because they take access paratransit, which is routinely 45 minutes to two hours late.

It's not dependable.

And why is that?

In part because it's been privatized.

There are five companies that they've outsourced this public service that they have to provide by federal disability laws, but it doesn't serve.

It hurts the public.

Uh and we need development into transit, which is what this whole trig proposal is supposed to be about.

But what it really feels like is a ruse.

And in fact, what we've heard previous testimony today, it's hasn't been a transparent process.

It's been a secret process.

And that is to funnel more money into private development.

We know in our community organizations that we need development within our districts.

Councilperson Charlotte, how many storefronts have closed on Carson Street?

Recently, I just heard another longtime coffee shop and ice cream shop that's been an anchor in the community.

It's going to be closing.

How is this TRID proposal going to benefit our district where we live, work, and deserve a good life?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Randall Taylor, followed by Peter Kaplan.

Good morning, council.

Do I hit a U hit?

Okay.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Randall Taylor, resident of East Liberty, forever displaced resident of Pim Plaza.

And if we're giving away money, I certainly like Laura's suggestion.

We could also talk about providing a health care for people who've lost their health care.

I think it's 96,000 Pennsylvanians, I'm sure, in Pittsburgh.

People have lost their SNAP benefits.

So if we're giving away money, I'd like to start with helping with people who really need some help at this time.

So people know I served on the Pittsburgh School Board for 12 years.

I'm very familiar with uh these kinds of proposals.

I was proud to vote against free money for PNC, free money for Mellon Bank.

Uh I voted against uh Albion, that luxury apartment building on the corner of Bomb and Liberty.

Um, because the idea of those things, and we can go back now and look at how those things worked and whether those public investments actually led to things.

Because we were told at that time that they were supposed to spur more development, create more jobs, create new more housing, um, increase tax revenue.

That was what the public investments were supposed to do around tax increment financing.

You can make the case it did that in Home Depot.

You can't make the case in anything else.

And this proposal certainly wouldn't meet that criteria.

So I'm not going to really speak to that because I don't really really think you should vote against it.

I think you really should withdraw it because this isn't going to end well.

So I'll give I'll give quickly and in a minute and a half that I have left, just an idea of what I would do if I was investing this kind of money or seeking public investment.

The University of Pittsburgh had its largest um increase of freshman classes.

You know, this is a university town in case people don't know it.

So you know what I would do, uh, Councilman Cockio.

I would take I would go to a place like Homewood, right by the busway, which we got a lot of free land near, and I would I would start student-owned housing cooperatives right at the busway.

Because these universities want to continue to grow because all they gotta do is add another classroom.

They're not paying another uh chair, too.

They're not paying their their uh their professors anymore.

And so if we can potentially around the busway where K, you know, we can use the busway, and they have the uh P3 where kids can just come out the door and be at their campus within 10 or 15 minutes.

And if you actually created that kind of thing in a place like Homewood, and you potentially brought 5,000, 10,000, you're jump starting a community.

There's gonna be businesses that are gonna open up.

There's jobs, there's gonna be people who look around and say, hey, this is nice out here.

I'm gonna buy a house out here, I'm gonna move out to Homewood, and you could actually be using those dollars, and you know what?

Co-ops have to pay taxes.

Those new businesses, no new homeowners in homewood pay taxes.

So now you've actually invested public dollars, and now you can see you're gonna get a return of tax dollars.

So, Councilman Cobb, I think that's a good idea because you know in my final seconds that those buildings can fill up, you're not gonna get much more tax revenue than you're getting now.

So let's invest and let's look what we can get a return on that investment.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Kaplan, followed by Verna Johnson.

Good morning, everybody.

Thank you very much for having us here.

My name is Peter Kaplan.

I've spent half my career financing affordable rental housing.

Uh I also, and I live in Point Breeze at 125 South Lang Avenue.

I've heard some wonderful things this morning from the speakers you've heard.

There are tremendous minds here in our community who have lots to offer to everyone.

So I'm gonna keep my remarks very brief.

Uh I do have serious concerns about the trid, and I do recommend that you vote against it, uh, especially the impact on the Pittsburgh public schools.

The mission of our schools has nothing to do with real estate development, and these and the tax increment should not include the Pittsburgh public schools.

There's a lack of affordable housing emphasis in this program, which I think is also a mistake.

The other thing that bothers me is the is the fact that the city taxpayers are being asked to guarantee this debt.

Now, other trids like East Liberty and the one I've read about in Philadelphia, the state provided debt service money to to back up to back up the uh tax increment if it doesn't resolve itself and doesn't have it there.

So I think that we at a minimum, since these other ones have done this, we should be asking for those funds too to minimize or eliminate the liability that our taxpayers will have for this program.

The main reason that I want to talk today, though, is because you've heard this from many, many speakers.

That is that there has not been an adequate process to bring this to the voters and to bring us to our residents.

It is simply there was one document which the implementation plan, which frankly is a piece of crap.

It doesn't explain the basics of the program, it created misunderstandings, it is a terrible document, and really uh the fact that there are also minimal public hearings uh that that people were not made aware of, the fact that all these people are telling you this sells you that the URA in particular has done a very bad job in making this informing our citizens.

And I think you need to go to the URA and tell them they gotta step up and really provide that kind of thing.

They can't just leave it all on you.

It's not fair to you.

People need to be knowing about this and have the information they need, and the URA just isn't doing it.

Um I'd also like to say that uh I'm gonna just piggyback on what Randall Taylor just said.

I live in in Point Breeze.

I commuted for 27 years on the uh East Busway.

It's a fantastic thing, and a trid in Homewood would be incredible for affordable housing, for taking our busway station, which unlike most of the other stations in more affluent areas, has not been rehabbed in years, and they just do little patches and things.

It's um it's it's really not effective.

So thank you very much, and again, I thank all the people who've spoken today.

You are all brilliant and fantastic.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Verna Johnson, followed by Al Hart.

Hello, my name is Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hello, my name is Verna Johnson.

I live in the East Liberty area.

I live uh in Lincoln, Livington, Belmar.

Um I thought that there was supposed to be an openness in government, especially when we vote for individuals to represent us.

I think that the trade doesn't represent everyone, it represents a certain situation of people, and I don't think that's right.

I think that as a voter myself, all the times I can vote, I voted for many, many years now, and um I started when I was 17.

I'm not 17 anymore, unfortunately.

Uh, but the thing is, this is not a fair situation for the rest of the people of the United States.

I hear City Council say something, but are you representing yourself or are you representing the people of Pittsburgh?

I'm not trying to be a judge, but when I look at downtown Pittsburgh, where was City Council when downtown Pittsburgh started to become a ghost town?

Where are all the businesses?

Why aren't you using that money to bring people back to the main streets, Fifth Avenue, Smithfield Street?

Why is money being sent for spent for something that doesn't guarantee people will come back down to Pittsburgh?

And I really want council, city council to consider what I'm saying and to vote no, because the citizens of Pittsburgh do not agree with this.

I'm only one, but I'm not alone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Al Hart, followed by Elisa Grishman.

Morning, my name is Alan Hart.

I live in Stanton Heights.

I'm a retired representative from the United Electrical Workers, which I was with for 43 years.

Uh from 2006 to 2011, 2017, I worked at our national office in downtown Pittsburgh, which was located in Gateway Center.

So I was in downtown Pittsburgh pretty much every working day for those years.

And I noticed something very strange going on.

That even though the office vacancy rates kept going up, the towers kept going up too.

The developers kept building more and more office space.

And I thought, how can these rich people be so stupid?

And when I saw the TRID proposal, it finally hit me.

They knew all along that if they grease the right palms of our local politicians, they could convert those offices into luxury housing and get the public to pay for it.

And that's exactly what this proposal is.

This proposal is for 40 years.

When this expires, I'll be 116 years old.

There are people in there are children in elementary school now who will be sitting on city council in in the years when this thing is still in effect.

There are people who are unborn who will be on this council when this thing is still in effect.

And their hands will be tied.

They will not be able to address the problems of the city of Pittsburgh in their time because of what the council in 2026 did to give this money away to private interests.

We're living in the age of Trump.

We are ruled by a real estate developer who is one of the biggest crooks we've that history has ever known.

We we learn every day more about what he is doing to enrich himself, his family, and his friends at public expense.

And this proposal is Trumpism.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

We have a mayor who was elected with money from the same people who elected Donald Trump.

But this is a disgrace.

And future generations look up and find out how they got stuck with this, and they see the names of some of the members of this council who voted for this in 2026.

They will curse your names.

Although I know that some of you will vote for it.

Because it's it means a lot to me, and it leans a lot to people, a lot of people in Pittsburgh, that at least some of our public officials know the difference between right and wrong.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alisa Grishman, followed by Tom Conroy.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I have to follow that.

Hello, everyone.

I'm Elisa Grishman, and I live in Uptown.

I'm the director of Access Mob Pittsburgh, and I serve on the board of directors for Pittsburgh for public transit.

I am vehemently, vehemently opposed to the proposed trade legislation.

There's not a lot that I can add that either hasn't been said already or will be said by others.

I'm too angry to even try.

This is a blatant money grab by developers who only have their own interests in mind, not those of the general public whom council is supposed to be serving.

Right off the bat, as we learned in 2020, the future is unpredictable.

And with the ravages of climate change, the coming or hopefully not coming of data centers, the possibility of future pandemics and the uncertainty of tomorrow, it seems reckless to preemptively allocate 40 years, 40 years of anticipated tax revenue, and pump it into downtown housing developments.

To put this in perspective, I'm 44.

That's my entire lifetime's worth of taxes.

Why is it even being called the Transit Revitalization Improvement District when so little of the money is being put into transit-oriented development?

There are so many more worthwhile projects the city could be investing in.

The wait lists for accessible housing are years long in some places.

Also, I've been working with Safe Sidewalks Crew to help Domi audit the sidewalk conditions throughout Pittsburgh, and they are frankly appalling.

Whole neighborhoods are being left behind.

We need to put that money into fixing things that benefit everyone, not just downtown.

Pittsburgh has 90 neighborhoods, remember?

That's all I have to say today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tom Conroy, followed by Laura Chuweans.

Tom, if you're speaking, we cannot hear you.

It looks like you're muted.

Can you are you able to we can hear you?

Thank you.

We can hear you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

My name is Tom Conroy.

I live in District 4 in Bookline at 757 Mayville Avenue.

I'm a constituent of Mr.

Carhills.

I'm also a city member of Pittsburgh's for public transit and a longtime member.

And I have to give a shout-out to everybody who took the time off today to come to speak against this.

Members of City Council and the mayor's administration have stated repeatedly that the city is facing a massive budget crisis.

My question to the council is why is a 200 million dollar handout to downtown developers being fast tracked with almost no public process.

Downtown developers have been given almost a billion dollars in tax breaks in the past five years.

But it seems like that's not enough for them.

The city, meaning taxpayers, would borrow millions of dollars to invest exclusively in the TRID area, the strip district, parts of North Shore, and downtown.

This money would effectively be a handout paid to wealthy developers with the city gambling on future tax revenue to pay down this debt.

Meanwhile, many of these developers are concurrently challenging your commercial property assessments to pay lower taxes in the future.

The math on this is disturbing.

Only 20% of this money would be invested in public infrastructure, and they've not named any public projects that would benefit with 80% earmarks for specific projects for profit developers.

It's all extremely vague.

It has no guarantees for public transit, which is quickly become more remote in the city, or protection for the union workers that we saw speak earlier.

And controlled by a non-elected, non-transpire of URA, Walk City Council, which is a public body accountable to its constituents.

This is what our communities need.

Public infrastructure, affordable housing, local food initiatives, child care programs, street, and sidewalk repairs.

And these resources need to be allocated through the annual city budgeting process with a strong public import to ensure they are distributed equitably and address the needs of the moment.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Laura Cheweens, followed by Kel De Gorman.

Good morning.

My name is Laura Chew Weins.

I'm the executive director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

Uh, located at 4836 uh Ellsworth Avenue in Shady Side.

I'm a resident of the park place community in District 9.

I'm going to speak very personally.

Over the last year and a half, my family has been impacted by and has carefully considered the budget issues affecting the city of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Public Schools, and Allegheny County.

Like everyone, our households' utility costs and grocery costs are through the roof.

Like many other families, our children, ages seven and nine year olds are going to be displaced from their elementary school, which is shutting down, purportedly as a way to respond to the PPS budget crisis.

And despite these impacts, and in fact, maybe because of these impacts, we urged our neighbors and friends to speak up in favor of the tax increases on residents like myself in both the city and county over the last two years.

We did so because we knew that by paying higher taxes, we would ensure that our elected bodies would better support poor and working class Pittsburghers in a time of economic crisis and provide for basic needs for food, housing, child care, transit, and safe infrastructure.

I did not support tax increases, so you can now decide to mortgage our city's financial future and bestow hundreds of millions of dollars with no public benefit or accountability to private real estate developers downtown.

For shame.

It should be for future legislators, for our children to decide how our shared tax revenue should be spent to meet the needs of all communities in 10 and 20 and 30 years.

Instead, you are choosing to leave our kids to pay down debt and stripping them of all decision-making power over these resources.

A vote for the downtown trid forecloses the possibility of investment in our neighborhoods, in housing, in small businesses, in education, in transit and food access for 40 years.

An investment into public infrastructure associated with that transit stop.

As the director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, I want you to know that this is not in our name.

This is not a transit policy or project.

It is an abomination.

Vote no on the downtown trid.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kel De Gorman.

Hello.

I'm Canada Gorman, a resident of Oakland.

Good morning, City Council members.

Think about this for a moment.

The impact of TRID.

There will be no real public access, no funding for the health care and child care that your city residents and the people who elected you will benefit from.

Also, there will be no subsidy if the school board falls short as they have every year for many years.

Most people would also lose their jobs because without proper schooling or proper transit, there is no way or access to real sustainable work.

Which means well, and also that would mean that there would be no that people like myself, disabled residents, people who are dependent on a large majority of public services, including transit, Medicaid, all those things that are being cut is well as like getting jobs hard enough.

If he can't get to jobs, then the city will not have what it needs to sustain our economy.

Then it will be forty plus years before the city will be in a critical money deficit, which they already are.

So I have to wonder why this decision even came into play, or why this even came in the play.

Money.

Money in private pockets, money for campaigns.

If you don't have jobs and you don't have people that want to live in the city and stay in the city because they can work, they can get child care, they can get health care.

You have nobody voting for you.

There will be no city.

There will be no city council.

Thank you.

My name is Tracy Lawson.

I am from Northside Spring Hill.

And I am part of PPT.

And I just have observations.

I don't have a whole bunch of information here, but it from what I I see here, the it's nice.

I will start off and say it's nice.

It's nice, just like plush carpeting is nice.

Beautiful windows are nice.

Good wallpapering.

Nice.

Foundational.

Is it fundamental to our needs?

My observation is Pittsburgh is downtown where I've worked for many years.

Many other people have still work where we visit, where we shop.

Neighborhoods.

Many, many neighborhoods.

That's the foundations.

That's the observations I do know.

I don't know all these other facts.

As far as the financing here, I've been accountant for about over 40 years.

I let all the big accountants and economists talk about all that, I'll tell you that.

But it comes down to this.

The financing here is taking money from Peter.

And giving it to Paul.

Can always count on poll's vote.

Guess what?

My name's Peter.

I think there's a whole bunch of other people here.

I think their name is you're Peter too, or I think this is a you're I think there's a whole bunch of Peters here, so that's basically it.

It's like I'm asking for fundamentals, foundationals.

Um I like a good plush carpet when I get it.

But let's get the house in order.

Let's get the house built.

Let's get everything else done first.

Hopefully I got I didn't get taken off the gong show yet.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Henderson, followed by uh Sequaha Jeffries.

Pamela with us.

We will come back to Pamela.

Sequaha Jeffries.

We will move to Nicole Gallagher, followed by Natalie Ford.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Nicole Gallagher.

I live on Hasledge Street in Spring Hill 15212.

I'm a community organizer for Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

I drive, ride my bike, and take the bus in my neighborhood.

I am here to express my deep concern over this proposed tri.

Committing taxpayers to a 40-year loan of hundreds of millions of dollars to grant private developers the funds to revitalize a small portion of our city in the name of transit and infrastructure, of which 20% is slated to go to said amenities in the area that has some of the best transit and infrastructure in the city is appalling.

In a time of school closures, public transit cuts, and affordable housing crisis.

It's appalling.

There's been no meaningful public communication or dialogue.

That is also appalling.

Spring Hill is a working class neighborhood on a huge hill.

It's Pittsburgh.

Many seniors and disabled people reside there.

Tracy's my neighbor.

People who have lived there in their homes for their entire lives, and some for generations.

Public staircases are very important thoroughfares to traverse that big hill.

Multiple sets of those staircases are covered in poison ivy, crumbling and in terrifyingly unsafe conditions.

I regularly see families with infants and strollers and disabled people walking and rolling down the shoulder of one of the narrowest hills of my neighborhood while drivers speed by.

This is because of the poor state of sidewalks and their lack of ADA accessibility.

Many of the disabled seniors living at St.

Ambrose Manor on Iten and Rhine can only wheel themselves around one square block radius because the sidewalks are so bad everywhere else.

There are many dangerous blind corners in my neighborhood that would benefit from convex mirrors, pedestrian crossing beacons, and other pedestrian safety features.

We have no bike lanes or amenities in my neighborhood.

This past winter's massive snowstorm, side streets were undrivable for days, curb cuts and bus stops stayed unplowed for even more days because who is even responsible for curb cuts and bus stop plowing?

We badly need a bus shelter at the inbound six stop at right uh Rhine and Yeda, right next to St.

Ambrose.

At the very least, a bench.

If you did not know this, Pittsburgh has some of the lowest number of bus shelters per capita compared to cities of the same size, coming in around 10%.

The city is responsible for the majority of these shelters, and at the rate they're being funded, we'll get seven new ones a year for almost for the almost 7,000 bus stops we have in Pittsburgh.

These observations are all just from Spring Hill, which by the way has an elementary school closing in the next few years.

Now, imagine if we made a list of all the improvements that would be life-changing in the other 86 neighborhoods not being benefited by this trid.

I urge you, City Council, to vote no for implementing this trid to deprive working people across Pittsburgh to safe access to their neighborhoods in favor of downtown developers is morally bankrupt.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Natalie Ford, followed by Tiara Collins.

Good morning.

My name is Natalie Ford, and I am speaking today to urge City Council to vote no to the trip proposal as a Ferrywood resident and on behalf of my organization 412 Justice.

To shovel more money into private developers' pockets to further develop without community input during a time when Pittsburgh residents are struggling economically more than ever is careless and tone-deaf.

The city cannot continue to only invest in the same three neighborhoods.

It is entirely unfair for city taxpayers to fund these playgrounds that are primarily utilized by non-city residents.

Residents in disinvested communities are not solely responsible for reinvesting in their community.

The city is.

These neighborhoods have so much to offer and so much potential, but the city doesn't see it this way.

They've made it clear by the lack of infrastructure repairs, affordable housing, education funding, and available transportation across the city.

Living within the city of Pittsburgh limits, it's widely accepted that we pay higher taxes to just live in the city.

But that doesn't mean the city can fork over our money for private interests.

The concerns of communities seem to never be taken seriously.

We deserve a seat at the table.

We deserve to have our voices heard, and we demand that our needs be met.

I know I would much rather my tax dollars go to improving infrastructure and education rather than giving my money to a private developer to do whatever they please.

The city cannot continue to do the bare minimum for its residents but bow for private developers and corporations.

That is not the job of public servants.

Residents pay them to do their job.

They should act accordingly.

Council members, I advise you to vote no on approving the trip proposal.

What the city needs is community-led and community-centered development, not another neighborhood full of corporate slop funded with our hard-earned money.

If passed, I, as a city of Pittsburgh resident and others, will continue to pay for this for 40 years.

By that time, I will be 64.

In 40 years, I want to see all of Pittsburgh's neighborhoods flourish, not just the same three.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tiara Collins, followed by Margaret Schnupp.

Good morning.

My name is Tiara Collins.

I live in the Greenfield area.

I just personally want to say transparency, transparency, transparency.

Every time we have to come to meet, it's about transparency and how any time you guys are trying to do something that is not in the best interest of the people to do it a bunch of radio.

I am a board member for Pittsburgh's Republic Transit, and I found out about this meeting.

I don't think you guys understand how important it is for you guys to vote against this.

Well, let me tell you a little story.

I have a mama seven, who is at Section 8 voucher not once but twice.

And because she has not been able to find a four or five bedroom, she has lost her voucher.

Not once, but twice.

She is currently living in a three-bedroom on Westroor Avenue that I know should have been condemned more than 10 years ago.

But because she cannot find nowhere to live, she is still in this raggy three-bit room on Webster.

The money that y'all need to be investing and what y'all need to be invested in money in is housing.

Our schools not closing, which all the schools that represent my son and my grandchildren are closing.

But do y'all care?

No, y'all don't care.

Y'all say y'all care, but y'all.

Here's what I want y'all to understand.

I know some of you are up for re-election.

Where y'all phones and cameras out, y'all.

Get your phones and cameras out.

Because I need y'all to take a picture of what I'm about to say.

I need a picture of everybody's faces I can't beat her to see it.

I mean, you're up for election.

In the text message, cancel.

Since I know in rules.

Since I know some of you are up for re-election, here is my goal, and here's my here's my what I'm going to do.

If for those who do vote for this, I'm going to spend your entire election, making sure that you do not get back in office.

And I don't care how many hours you take, how many days, you will not get re-elected.

I will not sleep until your seats are taken.

Since you don't care about the people and you don't care about us, why should we care about you keeping your seats?

I hope you guys have a wonderful day.

Enjoy.

I'm done.

God bless.

Bye-bye.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Margaret Schnupp, followed by Carlin Christie.

Hi, my name is Margaret Schnupp.

I live in the Brookline neighborhood.

Um, I wanted to urge you guys to vote no.

I completely agree with Tiara when I when she says that she would make sure that any council member who agrees with this, he would work to make sure they don't get re-elected.

I also will because having bureau oversight on this downtown trip program.

It just reminds me of the you know, the Pittsburgh, I can't remember the exact name, the trust fund that we made for the city parks that is just money sitting there that we've all paid, and I've seen no updates in any of the parks recently.

I mean, from what we can see, money has been spent towards you know, salaries of park employees, which should be a part of the regular budget.

I thought this money was supposed to go towards projects, you know, revitalizing our parks, but that's neither here nor there.

That's exactly what I feel like is gonna happen with this downtown trade program, except for the fact that like we're going to be getting money to for-profit developers.

Like I feel that our tax money is already being spread too thin, considering that we have so much non-profit or not for profits like EPMC not paying their share in taxes already.

And we're our Pittsburgh public schools are not doing okay.

I'm really concerned about the next decade and what that looks like, whether we'll even have public schools or it'll be all charter and private schools in the future.

My daughters are 18 and turning 20, and this they would be like closer to retirement age before this money would be even paid back.

That seems outrageous.

Um, I really hope that you guys don't vote to do this, especially with the plan the way that it's in, you know, like supposed to go now.

Because without having a public oversight, I just I can't, I can't back that at all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Carlin Christie, followed by Jayla Rucker.

Good morning, council.

My name is Carlin Christie.

I'm a resident of Brighton Heights, and I'm here representing PA United.

Last week, when the New York City Council passed a bill that would give themselves and the mayor of New York an 18% raise, Mayor Zoran Momdani declined to accept this increase.

When asked why, he stated, I haven't knocked on anyone's door in New York City, and they've said their concern is that the mayor makes too little.

I would like to ask the following question to city council.

How many doors have you knocked on in the city of Pittsburgh where the residents said their concern is downtown developers are getting too little of our tax dollars?

How many said their concern is we weren't building enough market rate condos as opposed to affordable housing?

Under this proposal, 80% of initial investment and potentially more of their life of the trid will go to real estate development projects selected by the URA with no community benefits agreement or accountability to the taxpayers.

The proposed 40-year timeline would divert public tax money that future legislators and our children and grandchildren should decide how to allocate.

Market-driven policies such as those proposed under the TRID have consistently exacerbated social exclusion and failed to meet the needs of vulnerable groups who now more than ever are looking to local government to weather this economic crisis.

Are we going to continue to push the working class residents out of this city?

Are we going to continue hemorrhaging black residents, people with disabilities, seniors, and low-income residents, all in favor of more market rate apartments, condos, and hotels?

What about the seniors struggling to keep up with their property taxes while food, gas, and utilities are skyrocketing?

What about the parents wondering where they can send their kids to school as PPS shutters more and more classrooms?

What about the voters who feel unheard, ignored, disillusioned, and apathetic about the response from elected officials to their daily concerns?

How does ramming through this proposal with little community input rebuild trust in our institutions?

This past primary election, barely 23% of registered voters in Allegheny County took part in our democracy.

If that doesn't sound the alarm that people feel their voice doesn't matter, then I don't know what does.

Prove us wrong today.

Listen to us, your constituents that are asking for transparency, accountability, and a focus on investing in people, not downtown developers.

At a time when working people, public agencies, and the city itself are struggling to make ends meet.

We need different people-centered approaches to development.

I urge the members of city council to vote no on the trip.

Thank you.

My name is Jayla Rucker.

I live in District 6 in Manchester.

I have lived in Pittsburgh my whole life, a short rat from here on the North Side.

And in my work, I have seen firsthand how every new development project impacts poor and working class people from all corners of this city.

I'm here today with my people from the housing justice table who have spent the better part of a decade fighting to keep Pittsburgh home for all of us, fighting to make sure equity is more than a buzzword for tenants in this city.

My mindset is tenants first, tenants always, and this trip proposal leaves too many of us behind.

Behind me are my union sisters and brothers from SEIE and 32 BJ.

Majority of them black, many of them women, and many live as renters.

I think about how this trip proposal will not only impact their jobs, but their lives as residents and their ability to live and affordably in Pittsburgh.

As a city that has lost nearly 14% of its black residents and counting over the last decade and a half, due to the housing unaffordability crisis, the possibility of further displacement is one I cannot accept.

Plans to use hundreds of millions of public tax dollars with major implications from many years should be transparent and accessible to the public with robust opportunity for public review and engagement, is while locking taxpayers into 40 years of this proposal will barely have any meaningful public input, is shameful and a disservice to all the people in this room and across the city.

Public dollars need to go to public good, period.

Public dollars need to ensure that residents in all of Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are prioritized the same way.

Public dollars need to go where we, the people say they go.

Transparency and public-led solutions for public dollars are the bare minimum of what we should be able to expect from our elected leadership, and the city government is failing us in that way with this trip proposal.

No one in this room wants the city to stay small.

No one in this room is comfortable with the economic crisis we're in.

But I can say for myself and many people who showed up today that we are not okay with the idea of the new Pittsburgh that doesn't include a clear and meaningful vision for the foundational residents of this city.

The golden triangle is important, but it is financially vabbly is a strong indicator of our region's economic health.

But we are important too.

Low-wage workers, tenants working, people who keep the city running.

We deserve to live dignity lives and sharing many prosperts this city builds for our tax dollars.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephanie Geez, followed by Landon Keeler.

Is Stephanie with us?

Landon Keeler.

Followed by Ren Finkel.

Hello, my name is Landon Keeler.

I'm a resident of the South Side Flats neighborhood.

I've been living here for about five years.

I moved here from Dallas, Texas because it was unaffordable.

When I first moved here, a lot of people were rather surprised by that.

And a lot of my family in Texas were rather surprised that a midwestern, northeastern, whatever you want to be, city could be affordable.

But the truth of the matter is it's because of the transit, it's because of the sidewalks.

I was amazed at the idea that a city could have public steps.

But this proposal, much like many of the past, will not provide the results you are looking for.

Not far from where I live is the South South Side High School Development Project.

I can't live there.

Used to be high school that people actually went to when I worked at the Family Dollar on Morton Square.

They told me all about how South High used to be the place to be.

Housing that will exist, not just the five years I've been here so far, but five years after that, and the 10 years vault.

The city has to be affordable for people like me to move here.

We heard at the beginning of these speeches about the wave of people you're expecting to come here to help pay for this proposal.

Well, I got a secret for you.

The wealthy people of the South and of the Northeast do not fear their coastlines eroding.

They do not fear their house burning.

They have many and they have a lot of money.

It's not the worry for them.

They can continue to live where they live, and it is the working class, it is students, people who study at these schools who actually are interested.

So the talks about a transit corridor and a uh development zone in Homewood is a much better thought.

There is areas all around this beautiful city that I fall in love with.

So, in particular, Bob, I would want to know why this is a proposal that looks good to you.

Does Carson Street look like the private public development projects of the last several decades have succeeded?

Or do we need to look at other cities which have succeeded in building community-owned and community-run projects for transit, for housing, for a livable city for everybody?

I start I came here to start going to school.

I still go to school part-time, but I also work in downtown McKeesport.

And let me tell you, it's looked better.

I see homeless people every day, and it is the developers who make profit off of the houses people are supposed to live in that cause more and more homeless people to happen because they are displaced.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ren Finkel, followed by Stanford Lions.

Good morning.

My name is Ren Finkel.

I'm here today as a resident of Spring Hill in District 1 and an organizer with PPT to express my severe concern for the proposed trade implementation.

This proposal is frankly insulting to come at a time where Spring Hill Elementary School is slated to be closed, and where transit infrastructure near me is abysmal and dangerous.

My wife and I have struggled with debt, facing impossible student loans, made more impossible by the rising cost of everything.

For ourselves and our neighbors, there are urgent needs for financial and infrastructure improvements that aren't properly funded now.

So why should the city borrow money and divert future tax revenue and fund to fund private development?

Not to mention that currently there are private investors challenging their commercial property assessments in order to pay less property taxes, which are some of the very taxes that would supposedly be used to pay back the city for this investment, which is to say pay back our tax dollars.

The point of a trade is to revitalize public transit, but the proposal has vague language about transit improvements and intends for only about 20% of the resources to go towards any public infrastructure.

Furthermore, what conditions are you planning on putting on the downtown developers to benefit the public in exchange for receiving millions of dollars of public subsidy, especially since this major tax proposal was, as many people said, made without any community input, possibly in violation of state law.

Prioritizing funding now for downtown developers over the needs of and on the dime of all Pittsburgh communities is not efficient, fair, or democratic.

Many years ago, I was a student at Point Park.

Downtown was where I became the person I am today.

I want to see downtown thrive.

But the trade is not the path there.

In a time when so many are struggling to afford food and housing, Pittsburgh literally cannot afford a proposal like this.

Council Member Wilson, as a leader in my district, I hope you see how clear it is that the downtown trade does not at all address the needs of the residents in your district.

Not now, not decades from now.

Shady deals with private developers isn't a great look.

And I encourage you all to think about what you want your legacy to be.

Again, I urge you to vote no on this and instead to commit to creating revenue and implementation plans that actually serve the needs of your constituents.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Stanford Lions, followed by Bill McDowell.

Whatever you decide to do, make sure you're doing it for the community.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was Stanford Lions.

Uh now Bill McDowell, please.

Bill with us.

Our final registered speaker, and then we will move on to we will go back to uh we'll move on to those who did not register, and then we will go back to those who registered but were not here when I called their name.

So our final registered speaker for now is Dylan Bisescu.

My name is Dylan Busescu.

I'm a resident of the South Side in District 3.

I want to welcome the people of our city today, particularly the young adults, like the woman who spoke earlier, and I second their thoughts about the trid.

This would be another sad step in selling off our city.

I've been here this summer to talk about the weekend street lockdown on the South Side, and I can update you now on what my neighbors are saying.

They are saying that this lockdown has become quiet, dead, and embarrassing, and they're right.

It is embarrassing that Isabella Gonzalez, a 19-year-old army private, can die in our foreign war on the very same day she could not walk down our streets.

And all of this, quiet, dead, embarrassing, this sin against the civic faith for a curfew when officials admitted they have no idea how much foot traffic has changed to measure damage to businesses since last year as a result of their decisions, when they have admitted that they made no proactive plans for what young people ought to do, asking again not for a city striving for life, but for a city shepherding death, necrotic, quiet like the grave, just shuffling people around without reducing crime overall, as if we can solve our public safety problems when we brush these issues from one end of our streets to another.

And all of this for even more fear mongering about and I quote people from homewood in a city where we all know exactly what that means.

And all of this, for what officials have said on the record, is just the beginning, even though they have denied for now that they had any official plans to continue this lockdown next year.

And all of this for them to beg people to wait, wait, as if our eyes do not already see, as if our ears do not already hear, death, quiet, and embarrassment.

As if justice delayed is anything other than justice denied.

And all of this for what?

Not for us, not for the adults against which it discriminates.

End it.

Thank you.

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

So anybody who wants to speak.

You can approach the podium and you will have three minutes.

So I didn't have any kind of speech prepared, but your name and neighborhood for the record, please.

Can you hear me?

Yes, can you say your name and neighborhood for the record, please?

Thank you.

But I use a lot of other neighborhoods for a lot of other activities that I do, and that's my concern.

Is that those of us that go more than one place that don't just stick to our neighborhoods, but go to other neighborhoods, and not just the downtown Pittsburgh, but other neighborhoods like I go to the strip district, I go to the community college.

Um I went back to school, I went to community college in Allegheny County, and that's an extraordinarily difficult place to get to by bus.

It takes three buses to get there each way.

And I'm concerned that with all with what they're doing with downtown, they're gonna make it harder to make connections because they're gonna want to make it convenient for the rich people downtown, and they're gonna make it harder to make connections from one bus to another, and they're gonna make the services worse in the neighborhoods I choose to use, which are the strip district, and um was the other one, and the north side.

I'm not as concerned about Oakland because I think because the universities are there, they're still gonna get good service.

I could be wrong.

I really could be wrong about that, but I'm concerned that this proposal is going to make it more difficult for those of us that you know uh do uh more alternative things, like go to other neighborhoods, which doesn't seem to happen as much in Pittsburgh, but anyway, sorry.

And I'm as I said, very concerned about the rerouting of the buses downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, council.

My name is Tamielusa.

I live in the North Side.

I'm District One.

I want to try to make this short but sweet.

Um, public money.

Public dollars, the taxes, these are for the benefit of the public.

And Councilmember Wilson in particular, who represents me.

Do you think it is acceptable to support a major tax proposal that was developed with minimal public input?

Possibly in violation of Pennsylvania state law.

I really hope the undemocratic process we're witnessing here was not motivated by developers making campaign contributions.

Because in the words of Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary directly depends on him not understanding it.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Oh, good afternoon, I suppose, counsel.

Good afternoon.

My name is G.

L.

Johnson.

Uh, I live in Lower Lawrenceville.

Good morning.

I address council, but even more so, I address the people of Pittsburgh.

Uh, right here, we're looking to subsidize developers who have received over 600 million dollars in public subsidies over the past several years.

That's over 2,000, almost 2,000 per Pittsburgh resident.

And this is simply another huge giveaway to these big developers like Donald Trump was once.

These are big developers who are not being required to create any public benefit in exchange for these public funds.

These are big developers who have no requirement to create affordable housing.

These are big developers who are not being required to provide support to small businesses.

These are big developers who are not being required to provide any sort of benefit to residents in our other 80-odd neighborhoods, not even funding to get to help them get to this theoretically new shiny downtown.

And that is the real insult added to public injury.

We call it TRID.

The T supposedly stands for transit.

And yet we are on a path currently to no longer have ongoing transit operations within less than half a decade.

Ironically, the TRID sequesters even more future public revenue in a pot where unlike general county or even potentially city revenue, it necessarily cannot go to transit operations.

Our state legislative delegation, including URA board member Lindsay Powell, and our governor are simply not dedicated enough or skilled enough at legislating to get Pittsburgh transit funding through a split partisan state legislature.

And let's keep in mind election observers still have our state senate projected as likely Republican, likely to remain under split partisan controls, control.

If that holds, we won't have transit without robust funding from our three taxing bodies.

Funding sapped by this potential trade.

There has been a bill proposed in Harrisburg over the last couple sessions to make the URA, the urban redevelopment authority, an appointed body that would control whatever fraction of the money we can claw back, an elected body.

If this trade passes, it'll go from nice to have to absolutely incumbent that we make the URA an elected body, a top priority.

So before letting millions of dollars fall into a transit, heavy air quotes, transit redevelopment investment district.

Maybe we spend some money on public transit.

Basic transit and not sell out city revenues for 40 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

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

Thank you, Lord, for another beautiful day.

Ooh, kind of cloudy.

The lightning is close.

In Jesus' name, I pray nobody gets hit that doesn't deserve it.

Proverbs 21-7 says the valence of the wicked will drag them away, for they refuse to do what is right.

Hmm, who's not here?

President LeVale?

City Clerk.

Wow.

It's amazing.

I talked about oppression.

And the reason I did is because I'm a missing child whose inheritance was stolen.

So a lot of the money that comes through here is stolen from missing children like myself.

And they spit it around and they give it to everybody and make it look like they're doing good for the people.

And we're the ones suffering.

I'm homeless, sleeping on concrete under a tent.

Who said something about being under a tent?

But praise God, I'm not getting wet.

Thank you, Jesus.

I am really covered by your blood.

But here's how this is being done, internal affairs.

Um they're invalidation of a lot.

U.S.

Code Section 242, 1961.

This is a Rico racketeering.

Uh trafficking, exploitation, sex and human trafficking, mind you.

Aggravated identity theft.

U.S.

code section 1028A.

Wire fraud, embezzlement, traffic currency, trafficking of currency, illegal movement of money.

That's how they're moving the inheritance money that missing children like myself were left.

Fourteenth Amendment violations.

There's some violations.

Here they are.

X-rated mixed conduct while on duty.

Satanic ritual abuse, animal abuse connected to graves.

They they're grave robbers.

They go in graves and dig up people and cut out their hearts for voodoo rituals.

Amen.

Illegal monitoring, Fourth Amendment violation.

That's gang stalking.

Uh illegal surveillance equipment they're using to monitor people, track them, to set them up for uh being arrested to go to court for things they haven't done.

Scapegoating, counterintelligence, marriage trafficking.

Wow.

Forced arranged, forced or arranged by fraud.

I'm married by fraud.

To who?

I have no idea.

I'm dead twice on paper.

Imagine that.

And they had a funeral for me.

Do I look dead to anybody?

But somebody got insurance money for my death.

Hallelujah.

Thank you, Lord.

I'm still here to stand before these liars and thieves in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Javon F.

Brown.

I live at 715 Mercer Street.

That's the senior citizen home up on Bedford.

There's 192 apartments.

I first wanted to say that my daughter Unique is not coming.

She is in the homeless shelter.

Last week I remember her calling.

She didn't come because she fell in the shower.

And she went and told the employees about the water in the shower.

She explained, oh, we meant to get that up.

Well, she called me today.

She can't hardly breathe and she's in pain.

So she's going to the hospital.

But first I wanted to say that I have been coming down for for some of you that may have not know who I am.

I have been coming down here for over 20 something years to speak to city council to bring to them any problems that we may have that you might be able to help us with.

Now, I was listening on the radio today on WS WES.

I was listening on the radio, and they were talking about the nurses striking at McGee's hospital women's hospital.

You know, there's a lot of times I come down and I'll tell you about the different things that happened.

Well, let me tell you about what happened to my niece.

My niece had two babies.

The boy was okay, but uh the boy seemed to be okay.

No, the girl, she had two.

They were small babies.

The girl was having problems.

Anyway, let me explain.

She had two babies.

One baby died.

When she found out about it, she thought it was the boy, but it had been the girl.

But as she went to try to go to see about her babies, they called the police on her.

They called the police.

They were trying to put her in jail.

She's trying to say she wants to see about her babies.

Well, my old my daughter came to Pittsburgh.

And what she did was go to the hospital and demand that all the staff that deal with the pregnant with my niece be seen.

And when the doctor, he was the elderly doctor, when he found out what happened to her, how they tried to put her in jail.

He was shaking, and he had said, it stopped with me.

I will straighten this out.

Do you understand?

When we tell you there's things that are happening, why would my niece have to go to jail?

She's trying to see about her babies.

One baby did die.

So she has one son.

He's still living.

You must understand that there's a lot of times we are treated differently.

And I come down because there's a lot of people that can't come to tell you.

If you don't know, you can't correct it.

You understand that.

I was taught by that by my father.

Because I have some time of good man.

I'm sitting here.

What's wrong?

Nothing.

He says I can tell something wrong.

I can't correct it if you don't tell me.

That's why I come to you.

You can correct it.

You are the elected officials.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Are there any further speakers?

I will go back to see if any speakers have joined us.

David Boinkowski.

Bobby Sanford.

Eva Mitchell.

Ava Mitchell.

Spelled differently.

Pamela Henderson.

Sequeja Jeffries.

Stephanie Geeze.

Bill McDowell.

Seeing none.

Any further speakers?

Okay, we will move on to the standing committee's agenda.

Our first committee is the Finance and Law Committee, deferred papers, Bill 16.

Ordnance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title II, Fiscal Article 5, Special Funds to add a new chapter 239 Fleet Vehicle Fund to create a fleet vehicle fund to fully fund the City of Pittsburgh's fleet needs and establish the purposes for which monies in the fund may be used.

Is there a motion?

Oh excuse me.

Motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

Brief discussion.

Yeah, I would just like to hold this for eight weeks.

Motion to hold for eight weeks.

Is there a second discussion?

All those in favor of an eight-week hold for Bill 16, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill will be held for eight weeks.

New papers, Bill 731.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of James Heber and his attorneys, Og Murphy and Procospy PC in full and final settlement of litigation matter in the Allegheny County Court of Common, please for an amount not to exceed 100,000 over one year.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 731, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 735.

Resolution transferring the amount of 20,793 and 73 cents, but then the 2026 operating budget from City Council District Supplies postage to the Department of Finance supplies postage to account for the cost of postage meter usage and stamps for the months of January through June.

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 735, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

That moves us to invoices.

Is there a motion on invoices?

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

I do want to note that we had a question about previous payments for invoices and those to the EMS agencies for the NFL draft.

I I do we did get an answer on that.

They were eligible and reimbursable as part of the visit Pittsburgh contribution.

Any further discussion on invoices?

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

Aye.

Affirmative invoices are approved.

That moves us to P cards.

Is there a motion on P cards?

Motion approved.

Second.

Discussion.

I do want to note we have one charge that is for public works that is over $5,000.

So the rules will need to be waived.

This is a uh regular payment that Pitt Public Works does need to make that can only be paid by card.

Motion weigh the rules on P cards.

Second.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of waiving the rules, please say aye.

Aye.

All in favor of P cards as approved as waived, please say aye.

Aye.

P cards are approved.

That takes us to interdepartmental transfers.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

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

Aye.

Transfers are approved.

Um that moves us to public safety and wellness committee chaired by Councilman Cockhill.

Bill 722, resolution authorizing pursuant to Chapter 210 of the city code, the mayor and the director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from Hamark Health and an amount of four million dollars for the next five years for a total of 20 million dollars to purchase resources that medical first responders need with their primary initial focus on Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire Vehicles.

Motion to approve, Madam Chair.

Second.

Discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 722, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

And I will ask that after 723, we move down to a complimentary bill at the end of the agenda.

Bill 723.

Resolution authorized and pursuant to chapter 210 of the city code, the mayor and director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in the amount of five million dollars per year for the next five years for a total of 25 million dollars for emergency medical service vehicles and equipment.

Motion to approve second.

Discretion.

Discussion.

Council Person Charland.

I believe Chief Gilman is here for this.

Good afternoon, Council.

Dan Gilman, Chief of Staff of the Mayor.

Chief Gilman, would you like to talk to us about this?

Absolutely.

So uh this money from UPMC will be five million dollars a year for five years for a total of 25 million dollars.

In addition to that, they will be giving the 10 million dollars I previously came to for 35 million dollars to go to EMS equipment.

Primary focus will be vehicles.

If we come to the point where we want to discuss other EMS equipment, we can do that.

The focus will be vehicles though.

And I actually just left a meeting.

Uh the first 13 vehicles are under production.

Uh we should have about eight of them by the end of the year and five more at the very beginning of Q1 next year.

Uh and I apologize.

I we probably should have called you up for the previous bill.

Would you like to discuss that as well?

Hi Mark is a five-year agreement of four million dollars a year for a total of twenty million.

Uh that will be first responder vehicle with a focus on fire trucks as the primary interest area, but again, that's five years ago.

We'll work with council.

And I should know each year this will come to council as part of the equipment leasing authority and budget process.

So though you're approving us accepting the money, the expenditure each year will be approved by council.

This is uh unprecedented and truly something that we need to celebrate.

Um, you know, I I every mayor as long as I've known has tried to to do something like this, and it really is a testament to your work and the work of Mayor O'Connor to get this, you know, to this point.

Um we need it.

We desperately need it, and very thankful that we're able to approve this today.

I I appreciate that, Councilman.

It is it really is a historic amount of money.

And I think it's important to note we've been very clear.

This is not a pilot agreement, these are partnership agreements.

It also involves coming up on the agenda of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon.

Uh I don't remember if it's this week or if it's next week.

Uh we have a million dollars coming from the Nice Foundation uh coming in.

We have the money from PNC Bank, we had the money from RK Mellon and Hillman Foundation.

We had the money from PPG to help pay for the bridge over pass in downtown.

It's for profit, not for profit foundation.

The challenges, you know, everyone knows the challenges at home are tough.

Economics are tough, costs are going up, gasoline prices are going up.

We have headwinds against us, and the only way we will do this is if we all work together, local, state, federal, public, and private, to address these issues to be able to invest in the issues that I know are important to all nine of you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Wilson, followed by Council Gross, or uh Warwick, followed by Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say thanks for all of your work on this.

It's truly incredible to see.

Literally every week there's a new post, just like you said, all the different foundations and and uh you know organizations that are giving to the city, you know, to actually come you know, to come from uh all the years I've been on council, so I guess this is going on seven years now, and to really see little movement until now has been uh truly incredible to see since the O'Connor administration's taken office.

And uh given the the situation that we're in with the fleet, it's uh it's just you know something that we all talk about here that we all need, and I doubt one of us would say that we don't need the funds uh but to negotiate uh upwards uh of of the amount of money that's been uh given to the city all across the board, even for the small amounts of um say small amount, a million dollars, yeah.

has been uh truly incredible to see since the O'Connor administration's taken office and uh given the the situation that we're in with the fleet it's uh it's just you know something that we all talk about here that we all need and I doubt one of us would say that we don't need the funds uh but to negotiate uh upwards uh of of the amount of money that's been uh given to the city all across the board even for the small amounts of um say small amount a million dollars you know so whatever I'm seeing headlines so that's what it is yeah but I'm seeing headlines of tens of millions of dollars uh just even even the smaller ones uh will make a difference uh in my community so thank you so much thank you councilman and and I will reiterate which this body knows well the needs are incredibly dire uh and even with this money fire trucks are taking two to three years to get here uh we are able to to use some stock ambulances to to expedite that process public works vehicles are taking a long time I want to give great credit to uh uh our team down at Fleet but also Sharon Warner uh and Sophia Shapiro in the mayor's office they are literally and Councilman Calco you and I have talked about this for years I mean we were told a bunch of our equipment wouldn't be here till next year they got on the phones and negotiated with the CEOs of the companies who have the contracts and said unacceptable we will have them this fall and these vehicles are now coming in in the fall you you gotta work the phones you've got to call the people you got to push and not take no for an answer and and they're uh between them uh and the the women at the fleet office have done unbelievable work in in doing this but whether it's tiger uh equipment and public works that the councilman talked about yesterday it's spare firework fire department trucks it's the ambulance needs it's the snow removal it's the DOME equipment it's the the equipment for uh river rescue I mean I could go on and on the needs are dire right now uh the money but I also did want to take this moment to recognize the administration of just like you mentioned of actually purchasing the vehicles you know we were going from headlines of paperwork sitting on someone's desk for an ambulance that we already authorized here at council uh the the fleet already authorized that uh you know just actually getting to work every day and the amount of hours that this administration is putting in just to actually implement that is great.

We're not seeing stories of like I said just the lack of interest to actually administer government and purchase these vehicles even after we've uh you know signed off on purchasing them so to go from you know what we've been through before uh what this council has been through before and seeing those headlines to actually seeing not only the the vehicles purchased on time but also the amount of funds that uh uh you're creating to actually purchase these vehicles so thank you so much thank you thank you councilmember warwick um yeah thank you yeah I echo my fellow members this is a very big deal um to get um get this funding from from these large nonprofits um one thing I wanted to ask and is um you know I'm always a little hesitant of these types of gifts because they're specified right we can't just use it for what we need which is sometimes you know frustrating um but we have to use it for what they are given to us to use so you know in the case of the of the um ambulances for for example are we able to like hold on to dollars over the years even if we don't spend so that we're not buying you know stocking up on ambulances and then our ambulance money you know runs out it's a very important and a great question uh met with Deputy Chief Tremmel today on vehicles he's actually traveling to Florida and Ohio to check in on our vehicles to your point to make sure we're on schedule on time after this first bunch that we're buying which were the critical we need these now we need to be very thoughtful of how many we're ordering a year so that we don't just end up in this position five years where we bought a whole bunch and we have no money and they're all broken because they're now five year old hundred thousand dollars hundred thousand mile vehicles.

So we are working with our partners on while the money comes in what is the purchasing time so we stagger and have a solid rotation of whatever day if it's four or six ambulances a year we're doing that every year and not just buying a bunch at once.

Got it okay okay well hopefully that is part of the terms that that that they are comfortable with of us buying as needed you know on our schedule.

So um thank you.

And then um just in terms of other are we seeing any gifts come in that we could direct toward refuse and other things or are we just diverting the money that we would have spent on ambulances and such to those vehicles at the moment um there has not been any gift towards those although I will say I'm in negotiations on another uh gift that would be uh also more for public works vehicles and a little more flexibility so uh not this size I wish uh but but we we I think we'll have another announcement soon in this on this front but yes to it'll be more the latter which is the money that council has been committing uh to go into vehicles now hopefully rather than having to fund these areas can really go into public works and DOME and PLI and the other areas that need the vehicles.

And and then for for the r really urgent situations like the fire trucks, are are we allowed to use this money for leases or does it have to be for purchases only?

It is not for purchases only, and we are very carefully working with fire leadership in the union looking at some lease options.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

You uh councilwoman gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Chief, thank you.

I have kind of a similar line of question because this is obviously something that's on everyone's minds.

Um but as much as you're able to say, remind us kind of what is the lawsuit, the class action lawsuit that the city has also joined into, which is specifically about the in my words, the like national monopoly of fire truck manufacturers and there's the long timelines, and so remind us a little bit about that.

I'm happy to, and I will say if council is interested in the executive session, we can get our outside counsel who's doing that to brief you much more eloquently uh than I can, happy to facilitate that.

But yeah, we did join uh a lawsuit with a number of other cities around the country uh filing lawsuit they it basically investors have bought and combined fire truck production companies to control pricing and timelines in a way that's been detrimental to the taxpayers in violation of federal law.

Uh and so we just filed that last week.

Uh we feel confident in the legal position we're in.

I should also note we are not paying legal fees up front, uh, so there is no risk to the taxpayers, the uh only on uh victory would that come to fruition.

Uh but it is both the amount and and the time.

We're looking at millions and millions of dollars uh per fire truck, uh a significant increase over four or five years ago uh in a delay now of you know roughly three years in general to get a truck.

So to the councilperson's point about needing to look at leases with where we are, particularly in aerial ladder needs uh in the city.

We're gonna have to look at options other than just building because we're three years away from getting anything we buy right now.

Right.

And so this is a national issue.

I think Senator Elizabeth Warren has really drilled down on this.

I think she specifically said it's kind of private equity.

Um buying up these manufacturers and doing the combining.

Um I have to fact check that, but it's it's that of every city, right?

I don't know how many cities have joined this lawsuit, but that there's there's nowhere, like we don't have options about where we're gonna go and buy these trucks if there are fewer and fewer um options.

So the monopoly of the in the industry is an inseparable part of this problem.

So it it kind of hurts that we have to dedicate this much money to just be operable for fire safety in the city.

Um and so I'm glad that the administration joined that lawsuit.

Um but I think it's worth repeating because it's it is sometimes it's just in the structure of the market.

It's not that we were especially bad business people or something like that, right?

So this is a national problem affecting all cities in the same kind of public safety equipment that we you know, we used to get at a much cheaper, cheaper prices, and much faster.

Um so it's it's uh it's a shame that we have to throw that much time, resources, and and funding at it.

So thank you.

I appreciate it.

That's all I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Mosley.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chief Gilman for being here today.

Uh can you uh detail uh the total amount of contributions across corporate uh nonprofit and philanthropic partners to get a full picture of the entire uh donations that the city has received this year.

So since Mayor O'Connor took over, we're just at about 70 million dollars in contribution commitments to the city.

And is that city and URA?

And and uh over how many years?

Five would be the the longest term of any of that.

Okay, thank you.

And um and and and again to touch on the fire truck issue, understanding that the long lag time uh for uh for lack of a better term, construction of the of those vehicles and and having to look um to leases.

Um is there potential low-hanging fruit?

Because at least in conversations that I have, and I'm I'm a true layman, you know, when it comes to knowledge of the engineering of fire trucks, um, that certain fire trucks really aren't suitable for our topography, that we couldn't just lease any vehicles.

So is there any like low-hanging fruit?

Is there you know, maybe cities of similar topography or places that were particularly looking uh when we think about leasing uh you know those vehicles because my understanding was a lot of times um our fire trucks had to be specifically engineered and built, you know, for Pittsburgh's topography.

There are definitely very unique specs uh that the administration and the union work together on for fire trucks and and other vehicles, but fire trucks to your point are unique.

Same with the rescue units and EMS, the size, the topography, the tight turns, the narrowness of the streets, the the high rise, the waterfront, all of those things impact it.

Uh I don't know the answer to cities we're looking at.

I would ask fleet and fire to get back to you on that.

But yes, it is not, these aren't things you buy off the shelf.

There isn't a company out there that just builds hundreds of firefighter trucks and you come and buy them.

Each one is individually designed inspect.

Uh also because you need all of your trucks to be identical so that if you're working in Hazelwood one night and then you're filling a ship to the Brighton Heights the next night, that truck is the exact same truck.

When you run to it, you know where everything is.

So these aren't things you buy off the shelf.

Right.

Thank you.

Um and then uh my final question is uh in in lieu of the gifts that have been targeted to specific needs, um such as such as EMS and in other areas, being that there is gifts targeted to specific areas.

Um are there specific areas that we're focusing on, you know, with the dollars that we have in lieu of the fact that we know that some areas are being targeted through those philanthropic gifts.

Yeah, I do think I think it was Councilperson War, which is environmental services is certainly an absolute critical need.

Uh that is an older fleet and one that obviously goes out every single day uh in all weather conditions um and takes a real beating as a fleet, and if those trucks aren't ready in the morning and in every morning, we have a number of trucks that aren't ready to go.

Uh that stops us from finishing the routes in a day.

Uh so that I would say is a top top priority.

Uh there's a number of specialty equipment and public works that our teams need.

Uh bringing back the tiger, which is the machine that we use for a lot of the clean and lean and hillside cleaning, really important street sweepers.

That's a really important function.

We're seeing a lot of street level, and those also break a lot.

That is a complicated piece of machinery that we have go down a lot.

Those we have looked at some leases uh the previous administration, I believe started that process with street sweepers.

So some of those specialized pieces of equipment, and then of course, snow removal remains front of mind 12 months a year uh if you work for the city.

Right.

Well, thank you, Chief Gilman.

That's the fair back to the Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Cockal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Chief.

And uh you seem to be always bringing good news to the table.

Um, and I appreciate that.

You know, when Mayor O'Connor was on the campaign trail, I personally, as an elected official, felt the biggest issue was cooperation or the young cooperation with our major nonprofits.

Um he campaigned on it, uh, not only as our elected official, but as a private citizen uh of the city of Pittsburgh, um he has far exceeded in the administration, and I know you had a big part of all these contributions, have far exceeded my expectations, I will tell you.

And I shudder to think where we would be without it, honestly.

Um, you know, to uh have 70 million dollars committed is the difference of us laying people off or not, I would have imagined, okay, because I don't know where we would have been, where we would have made these costs up.

Um as far as a firefighter's apparatus goes, we needed to do that yesterday.

We didn't, but uh, you know, I think that they're comfortable with the projection.

They're gonna have a couple years that we're gonna have to get by, whether we lease or buy used or whatever we have to do.

Um but but but the out years look really, really good.

And talk to me about, you know, first of all, we know we had many conversations at this table about the repairs and what we're playing trans dev, you know.

Um I think um besides purchasing of new vehicles and getting them on a rotation.

I think we're gonna save millions and millions of dollars in the future over the next four to ten years in vehicle maintenance.

I really do.

I I I I gotta believe that's low-hanging fruit for us.

That's gonna change.

I don't think we're gonna need the you know, I mean, uh, the the mechanics that we need right now.

Um do you agree with that?

Or absolutely there's many aspects to this conversation.

Uh it we need the staffing.

Thank you.

Your partnership and leadership in the budget reopener, we got an additional position to work on fleet uh issues.

We need to think about the contract and how we bid it out.

Uh it's a conversation I've had with a number of uh of our union leaders on that.

We need to rethink that process.

Uh and honestly, we need to make tough decisions.

Um the cabinet meeting on Monday morning, our directors got an earful from me.

We're hundreds of vehicles over our cap right now.

We pay a penalty for that in the in the process.

Uh we when we buy a new vehicle, something's got to come out.

We got to get rid of the old one and auction it out.

I will say we've auctioned more vehicles in the first six months of this year than I believe the last, I think it is, don't quote me on this, three years combined.

Uh we got to get those out.

We auction them, that's money coming back into the city that goes into buying more vehicles.

Take home vehicles have gone up drastically in the last several years.

We need to make tough decisions on that because as employee takes it home, that is gas and wear and tear on the vehicle in those off hours we need to look at.

Of course, many of our employees need those.

Our police officers, uh, you know, our leadership in public safety bureaus, they're responding 24-7 to critical scenes where every second matters.

There's a need for it.

But we need to look at every single one and make those tough decisions.

When the money is tight, you have to take the approach of every dollar matters.

You and I had a meeting the other day with Councilperson Strasberger on a potential energy savings program that's not a huge savings, but I think you nailed in the meeting.

$100 is $100, $1,000 is a thousand dollars.

We will take, then that's the approach we're taking with fleet.

Every aspect of this we need to look at where we buy our gas, control of those gas prices, use of vehicles when gas prices are high, all of it across the board.

Yeah.

And to that point, you know, what gets overlooked now is the comp plan, right?

That you went out and secured a donation to pay for to finish and to complete it.

So um it kind of gets lost in a shuffle because all these bigger and better donations coming in.

But uh, but yeah, you know, um I couldn't be more pleased with uh, you know, I I I went from ELA board meetings where we're like scratching our head thinking, well, what are we gonna do?

And we got fire saying, you know, what their needs are, and we're like, well, we we don't have the money.

Two, like, what do we order first?

Uh, you know, how fast can we get them?

And and and to and to the credit of ELA staff, that they do an incredible job.

Sharon's been been doing an incredible job, and um they really know their business.

I know there's been some change there, but uh yeah, everything's moving in in the in the right direction.

Uh I I feel like this will not only change the forecast of Pittsburgh financially as to 70 million dollars.

I I feel like we're just starting.

Maybe I'm getting spoiled, and uh I'm expecting you know more and more, but I said that after the $10 million.

I remember being specific at an ELA board meeting, and you know, I'm a co-sponsor of Councilwoman Warwick's, you know, uh uh, you know, designated fund.

But that was before all the millions and millions of dollars came rolling in.

I thought it was a good time at good idea at the time.

Um but I thought, boy, if we continue to get these donations, we no longer need to think of that.

And I'm to that point, I will tell you.

I feel secure that um the relationships that have been built with the nonprofits are strong.

And I really feel like the nonprofits want to be a partner.

They they love Pittsburgh too.

They want to be here.

And I feel like your approach and the mayor's approach and treating them like a partner rather than like the enemy has created an enormous advantage for us in at least the vehicle in the fleets.

And it all makes sense.

UPMC, you know, um yeah, pay for the ambulances.

We're transporting them to your facility.

Uh, you know, so we can we could go up and down the board.

And focusing on fire for this last donation was you know, that needed to happen.

And I would tell you everybody was uncomfortable about that, even after we got donations for ambulances and police and squad cars.

But uh so that was very important.

Um all I can say is keep up the good work.

Uh you know, a lot.

I I don't know if the public knows, maybe being on the ELA board, I had an insight, but um again, I don't know where we'd be be without it.

So the partnerships that that you have created and UPMC, HIMARC, they they're proven to be good partners in the end when we treat them like a partner rather than an enemy.

I I agree, Councilman, and I will say we're not done.

I don't know if I want to set the bar at 70 million a year.

Uh that may not be the continuum, but uh we already are are close to announcing a separate partnership with UPMC on something else.

So and high mark the same thing, you know, on these issues.

So we don't consider this a one and done.

That's why I said these are this isn't a payment agreement, and it's actually very technically a gift uh agreement uh with the city uh contribution that you're approving.

These are partnerships, and all these partnerships matter.

I mean the the work we're doing on the fields.

Actually, you know, on Facebook this week, and obviously we had the big storms on Friday night, Saturday morning, I think it was, and I saw posts both from McGee and Councilperson Warwick's and from Herschel and uh Council President Salinas saying like the whole weekend tournament would have been washed out, and they were playing two hours after the rain stopped because the new Dura Edge material is a complete game changer uh for our fields.

The scoreboards just got an update yesterday, everything is on track for that.

We're gonna have you know these new scoreboards up in the city.

All of these make a big difference in our communities.

And we have to show we can deliver.

I want to make that clear to Councilman Wilson with these gifts.

My message back to our team is now we deliver.

We buy on time, we use the dollars efficiently, you know.

You know, no one is gonna come back to to give you more or help you again when you didn't use it right the first time.

Right.

That well, that's another area I will tell you.

You know, um parks, you know, we have uh fill or um uh up there in Carrickett's uh volunteers field.

Volunteers field.

You know, the work that we did up there was was was incredible.

The before and after pictures you sent me is just like off the charts.

Brookline's coming from there, I know.

Yeah.

And from there and to the little able long park that the mayor and I kind of you know cracked open.

It's small parks, big parks.

Uh your focus on parks has been uh absolutely wonderful.

One last thing I want to say is I think is very important in working with our nonprofits as far as these vehicle purchases go.

Is that um I even though I'm not in on those talks with you all, but I feel like they want to contribute.

I feel like they want to be a partner.

This is not us twisting their arm saying, look, you need to pay up and us forcing the issue.

This I think is gonna be a long-term partnership.

Is that the way you view it as well?

Absolutely.

I want to be clear.

Uh, all these partners have been incredible.

While negotiating out the deal has ups and downs and you know, good meetings and bad.

It was always with a shared vision uh of what it meant to commit to the city and to the residents uh and to our public safety employees.

That was never lost from the very forefront of a desire for partnership.

Yeah, that's that's important for long-term sustained relationship is that they're not there because we're coming with a paddle.

They're there because they want to be part of the solution.

They realized they knew the needs, and finally we got an administration that's treating them with respect, and we're getting it back.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, all in favor of bill seven twenty-three, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

We are now gonna jump to intergovernmental and educational affairs committee to a complimentary bill, Bill 729, the last in your agenda.

Resolution authorizing pursuant to chapter two ten of the city code, the mayor and the director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from Cornegie Mellon University in the amount of three million dollars split over the next five years for education and infrastructure initiatives.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion seeing none, all in favor of Bill 729, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation.

Thank you, Chief.

Council.

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

Bill 518, ordinance 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 state 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 the cost thereof.

Motion to approve.

I wrote withdraw that motion and motion to hold in a week.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of a one-week hold for bill five eighteen, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Bill will be held.

Uh and just as a note, given that this is our last will actually effectively then be a sort of a five-week hold.

Our last standing committee before recess.

Yeah, one more.

I apologize.

I apologize.

Never mind.

Okay.

Yep.

Take that back.

One week hold.

Um one week hold for 518.

Uh then uh that moves us on to Bill 714.

Bill 714 ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Zoning Code, Article 5, Use Regulations.

Chapter 911, primary uses, Section 91104, use standards, subsection A41B6.

Multi-suite residential in the UCE district is hereby amended to add a new subsection A41B6C.

Motion to approve discussion.

Second.

Discussion.

Uh yes, I know the council president is um uh uh virtual today.

I was gonna I was contacted about the the amendment, uh, unless you'd like to make that council president.

Thank you, Calvin.

Um, there's a motion to amend by a public chance.

Everyone should have a copy of it.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so the the motion is to amend.

Is there a second?

Yeah, second.

Discussion.

Quick discussion.

This is language that actually worked with the planning department on.

Um they both my initial drafting and re wrote it to better aligned with the actual code to also make sure that what we're proposing is actually important.

Further discussion.

All in favor of amending bill 714, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill has been amended.

Further discussion on the bill as amended.

Second.

Discussion.

All in favor of sending Bill 714 to the planning commission for report and recommendation, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill be bill will be sent to planning commission.

New papers bill 732.

Resolution providing for the designation as a historic site under Title 11 of the City Code of Ordinances.

That's certain site known as Allegheny Arsenal Officers Quarters in wall segments located on multiple parcels, 49E128, 49E136, 49E132, 49A3, 49A5, 49E124, 49E120, 49A1 in the lower Lawrenceville neighborhood in the sixth ward city of Pittsburgh, the owner of the property supports the nomination in near as no cost to the city.

Second discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor of holding Bill 732 for CAP COS public hearing, please say aye.

Aye.

Bill will be held.

That moves us to recreation youth and senior services committee count chaired by Council Member Warwick.

Defer papers, Bill 643 resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation to issue requests for proposal for social services programming at the Bergwin Recreation Center and to enter into an agreement or agreements with qualified providers at a cost not to exceed $200,000.

Second.

Discussion?

Yeah.

So I just uh want to quit so uh this was this is the bill um um pulling some funding from the stop the violence fund in order to to fund after school um and summer programming at the Bergwin rec center, which um has been recently renovated.

Um I uh have uh uh worked with the administration and um I'm very appreciative of of all those conversations uh and also um um hearing from community members and such as we did a couple of weeks ago or last last week um uh so I I would like to amend by substitution so this amendment uh takes out the language around RFPs it actually specifies uh more precisely what the money is for right that it is specifically for out of school time uh services staff and and supplies and um it also um just provides more flexibility for the administration to do to to get this done in the way that works best for city parks um I will say my preference uh of course is that uh we just staff this rec center right like we like we staff um like we staff any other rec center um but of course that's that's a decision to be made by by uh the administration the city parks team but um I just you know here we are making sure that they have the money to do it so I'd like to uh motion to amend by substitution second discussion Councilman Wilson yeah I was wondering would you be amendable to amend this to say that we could uh do this for all our rec centers um we could do like una authorized up to a uh specified amount you know based on the stop the violence trust fund annual plan uh to fund uh rec centers across the city um I'd be open to talking about that for Tuesday if you'd like but I don't want to make a decision right here at the table without discussed it I have two that aren't you know I I think this is a a great thing yeah you know I think that we should probably think about it more globally yeah you know absolutely I know that that conversation has been uh not this hasn't been the biggest fan of stop the violence uh meetings in terms of how the money should be spent uh since it was designed to be spent on uh directly gun violence and people that would be affected by gun violence so uh look I'm not arguing that this isn't I always thought that this would be yeah you know funding our rec centers wouldn't be so again I like I'm I'm happy to discuss that but the amount like I know like I was very careful with this amount that it was one center right but absolutely I would be more than happy if you'd like to discuss yeah I mean I'd like to amend it just right now just to open up that conversation I can uh I can name my rec centers but that would mean that that would cut the two hundred thousand dollars up between multiple rec centers that's why I was saying we do unspecified amount based on you know stop the violence annual annual spending plan which that's something we have to vote on every year so but I think that's a good conversation does that make sense like we can say uh I could do a work

Yeah, I mean I'd like to amend it just right now just to open up that conversation.

I can uh I can name my rec centers.

But that would mean that that would cut the 200,000 dollars up between multiple rec centers.

That's what I was saying we do on specified amount based on you know stop the violence annual annual spending plan, which that's something we have to vote on every year.

So but I think that's a good conversation.

Does that make sense?

Like we can say uh I could do a word amendment now, it says stop the violence list from the stop the violence trust fund annual spending plan for staffing across rec centers in the city of Pittsburgh.

But that would mean that that would mean that maybe their burgman would only get one penny.

Right, exactly.

So you know 200,000 could go in any other record.

I actually did not grant an interrogatory, but if you would like to make a voice amendment, you're welcome to do so and see if it has the votes.

Well, I'll let the discussion happen.

I might speak again, but I just think this is you know a great thing to open a conversation about uh spending money on you know our rec centers like this.

I agree, as long as it's in the stop the violence community.

Councilperson Charlin.

Yeah, um so uh I'll let the discussion play out, but I would also like to offer a voice amendment.

Um it's where it says at Bergwin Recreation Center, also include at uh Upper McInley uh recenter.

So I will I I will call the change.

When we vote, I I will be offering that.

Understood.

Any further discussion before?

Right.

I understand that there is potential for second round.

Uh Councilman Wilson.

Uh I can just make the voice amendment now.

Um would this be appropriate now?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh I'd like to add language that says from the stop the violence trust fund uh annual spending plan for staffing.

So and so it's just annual annual spending plan that supplies to support school time services programming at recreation centers.

Uh at City Parks Recreation Centers.

Up to that's two two hundred thousand.

But I'm not sure, was that the amount?

Sorry, you didn't say interrogatory.

Uh up to the amount up to the amount specified in the annual spending plan.

So this is a voice amendment to change 200,000 to an amount specified in the spending plan and striking Burgman recreation center and specifying all eligible recreation centers.

Correct.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion.

Councilwoman Gross.

Councilman, I really think you are talking about a different piece of legislation, which would be great.

And then we could have a discussion.

You might also be talking about an amendment to the stop the violence plan legislation, which we've done, I think four or five times, which would also be great.

And then we could have it its own substantive conversation.

Um I believe that there have been many weeks of conversation to arrive at this dollar amount and this language, which is why I'm supporting Councilwoman Warwick's original amendment by substitution without the voice amendments.

Great idea, wrong place.

So thank you.

Further discussion on this voice amendment.

Councilperson Charlotte.

Yeah, I I realize what Councilman Wilson is doing here, and uh I will not be offering another voice amendment.

I as I'm thinking about it, uh, although it's not in my district, it's in councilman Salonetter's district.

Uh Ream Rec Center also needs to be funded with this.

So I think Councilman, leaving this open um in this way is is appropriate and how we should move forward to make sure that all of our residents that you know are served by these rec centers are taken care of.

Um I I will not be offering that amendment.

I'll be supporting yours.

Okay.

Thanks.

Councilmember Warwick.

So I just want to clarify what we do at City Council is move money, right?

Move money to specific projects.

And that's what's happening here.

I am a hundred percent open to and and we can introduce it next Tuesday, right?

Is if you want to sit down with your rec center folks and with Eric Sloan at City Parks and find out how much it would cost to operate if you have rec centers that are operating in the the you know high need stop the violence communities.

Um I'm a hundred percent there for that.

Uh but um yeah, I mean, again, it's taken a number of weeks.

The 200,000 specified here is very specific to what we know it will cost to do a year of programming.

Uh my hope is that we have this broader conversation in the budget season, right for next year, and that also, and again, stop the violence uh amendments to the stop the violence um legislation overall.

Um but yeah, so so I am not supportive of any amendments to this just sort of on the fly at the table.

All the you have a second round.

Yeah, I'm amendable.

We can do up to a million across uh since we move money, we can do up to a million across, I agree.

Uh rec centers across the city.

So again, I'm happy to have this conversation, but I want to ensure that I have at least the 200,000 going to the Bergwin Rec Center as this allows, right?

So just saying up to a million across all centers, that actually doesn't secure the funding for my community.

And um we can say including Burrman Rec Center, we can name some if you want to.

Yeah.

I think there's a good opportunity.

I can't hear what you're saying.

I think, Councilman, that you are being a bully and that this is very inappropriate.

But um, so I think you understand that I'm trying to get this 200,000 allocated to a rec center in my community.

I understand that you may uh perhaps have a rec center in your community.

I know Councilman Charland has McKinley in his community, I know Councilwoman Salonetro has um Ream and other programs.

There are multiple programs across our communities in our high need communities that I think that we should be funding through the Stop the Violence Fund.

Um I am happy to have that conversation and put legislation on the table to make this possible.

But you know, this feels uh unnecessary and um and is uh unappreciated.

Thank you.

All right, I'm gonna take the um microphone back and say a couple things.

One, uh it's always council's prerogative to voice amend.

It's fine.

Um in the case of something that we've been talking about for weeks and weeks, I would have preferred to see uh council members work with one another and talk about this ahead of time and provide and agreed upon a uh amendment ahead of time rather than a voice vote, despite the fact that I do agree that um uh uh if if this is happening in one neighborhood, I think it should be available to other neighborhoods as well, despite the fact that counter, you know, countervailing evidence shows that like we should like we actually should be using the spending plan and coming up so like I start with we should come up with a spending plan and use it.

I also understand that council member Warwick is using this as a band-aid for a very short-term solution to a problem, and and um that this is not gonna be uh a solution in perpetuity.

Um so I I just want to state I supported the original amendment.

Um at this time I'm not gonna support the voice amendment because I thought it should have probably had been a conversation that came up ahead of time and um agreed upon on paper ahead of time.

So that's gonna be my vote.

Um and I just wanted to state that, but uh would recommend that that take place in the future or before Tuesday's vote.

Any further discussion on the amended voice amendment.

Seeing none, we will take a voice vote.

You want to roll call?

Roll call vote.

On the amendment.

This is on the voice amendment uh proposed by councilman Wilson.

Mr.

Sharland.

Aye.

Mr.

Kalko.

Miss Gross.

No.

Mr.

Lavelle.

No.

Mr.

Mosley.

No.

Ms.

Salah Netra.

No.

Ms.

Warwick.

No.

Mr.

Wilson.

Aye.

Miss Strasberger Chair.

No.

Ayes to, no six, one abstention.

Amendment fails.

Amendment fails.

We have the original amendment.

Any further discussion on the amendment as presented.

Seeing none, all in favor of amending Bill 643 as presented, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any no's abstentions?

Ayes have it.

Any further discussion on Bill 643 as amended?

Seeing Councilperson Charlotte.

Yeah, I just think it's it's uh wholly unfair to you know to fund a program in one council member's district without funding you know other programs that are very similar.

Voice Against Violence operates in Upper McKinley, um, running a rec program with literally zero dollars from the city.

Um we're renovating the rec center for them.

Um they they've had to be very creative moving to libraries and the zoo and everywhere else um be you know because of that renovation.

I'm in the exact same scenario and I do not understand why my programs are not valuable um, you know, in my district serving my community here.

So um I will not be supporting this today because it's not fair to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Warbeck.

Yeah, so I do just want to sort of take a step back on the many weeks of conversation around this bill and which included both here at the table and in discussions, just you know, in in the course of me trying to get support, where I said numerous times to Councilman Charlotte that I would be more than happy to double the allocation in this bill and include McKinley Rec.

So I just want that to be clear because we just tried to do that.

I did not grant interrogatory.

So, you know, I am again, I will say again, I am a thousand percent supportive of all of our communities, of all of these folks who are, you know, on these shoestring budgets, just you know, supporting the children in our most vulnerable vulnerable communities having access to to city dollars in order to help make those programs possible.

I think it is a uh any day I will sit down, we can we can sit down after this meeting, right?

So I I just want to make that clear that this is a conversation that I have been open to and I have been asking for through the entire process of this bill.

And I had to bring and but I was being fought on this bill.

And and that is why I had to bring down, you know, a bunch of people from from Hazelwood to come and and basically beg city council for this money.

So I I I really want that to be clear for the public that numerous times I said if you have some in your you know in your community, let's let's expand this bill.

Let's add, let's make it 400 and add McKinley or or whatever.

I am open to all of it.

So and and and we can still do it, right?

The money is there.

As of right now, I believe that there is some eight point, I don't know, eight point seven five million or so uh in stop the violence, an unencumbered stop the violence.

I I believe.

I believe that's roughly the number.

So there's absolutely there are absolutely funds to do this work.

Anyway, that's all.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

I hear the buy, and I'll be reaching out to members to put together a more comprehensive uh after school well, maybe it's not after school, but you know, more comprehensive plan for uh youth rec centers in terms of funding staff through Stop the Violence.

Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, and as a member of the Stop the Violence Um, what is it, what do we call it?

The committee.

Um stop the violence committee.

Uh I look forward to working with you know all of the members, I'm sure, as well as councilman Wilson and Councilman Lavell to figure out how do we align uh the needs of each council district, particularly um as a councilwoman Warwick says the the most at risk communities um align those with the spending plan.

Um I think that's uh what will where the you know conversation um you know for us to have um as a body as well as um the stop the violence oversight committee councilman gross there have been many budget years where council talked about the parks and rec budget, right?

And that's where this money would go to would go to parks and rec.

Um we've acknowledged that we're not spending enough on staffing in parks and rec.

So just as a reminder, sorry I'm looking at my phone, but the you know annual expenditures for this year are projected at about six hundred and sixty seven million dollars citywide, right?

That's just operating budget.

And as a reminder, I think for I don't know how many years in a row, it was parks and rec was only one percent.

One percent operating budget expenditures, right?

For for payroll.

This year it's less than one percent.

So we've done worse and not better.

So let's keep that in front of us too.

So again, I'm supportive of this conversation.

I believe that we could double the expenditures in parks and rec and it would be money well spent.

And so the parks and rec budget for this year.

I don't want to be wait, am I looking at the wrong row?

No, I'm looking at the right row.

Is 7.5 million dollars.

So that is just over 1%.

I was looking at the wrong column.

I want to make sure I'm not looking at the wrong columns here.

7.5, but no, no, I'm gonna take it back again.

Sorry, I'm scrolling on my tiny phone, and I want to make sure I'm at the right column.

The 2026 budgeted expenditures for the whole city is 721 million dollars this year, which is higher than what I said.

And scrolling down in the same 2026 budget expenditures.

Yeah, we've got Parks and Rick at 7.5.

So that's just barely a smidgen above one percent.

But we can do better.

We can do better, and it's only a couple million, a couple million more dollars would increase their whole payroll by 50 percent.

We could have 50 percent more staffing in parks and rec.

So let's keep that in front of us.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Uh we're gonna keep moving.

All in favor of okay.

One one more comment, please.

Yeah.

I don't think I had comment, did I on this?

Or first time.

Okay, so um, I just want to be clear.

Uh I'll be supportive of this today.

I think you worked hard.

I believed the people that came down here are fitting and responsible and will use that money wisely.

But um, let me be transparent.

I also believe in what Councilman William Wilson is proposing.

Um I think it's good use of stop the violence fund.

It's uh it's an investment in our our children and our youth centers, our rec centers, so um, you can make the argument across the city.

So I look forward to coming up with a formula where we can fund whatever working with you, Councilman Wilson, for our rec centers to give a boost and a shot in the arm to each and every one of them.

But uh, but yeah, I'll be supportive today of your your your proposal.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All in favor of bill 643 as amended, please say aye.

Uh no.

Any no's no.

No, any abstentions?

Ayes have it.

Affirmative recommendation.

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

Bill 531 defer paper resolution authorizing the adoption of the downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District Implementation Plan and Rated Agreements.

Council District 1.

Motion to approve with uh believe much more than a brief discussion.

Second discussion.

Councilman uh Mosley, you have the floor.

Yeah, I would like to uh invite uh uh those who are here to join us to Madam Chair.

I know we have an amendment that's gonna be introduced as well as far as with the parliamentary procedure, how should we proceed?

It can go either way.

We can have discussion about the bill, or we you can propose an amendment now and then discuss prior to passage of the amendment.

Okay.

Thank you for uh coming here today.

Can you please introduce yourself?

So thank you for having us.

My name is Sushila Nimani Stanger, executive director, URA.

Catherine Murray, Director of Government Affairs and Strategic Initiatives, URA.

Uh Thomas Link, uh Chief Development Officer URA.

Mad Singer, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you uh for joining us today.

This is I know this is the third time we've been here at the table, a third or fourth time now.

Um thank you for joining us today.

And um, whoever you know wants to go first with the presentation, feel free to begin.

Well, first of all, I want to thank you for hosting a post agenda so that we could dive deep into this trade.

Uh I'll just give a really brief overview because most of you were at that post-agenda.

Oh many, many of you were at that post-agenda.

And so um just high level, this downtown trid that's being proposed, is a trid-backed bond, and it is an investment tool that we're proposing to help with revitalization of downtown in our post-COVID environment.

We know that this trid will spur activity and private investment downtown.

It will complement the existing bus rapid transit district that is being advanced right now by the Port Authority.

That is a $291 million public transit investment in our downtown area that connects downtown with Oakland, the second and third largest employment centers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

It will also invest in public realm improvements and deepen affordability and quality housing options downtown.

This is a balanced approach to economic development.

If my colleagues want to provide any additional overview or her colleague at the mayor's office, um yeah, just to echo what the executive director said, we view the downtown trade as an essential part of revitalizing downtown ensuring up our tax base, a stronger tax base will help the city to afford its day-to-day essentials, whether that's fixing up parks across neighborhoods, whether that's buying new vehicles, whether that's paying employee salaries to go out and pick up the trash and put out fires.

And without anything to increase the revenue that we can take in from our highest revenue source, those decisions are likely to get more and more difficult each and every year.

If there's not a question related to existing TIFF and TRID portfolio, I just do want to highlight that since 1993, the URA has been working in collaboration with the three taxing bodies, the city county, and school district to help reclaim blighted industrial brownfield underutilized sites throughout the city.

We have a very solid track record in our TIFF and TRID portfolio.

We take a very conservative approach to our analysis.

Once these three retire and expire, then there will be nine left in the tax diversion portfolio.

That that is that is a real really small number based on what we've had in previous years.

We've had nearly 20 at a time.

If you can believe it, it has been 20 years.

You always continue to receive the taxes that you receive today.

We are not taking away or proposing a diversion in any existing taxes.

And then you know, in addition to increasing the tax base, um there is a strong return in housing production, affordable housing production, as well as jobs.

So that's I know you have questions and related amendments to cover.

Any further question questions, Councilman Mosley?

Uh yes, uh I've a few questions.

Uh my first question is kind of just walking through how how this works, how I understand um, you know, how it works for for the sake of simplicity.

If someone has a $50 million building downtown that maybe used to be a hundred million dollar building, you know, um before COVID and before the common level ratio that allowed uh downtown property owners to reassess that could have brought the property value down to 50 million.

Um they put you know participate in this program.

I understand, you know, it has to be uh five million dollars worth of investment on the developer side to qualify for the program and say they then um do you know for the sake of conversation, do a commercial or residential conversion, um, you know, doubling the value upon reassessment back to you know 100 million.

Um the the building that was you know being taxed at 50 million dollars would be taxed at 62.5 million dollars you know for for the purposes of um for for easy math for for the discussion.

Um and then you know what um and then they would uh still be paying um the additional taxes on the 37.5 remaining value of the building, but then that would then get diverted from the city, county, and school district coffers to um the the the revolving loan fine.

Um you know my my one question is you know uh you know generally one, how much is the financial uh infusion to the project as far as the to the to add to the capital stack would you and I know it would be different for every project, but you give a ballpark figure of of uh how many fun how much funds the developer would be getting and would would they be you know paying that back or is their uh the diversion of the taxes that they would have paid on the hundred million dollar building, you know, is that kind of considered the payback to um the the the infusion uh of dollars for their capital stacking you want to answer that?

Yeah, yeah.

I was gonna take the lead and I'll just on the first question, sort of ballpark figure on investment in it.

I think the probably the best way to is actual projects that we've recently seen.

So there's a handful of developments that have happened downtown recently that you know uh working with tools that frankly aren't funded at this point, like the downtown conversion program.

Um I'll use a specific example, which is recently at groundbreaking and quite a bit of press, but the um uh first to market beacons development at um downtown, roughly about a I think it's like a 45 million dollar development.

Ums went into that, including PHFA tax credits, equity debt, uh variety of public financing sources.

You know, the URA specifically put in about five million.

So to give a sense of like on a 40, 45 million dollar capital stack, that sort of last sliver of gap financing was roughly five million.

Um and that's a hundred percent affordable senior living project.

Um a market rate deal or mixed income rate deal, I would say, um that candidly we did not invest in, but other um mission-based uh uh lenders were able to to raise funds to help invest in the uh former GNC headquarters, uh which was recently converted into a mixed income development, um, roughly I think about a fifty or fifty-five million dollar total development project cost, and I believe about six million sort of in a piece of that capital stack to sort of fill a gap in the project.

So just to get a sense of scale, the rest of the capital stack being private uh private debt equity.

Um may have a stored tax credits due, but I'm not entirely sure.

Um to your question as to the payback, so an individual investments through a program into a real estate development project.

Yeah, the real estate development project itself would repay, would be repay that investments separate from any diverted taxes that would be diverted through the trid.

So they would be separate, separate mechanics.

Um the the base taxes as uh executive director mentioned, not none of that's diverted.

Any incremental real estate taxes, you know, the diverted portion would be diverted to the TRID to help um potentially service debt uh that's been borrowed to create the funds that are in turn investing directly into the real estate, which then have their own repayment mechanisms from the real estate financing itself.

Is that helpful?

Yep.

That's helpful.

Um and then um uh my my next um question is you know, some of the criticism that this trade has received is that they folks feel like it's different than the East Liberty and and the Manchester Trick.

Um can you speak to that that criticism and talk about you know what may be different about the downtown trip, particularly for a layman like myself who's gotten you know um uh a huge education about trades over the last six weeks, um and and and you know, and and speak to um you know why someone may say that you know the the these trid pro this trip proposal is different from those other um two trip proposal, which you know speaks to their opposition to this current trade.

Um I'll I'll start and then I know my colleagues will probably want to jump in because this is what we do all the time is we work with communities, we work with our partners, the private private partners, public partners, nonprofit partners, and we determine what the best approach is for every neighborhood that we work in.

And so what we do in East Liberty is very different than what we do in downtown because the needs are different.

And so we could utilize a tool like TRID in East Liberty, Manchester, Chateau, and we're going to approach it downtown differently with that TRID instrument because it's an instrument that we use in order to um take into consideration the current conditions of a neighborhood in order to help stabilize and strengthen that neighborhood.

And so, yes, we we have a handful of tools in our economic development toolbox, and they're not used in in the same way in every neighborhood because every neighborhood is different.

And and and could you speak specifically to what you know just to um just the East Liberty one, which I'm I'm a little bit more familiar with.

So um, you know, so what would be the approach different for from the East Liberty, even though we know that was what was that 10 years ago now?

That was actually have that date in front of me.

Um that obviously the world was much more.

East Liberty phase one was 2013.

Right.

That was the first operational TRID in the Commonwealth.

And our partnership with the Port Authority was huge really.

And that was our Keystone project, the East Liberty Transit Center.

And we utilized the TRID to leverage a federal tiger grant.

That was a $15 million Tiger grant.

We put that application in three times.

So um in addition to funding the transit center, we also funded um a number of off site um pedestrian improvements, the Penn Circle two-way conversion.

We funded a number of safety improvements for pedestrians, including crosswalks, lighting.

Um we also allocated a per certain percentage in the phase two East Liberty TRID to affordable housing, which you're quite familiar with, and um that was directed from the um I believe it was the Penn Plaza incremental um taxes.

Um there was a point I wanted to make just slip my mind, but um oh yeah, so we did project and we had a sense of what the off-site infrastructure needs were in terms of transit, multimodal.

It was quite clear East Liberty Transit Center needed to be built.

We worked with the Port Authority on it, and they now operate they operate that sys that um that amenity.

Um because of TRID, it was written this way at the state.

It allows for flexibility and future forward thinking.

And so, yes, there were there were some sidewalks and lighting projects that we knew were needed, but um, you know, there were also projects that be the ELDI and other community partners became aware of as the TRIDS life has you know as the TRID has been in existence.

And so it provides for flexibility in terms of um you know known needs and um future needs.

It allows us to think ahead.

Okay.

And a and act.

Yeah, and you had mentioned that, you know, depending on the neighborhood, there's different approaches.

Was there was there a different approach you took um for this current trid that may have been different?

Thank you.

That was the piece that I was forgetting.

Thank you.

You know, the world was much different in many in a whole variety of ways.

Thank you about 12, 13 years ago.

Exactly.

And so the approach that we need to take downtown, in our and our partners' opinion, is that you know, as Tom mentioned, he cited the downtown conversion projects that have moved forward.

And all of those are pure affordable housing projects, and that is wonderful, and it require deep, deep subsidy to move those projects forward.

But what we're not seeing are mixed income and market rate downtown conversion projects moving forward.

And so what we're still left with is this current state of vertical blight in our downtown.

And so what we know is that you know, we we don't tolerate blight in our neighborhoods, and we know that blight erodes the tax base and it erodes a community.

And what what we're hoping to do is move more projects forward, not just LITEC deals and and deals that have um you know access to PHFA products, but other projects that we know can move forward.

So you're saying currently and how many affordable housing projects are in the pipeline right now in downtown versus Yeah, so we're trying, I mean we're tracking roughly we think there's potentially up to maybe north of this now a thousand plus units total that could come town.

And this is over many years, right?

But that could come down uh depending on how projects progress.

We believe at least you know, up to about a little lower, maybe a little less, but 30% of those units um could could be affordable.

Um some of those projects could be 100% affordable, some could be more um you know, 10, 20 percent affordable, um especially those that are mixed in common probably would take advantage, frankly of the LEDA program.

So that's how we how we're tracking them, but that's to give a sense of scale.

Sitting here today.

I mean, obviously real estate changes daily, but that's that's what we see today.

Affordable units make up about 18% of units downtown right now, and with our trade pipeline, what we're tracking for affordability, we think we'll be able to get that north of 20 percent, closer to 21 percent.

Right.

Right.

And as as we spoke I think we spoke numerous times in the past, you know, you know, six weeks, and and and as you know, I've you know, I'm obviously uh uh you know a staunch advocate, you know, for affordable housing, and I've brought up affordable housing.

Um, you know, uh many times if if you could, you know, speak um like to the public in those conversations where because I've mentioned and uh you know and I'll continue to mention that you know um you know my preference would be to see a similar fund um like we have in in in in the East Liberty trip um and and when I in our most recent conversation, I guess a little over a week ago, uh, you know, when I brought that up again, can you speak to from your perspective of of why you would take a different approach uh than you know creating the affordable housing fund that I would really like to see and still would like to see um obviously um you know, but you know, you you had a diet a different perspective when I brought that to you once again.

Yes, thank you.

We're recommending a flexible tool that allows us to solve a myriad of a problems and allows us to really engage with property owners to help them reposition their buildings and really eliminate that blight that exists and help stabilize the tax base.

Um, one thing I'll mention is you know um the housing bond money came up recently, and I just wanted to mention number one, thank you for your support of that.

That was a $30 million fund, and um uh that's that's l um, I think all of it, the 30 million is fully committed.

Yeah.

Um and it and so what you know there is a balance and that balance includes committed.

And so I just want to clarify that because I didn't know if I would have an opportunity later.

So like as an example, Berg Place.

That is a lie tech deal funded with a nine percent.

Um, you know, we have 2.45 million um uh loan committed to Berg place.

And that that's still included in the balance that some folks have articulated, but that is a committed amount.

And so um, and so I just wanted to point that out that you know, when when we have funding tools that allow us to move housing and affordable housing forward, we do need to stay in those deals while they continue to finalize their capital stack and go to a closing.

And so um just circling back to your question, it's our recommendation in downtown with a economic development tool to help spur activity, stabilize the neighborhood and the community of downtown, which is our region center, we are recommending a tool that has flexibility.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And um and my uh I think my my my final question for now, because I want to because I know there's a lot of uh questions, and I'm I'm sure there'll be multiple rounds as well.

Um that uh um there has been you know criticism about the public engagement, you know, process for this particular um trade.

So it's a two-part question.

One, um can can y'all talk about um the typical process uh for public engagement um, you know, for a trade and then how it compared to um the the current process um that that we've been going through around this trade, and then uh, you know, I've defer the floor back to the madam chair after your response.

So we have started um this process as you all know in January with our with our board um and every board meeting um is open to the public and we encourage public common public participation in our board meetings.

So um in the trade implementation plan, you'll see a series of of meetings that we have um taken some um action on with our with our authorizing body at our board and then briefings that we've had with various taxing bodies.

Um we also you know we're very grateful to have the the post agenda discussion and the public hearing here as well.

Um we have been briefing community groups, we have um been posting this on our website, we have shared this with you all.

We have uh there was a lot I was here for all public comment with all of you today.

Um there was a lot of question about um our intent and our motivation behind it.

Um our our motivation behind it is to strengthen downtown and to strengthen Pittsburgh as a whole.

There's no malicious intent behind this.

Um I agree with a lot of the policy choices that were being advocated for this morning as well.

Um and we have followed a process and engaged the public thoroughly, and we'll continue to do so.

Um right now where we're at in the process here is still probably about the 50-yard line.

Um we still will be coming back to you later this fall, uh maybe towards the end of the year with a funding plan, and we'll be coming, you know, before you when we are at the place where we take out a bond issuance as well.

We're still going to be going to the county and to um PPS um for their uh you know sign off and then also to PRT.

So we're in we're in the the thick of it right now, and we continue to um you know prioritize uh hearing everyone's opinions on this and taking that all into consideration and and we're we're grateful that it has garnered so much attention and grateful for the for the discussion around it.

Thank thank you for for your time today.

I'll reserve uh the rest of my questions for multiple rounds that I'm sure we'll all be experiencing very soon.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Chair.

So uh before we get started, I just want to recognize that we all should have a pretty large packet of yellow papers on our on the table here.

Uh that's an amendment that uh I'll be making the motion for and then I'd like to discuss that motion after.

So motion to amend uh the bill to reflect what's in the packet for bill 531.

Um and this this is a um sorry, I'll just reserve to I can make comment.

Second, discussion.

So what I will do, because we already had some people register their interest in discussing the bill before the amendment, we'll start with you and then we'll go to those who were already in line.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you were talking about.

I was gonna make the amendment and then what was gonna happen?

Then we'll the discussion for the amendment will go we'll follow the order of those who um had already.

Oh okay, okay.

Like we'll be discussing the amendment.

Yeah.

I understand.

Okay.

Yes.

So Bill Bill 531, obviously everyone knows that's the the TRID bill for downtown, the larger capture is expanded to the North Shore and then also to the strip district.

This uh this amendment uh does a few things.

Uh one, I just want a blanket statement about how development typically we see development in Pittsburgh.

We talk about good union jobs and and uh and how that that plays a part in development.

Um largely working with the trades and all the all the different trades that go into the the project to make it work.

That's largely what I think we're all thinking of when we talk about these are projects that happen with good union jobs.

And then the building is built, and then we all it's converted, and then we all kind of um you know, not that we don't think of it, but it's not at the forefront of our mind when we're we're talking about the development here that really brings it to a head where we're talking about uh service workers downtown that during this transition has lost jobs, but also uh we see that uh developers uh see possibly an angle to uh cut workers out of uh good union jobs out of and paying jobs out of um that development once it's converted or built.

So, you know, this is once it's built after seeing those service workers uh continue to you know be able to have a job there and for that transition to happen uh this trid provides us of a great possibility uh at hand to really weigh in here.

And I have to really thank the mayor's office for continuous conversations with uh the service workers employee union 32 BJ.

Uh we heard them spoke today, spoke today, uh sorry, speak today about uh the need uh for family sustaining jobs and a really tragic story of how real workers are being affected.

Uh the woman couldn't even read, you know, she couldn't even tell her story.

And this is a real thing that's happening for years when we hold when this uh when this city previous mayors, previous councils held uh property owners accountable for whenever they hire a contractor that is not they're not recognizing the the prior agreements.

And this is a real thing that's happening for years when we hold when this uh when this city previous mayors, previous councils held uh property owners accountable for whenever they hire a contractor that is not they're not recognizing the the prior agreements, and they are just you know bringing in uh people that are being paid less and their their you know their livelihoods are at risk uh and their families.

So this trade provides this great opportunity for the bill amendment to require recipients of downtown trid financing to enter into labor peace agreements, covering building service employees.

Also uh clarify that downtown TRID assistance of a hundred thousand or more constitutes a city subsidy and is subject to prevailing wage requirements, require applicants to submit plans for labor agreement, labor engagement, and mitigating the displacement of existing building service employees.

There's also a further step to this amendment, which uh does make a change to the map.

It removes the area around 31st Street from the TRID uh capture area, and also there's an update uh that uh the written description of the boundary map.

And also there is a date uh correction here to reflect the time the legislation has been held at the table, which I have to say, I think we're um not only here, it's been some time for the public to see, but also from the beginning, I think we're over a hundred days uh in in the in the public's eye of this of this legislation.

So with that, um I would like to make further comment, uh, but I'll I'll reserve my other comments for later.

Thank you.

I just want to get this.

Thank you.

We'll circle back around.

And so currently we have Councilman Cockhill followed by councilwoman gross.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair.

And we will give everyone a chance to speak on the the larger bill as well.

Thank you.

Gotcha, gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um first I want to tell you thank you for the work you do.

Um it really you you're a very important arm of government, Pittsburgh government for us.

Um I I will tell you, I was hesitant at first when I was approached about this, you know, we're being asked to forfeit you know future taxpayer or future taxes in order for the long-term goal.

Um, and I heard a lot of the speakers today as well.

And uh, you know, first and foremost, you know, I want to be clear, you know, that every single job, every single project is different.

I get the feeling that people have this sense that you're given a developer three million dollars in order to come here.

But that involves, and please elaborate, um, you know, anything from and and I like the flexibility, you need flexibility um for each and every project.

Whether it's stabilizing the project, whether it's bridging a gap in funding, whether it's preparing a site, uh, you know, every project I found, and just comes from my experience in working with you on different projects is is uh everything's different.

So you need to have flexibility as to how we can help whatever project it is.

And I want to be clear, you know, if this were just to uh a giveaway to developers, I would not be on board with it uh by any means.

I'm banking on this is a financial commitment from us now for a great financial income in the future.

And you remarked to it, Sushila, um the trids ones that you have experienced and have come into fruition have increased 12 fold as to what we were collecting or what we would be collecting without the help on that.

So for me, it's a financial question for me, right?

It's it's it's great.

I love a vibrant downtown.

Uh I think we need it.

And I in the end, you know, we're I'm betting, we're betting on this on the URA, on your projections, and on who we also gives us leverage as to who we select and what project they have in order to be uh have more skin in the game.

I you know, you know, we need to have that say so.

I am curious as to the area of concern as to and I trust that it's the right area, but I'm just concerned like how did we get to that area?

Do we have professionals um to kind of just you know look at this entire area and say this is the most ripe for development, this is where we can start by revitalizing and making a big impact downtown.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um I'll take a first pass and I'll uh hand it over to my uh colleagues to talk about our how we underwrite our project.

Um so number one, thank you, Councilman Wilson, for your amendment related to union jobs.

Um, you know, I mean it there are no service work there are no service worker jobs if a building is empty.

And I'm I'm not gonna call out the specific buildings, but there are some building owners who have stopped cleaning their buildings because they are emptying them out.

And so that's a problem, right?

So this is this is a holistic problem that we have to solve.

Um so yeah, I'll turn over to my uh my colleague Tom to talk through our pro sorry, Chief Link to talk through the process in which we undertake to underwrite a project for its need.

You can Tom's fine.

Yeah, thank you very much for the question.

Appreciate um the engagement that I know it's been robust and um you know we're happy to continue it.

So to the question of underwriting process.

So when we and not not just for downtown trip, but any, you know, for real estate financing generally, our our role in the world for for most for the vast majority of our programs and certainly would apply to programs through this TRID for providing financing for real estate development is the term of art as gap financing.

So we're we're we're putting money in that's but for this money that's a this project cannot happen.

How do we arrive at that test?

We have a team of professional underwriters who receive applications, um, underwrite against appraised values, um, performas, um, understanding the rest of the capital stack uh to ensure that uh there is in fact a gap that is but for the investment, the uh project wouldn't have to happen.

From a process perspective, typically, you know, we do underwriting at a staff level, right?

Almost like a bank does professional underwriting.

Um there's specialties around low-income housing financing that we have a you know robust team uh that does that work to underwrite um you know lie tech deals and affordable deals.

Um work it through our staff prof you know, professional staff review.

We use third party advisory committees to at some basic level check us to some degree.

I mean, for many many years I did business lending at the URA, and it was really important to have a third party committee of lenders and others who advise us as to whether or not we're you know looking at these deals appropriately.

Um and then with a positive approval through that process, it comes to our URI board for for uh for that for approvals.

So that that's how we look at these.

Um I feel like I'm missing something, but that's how I generally generally think about it.

Yeah, yeah, that's fine.

I know what you're gonna say.

Um there are two Please we've been working together a long time.

Yeah, um we you have two city council members on our board.

As well as uh a mayor's office um chair, plus a state rep plus an SEIU representative.

So you you have a really good URA board that also sees every project that is underwritten by staff with a loan review committee made up of uh our lending banking partners before it even hits the URA board agenda for for consideration and authorization.

Right.

Okay.

Well, again, for me it's uh it's about dollars and cents.

I I I I truly believe that the URA is needed in this as a rule, and you need to be flushed with money to help projects, whatever that project may be.

Um yeah, short-term pain for us not to be collecting these taxes, but a very long-term gain for the city of Pittsburgh and generations long after us, you know, the developer gets three million dollars in subsidy from the URA, but produces uh 250 unit apartment building, whether it's market or affordable, we're gaining that tax money forever on that.

So again, I'm betting on you.

You uh you you're confident that this will be uh you know positive net income for us in the end, as you said for 12 fold on the projects you've already done.

So um so so I'm willing uh to take that chance.

Uh I'm willing to take that bet and mostly because I've seen you up close in projects you've done, and I know firsthand that these projects would not happen.

And these places would be sitting there, whether we're talking about a food desert, where we whether we're talking about uh senior affordable housing or affordable housing in general.

I know that without the URA's involvement and the ability to come and make a project go or not make a project go is vital to it.

And um, you know, rather than play sit there for a hundred years empty, uh, you know, we're gonna be producing whether it be retail, whether it be uh housing, you name it, we're gonna be collecting uh taxes from it, and we're gonna be better off for it in the future, no question about it.

Although I did hesitate at first, I will tell you, you know, at a time when we're struggling financially and we're like, oh, we're finally getting a few more uh units on the tax rule, but but you know, I think it's a um I think it's uh it's it's it's about I'm willing to take, I will tell you.

And and I believe in you, and I think um I think we're we're on the right path, and I think truly it's the only way to really revitalize downtown Pittsburgh.

I do.

Um so on top of that, I will tell you as Councilman Wilson uh you know mentioned jobs, the building trades, SEIU, the countless jobs that will be produced, and we're not figuring out in the the future income that I'm counting on, but the countless jobs for our building trades that will be building these facilities, you know, is invaluable.

And you know, they all live in the community, they all live in Allegheny County, they're all contributing to the success of of Pittsburgh or not.

So um Yeah, so so it'll have my support.

Um just one simple question.

If we pass it here in the city of Pittsburgh, then you move on to the school district and the county.

Correct.

If the school district and the county say no way, is the project dead or you have to have all three bodies, is that right, in order for this trip to go.

We would need to evaluate that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, so um doesn't necessarily I wouldn't consider it dead.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

Yeah.

Something would have to be worked out, but yeah, I understand.

So it's not dependent on all three bodies being in agreement at this point.

We are proposing a three taxing body investment tool.

Sure, right.

And that's how we've that's that's what the analysis shows.

We um I mean that that's that's a com that's a different alternative that we're not studying right now.

We're we're presenting this and um we believe that this is the tool.

That's right.

I just wanted to make sure it doesn't kill it kill the deal.

That's that that's all good.

So um keep up the good work.

I uh I have confidence in it.

I feel like, you know, maybe not from my district, and maybe not in the next three to five years, but eventually um, you know, this is gonna be a good thing.

One last thing is you know, the first initial was 200 million dollars.

50.

Well, it's worth it.

I would ex yeah, the first one would be up to roughly 50, that's what our announcement is.

Okay, up to 50.

And you would see that again just to be clear.

Well, that's right, too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So so my point is if successful, when successful, you'll come back to us for maybe another up to whatever it might be.

We at that point will be able to evaluate what you did.

We'll be able to count housing units and retail and everything that's coming online.

And you know, so yeah, it's it's a 40-year commitment, but you know, we don't have to fund it uh fully unless we see results.

And you'll be coming back to us for after the 50 million dollars as a startup, we'll say.

Right.

You'll be coming back to us, and you know, hopefully because it's a big success, and we'll hopefully be uh anxious and eager to to to fund you because uh we see the long-term forecast.

So this is playing for the long term here.

Um I think we need to do that as a city of Pittsburgh knowing downtown and the struggles that we have there.

And um we're counting on you and we're betting on you.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I um first speak to the amendments in front of us since that's kind of the discussion round that we're on.

And um, so I appreciate that when I had a meeting after our standing committee agenda uh when this was first introduced, I pointed out that I didn't like the map because it was just a little picture in a packet.

Um, you know, a tiny, a tiny, literally like one-inch picture that really I didn't think to find legal boundaries.

And so I believe that that is corrected in the amendment by substitution that we were emailed last night, and I was trying to look at it on a tiny screen, but now this is the first time that we're actually getting it in paper.

So can you direct me to like where the boundaries are described in the amendment by substitution that is in my hand?

It's long, and it's been a long meeting.

So that's also a picture.

Yeah, that was just handed that over.

So is this the original picture?

Because this one goes up to 33rd Street, and and we were told in in the email, and then I think in Mr.

Wilson's original uh opening comments here that that boundary removed the area around 31st Street.

But this map, this picture that you just handed me, which is larger, goes up to 33rd Street.

So the legislation contains the implementation plan as an attachment.

And the implementation plan, the written description of the boundary begins on page eight.

I'm I'm flipping.

Flipping to page eight.

And while you're looking at study area and trid boundary.

And so that describes So that is the planning study portion of the attachment.

The implementation plan is earlier in the package.

Oh, sorry.

The other part of the packet, page eight.

Like this slides.

Uh the slide deck pay date?

Before that.

Before the slide deck pay date.

If I may, I can I can read a written description that might be helpful right now is as we you know discuss on the legislation.

The value capture area includes downtown Pittsburgh and extends to encompass a portion of the North Shore, generally bounded by the Manchester Chateau Trid boundary, interstate two seventy-nine and interstate 579.

The area further includes a portion of the strip district, generally bounded by the Allegheny River, 29th Street, Railroad Street, 32nd Street, 33rd Street, Liberty Avenue, the 20th Street Bridge, and Martin Luther King East Busway Corridor and Interstate 579.

So my copy that's in my hand on page eight says generally bounded by the Allegheny River, or it says um Fort Boulevard, you know, extending from Point State Park and Fort Pitt Boulevard on the west to approximately 33rd Street and adjacent railroad, rail corridor to the east.

Okay, if we so my I think the council packet doesn't read the same way as your pac at what you intended.

I do believe you intended.

So when this first came, the first time it came to standing committee, I said you keep saying strip district, but some of these parcels that I can see in your little squiggle map actually uh look like Polish Hill.

So both put some text in place that clarifies it, either list parcels.

I know you can list parcels because you list parcels of where you intended, you know, where you think development is going to be.

Um or you know, we do it various ways.

We've done it with latitudes and longitudes.

Sometimes we do it by street boundaries, sometimes we do it by neighborhood.

Like you could have easily just said, like bounded by the strip district neighborhood, because that is an official boundary.

Our city of Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries are generally by census tract.

So they follow census tract boundaries.

So for example, when we redistricted um in 2022, Councilman Wilson got the entirety of the strip district, which is follows the census tract boundary, but if in fact splits sixth board first district in half.

So it doesn't actually follow the voting precincts, it does follow the census tract.

So I think they're just mistakes here.

And then this map that you just handed me again goes all the way up to 33rd Street, but then there's a map on, I don't know what section of the the thing this is.

But this map is clearly different than the map you just handed me.

Because it just got this like hard line up at the top.

So that's so there's just inconsistencies throughout the the amendment by substitution.

That version, so the attachment contains the implementation plan, the JLL analysis, and the planning study.

I believe that page the first planning study at which point would that document.

Okay, and I think we didn't have so um can you repeat that?

Yeah, just repeat that.

Okay, your microphone.

So the attachment to legislation is the implementation study.

The implementation plan, the JLL analysis, as well as the planning study.

The implementation plan.

Because it's all packed show, the implementation plan is what this legislation is approving the implementation plan and adopting it.

The implementation plan has that updated language, has the updated map on it.

I don't think the planning study at the time the planning study was published, the map still did not have that chunk around 31st Street cut out.

I'm gonna let you show me in my packet while I talk.

If you could find it, like maybe I was still looking at the wrong page, even though I looked, you know, not the last page eight, not the middle page eight, but the earlier in the packet page eight, and it's still kind of read differently.

So I want to be sure that what's in the legislative record is what you think you have.

Right?

If this is the amendment by substitution, it's supposed to be complete, it's the complete new legislation.

It's not like old legislation where there's just an amendment to it.

So if you want to show me that, that'd be great.

Yeah, so this first part of the packet is the implementation plan.

The implementation plan is being updated to reflect the new map.

The map that you've been pointing to further back.

This is the old one.

No, but I also read from the other page.

So can you read find me the section?

So the reason I said it is because so the you know, the intent was to capture the strip district, but it included what looked like parcels from Polish Hill.

And so when we had the follow-up meetings, um the I think intent was to, in this amendment by substitution to remove the neighborhood Polish Hill parcels that were in there.

So once you pass 28th Street, I believe the the parcels that are on your right um outbounds, so between Liberty Avenue and the railroad tracks, or the East Busway, should not be included.

And we removed those parcels.

And so the intent is to remove those parcels.

I'm not sure it's reflected because it it kind of says it right there where I underlined.

It says generally bound, you know, all the way approximately to 33rd Street and adjacent rail corridor.

Which is Polish Hill.

I I really appreciate your um your attention to this and our discussions around this.

I wanted to make just make two um two notes.

We made from the original map that you know uh Mr.

Singer said was included in one of the planning studies.

There has been two changes based on council feedback over the past six weeks.

One was the removal of the Polish Hill parcels, you know, I at your um and we were really glad that you raised that to us.

We wanted to ensure that we were looking at that holistically and and in line with neighborhood boundaries as you suggested.

And the other was a recent change um around 31st Street in particular.

So if there is um any updates that we need to make to this, we certainly will in haste, and we um are working to do that.

But I I just wanted to be clear that those were the only two changes that have been made um over the past six weeks based on council input.

Okay, so we're you know, is this extra map?

Because it does look like it reflects it on the picture, but I don't I don't see how the the text corresponds to the picture.

So I think that's interesting.

I say you said the 31st Street parcels you're talking about are the city owned parcels that are the um toe pound.

So you also excluded those from the capture area.

Interesting.

Um okay, so that's that's on the parcel.

So yeah, if we can clarify these by next Tuesday, we can always we have to have it in writing so we can.

I again, you know, I'm just seeing this like kind of on paper for the first time, so I wasn't able to double check that, but I I I do acknowledge that um I you agreed to those removals, and that's what we want to make sure isn't um inconsistent or is is worded correctly.

So I appreciate that.

Um to the amendment by substitution, I do want to say that um I believe the um uh it's been a long day.

The kind of um reflection of intents to ensure labor negotiations is how I'm phrasing that, right?

Of um language is um is welcome.

Um I wish that um we were putting it not in this multi-decade future tax diversion language.

Um I think what I heard the councilman say was that it's like anything more than a hundred thousand dollar public investment um would ensure the agreements, which is great, but you know, why do we have to divert 100 million dollars of future tax revenue to get 100,000 investment in a few buildings downtown?

You want to answer that?

Yeah, so the requirements on a city subsidy like that for that uh service worker prevailing wage that is in the city code that was adopted in 2023.

This borrows the language from it in order to make precisely clear that money or financing granted through the TRID is a public subsidy like that, therefore triggering those requirements.

Okay, so uh we can just spend a hundred thousand dollars and it would trigger the requirements under under ordinance that we already voted on three years ago.

This makes it clear that the TRID money itself yes, but according to the ordinance.

What is the threshold for public investment triggering um labor negotiations?

100,000 dollars.

So we could just spend 100,000 out of the operating budget or any capital budget in any of these projects, and it would require the same labor negotiating.

We don't need to divert decades of future tax revenue to get the requirement of labor requirements.

I'm sorry, that's what the assistant chief of staff to the mayor just said on the public record councilman who's who's laughing at the way I rephrased it.

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of my statement.

Oh, please do, please quote um clarify.

Correct.

So I think there is a mix-up here that you were saying that we can only require that, make those requirements if we have the TRID.

That is not the case.

The TRID exists separately from this.

No, I didn't say that.

I said we don't actually have to do the trade.

You said the ordinance is already on the books.

This is saying that the TRID now falls under that requirement.

You also said the ordinance exists.

I'm saying the language from it, don't you?

The length of the language of borrowers there.

So the language is in the ordinance.

There's an ordinance.

Yes.

And the ordinance says the ordinance does not classify trade financing as a subsidy for the purposes of the labor agreements here for service workers.

It says what does the ordinance say?

I can pull it up for you.

Thank you.

You want me to read it?

I'll read it.

It's the prevailing wage.

City of Pittsburgh Service worked our prevailing wage ordinance.

Number one-2010, version two, effective February 18th, 2010.

Also updated in 2019 and March 2019 and in 2023.

So it says that there's a bunch of definitions.

And then it says the controller shall issue prevailing wage determinations at least every once every 12 months, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't see any place where it says okay.

Who enforces this?

So the URA enforces its own prevailing wage requirements for construction work for service worker prevailing wage.

Okay.

So I'm assuming that this says, because it's the way it was summarized to me, that if the city, if there's a hundred thousand dollars of like city investment in a project.

Thank you.

We're doing an online summary here.

So if the city today, if we never pass the trade, if we all vote no today on the trade, but the city invests a hundred thousand dollars in a downtown project, then there's a prevailing wage that employees work must work on the project 50 hours a year, and then there are prevailing wage rates.

So I'm not misresemp misrepresenting anyone's words.

Right?

So even if city council votes no on this trid there's an ordinance on the books that says if there's a hundred thousand dollars of public funds, like let's say we just take some money out of the operating budget or a capital budget and put 100,000 into a project, then they have to abide by prevailing wage.

I don't think I'm misstating that.

Okay.

So what I'm asserted, what I believe I said, was that even if we don't do this, we don't need the TRID to enforce our ordinance, right?

So I think that's still true.

I mean that's the way I'm understanding it correctly.

If there is no trade, there is nothing to enforce the requirement against.

So I'll continue.

So um so I appreciate that the trade wouldn't um be exempt from that ordinance.

Um and so that's great.

But I I think these comments are a little bit more to the general um the general concept of the trade, so I'll keep it short because we're talking about the amendment here.

Uh and I'll wait for the second round.

So I can put my hand up for second round already, or for the round about the amended bill.

Um that you you should ask, should we do this?

Um I think the experts at the table have have articulated that they can do it.

Um I think that's what their job is.

It's we've got how to do things.

Um I think it's for us to discuss and to listen to the public to decide whether we should do it.

Um I think that's that's the next discussion we have today.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Thank you.

Are there any other on the amendment specifically?

Yes, Councilmember Warwick.

Yeah, so just on the amendment and sort of to um extend on councilwoman gross's comments is just that you know, we heard from uh Kim Smith, who worked 37 years, I think she said in a building and then was just summarily fired, let go from that building.

Um, which is terrible.

Um I have 32 BJ members in my district, right, who I see regularly, um, who I know very well.

And I you know, I think these are interesting points that Councilman Gross makes.

That's actually not something that I had thought of sort of in in thinking about this and talking with uh with the folks at 32 BJ.

Um I wonder also if the and I'm I'm not I'm not sure, but if the um if the labor piece element could not be added to the prevailing wage ordinance to kind of cover this, and again, as Councilman Gross said, a much smaller investment.

Uh you know, we could make a much smaller investment into a downtown project to trigger.

Um but I I I will say overall that it it feels like a shame that um you know our folks who are working in these buildings downtown um are sort of uh feel like an afterthought in this process, right?

Feel like they sort of had to scramble and get something um to to for you know for their workers um as a part of this massive proposal um that has been months in the in the making.

Um and uh and that you know the only way for them to sort of get even a little something is for this giant payout to the very companies that have been treating them so poorly.

Um that's that's a shame.

And um I I think that as this body we can absolutely do better.

Um I you know, for for the amendment, I obviously you know we'll get into it.

I'm not supportive of the overall trade, but for the amendment to to have this in there, I'm certainly supportive of them getting some help through, you know, in in this package, uh should it pass overall.

Um but again, I think as a body we can absolutely and we should absolutely do better for our downtown service workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion round one on the amendment.

Round two, second round, Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I just want to I'll be brief about the the comments about the 100k.

I mean, it's really just to prevent something like you know, small that would be uh, you know, I think even the greater ordinance is always just you know, 100K isn't gonna bring downtown back, but it at least prevents, you know, some smaller projects from having to uh be a part of this language.

So it it tries to keep it moving and uh and then I I guess you know I don't think we should um use the word shame around uh assisting you know workers downtown this in this time.

I think I think it's really important that we recognize like this is just how the process goes, like as we continually um have the conversation, which in my general comments I want to make later about um how people participate in their government, but I think uh the city's you know elected leaders have always had a good relationship with their unions and that this is a process that takes place um continuously as we work through legislation.

So I think it's a pretty big win for service workers, and I wouldn't want that uh language like shame to cloud any any of that.

Thanks.

Further discussion on the amendment, Zacharmo.

Seeing none, all those in favor of um amending bill 531.

And the implementation plan.

And the implementation plan by substitution.

I apologize.

Was that the motion?

You know, I have my motion was just to amend um because it is it is uh the amendments are found that it's not bolded, right?

Yeah, okay.

The amendments are bolded, but I I've been here before where someone has suggested that the best route is to amend my substitution.

So I would I'll defer to you, uh, Madam Clerk.

Is the best.

Okay, amend by substitution.

Okay.

So all those in favor of amending Bill 531 by substitution, please say aye.

Thank you.

Amendment uh passes.

Further discussion on bill bill 531 as amended.

Councilman Wilson, I see and then I know Councilman Gross, and we will go from there.

Okay, thanks.

So thank you all for coming to the table.

I appreciate the initial um excuse me, interaction in terms of learning this, because there has been, you know, quite the narrative been created, and we had a council member go online and make a video saying that there were uh developer giveaways before they even knew that these were loans.

And so can you just once again confirm that these are loans to projects?

Yes.

Okay.

How serious are those loans?

Because it's also been insinuated that these are just fake loans.

How serious are the loans?

Um in my practice when we make loans, we enter into a variety of agreements, including mortgage agreements, security agreements.

Sorry.

Um I'm defining serious as agreements that back seriousness.

So mortgage agreements, security agreements, uh payment agreements, these types of things that are negotiated and uh codify the investments and the remedies, you know, remedies that could be taken to ensure that the loans are repaid.

So I that's right.

All right.

And I know I may comment before that there are zero defaults on loans of this type with involving a TRID or a TIFF.

So yeah, borrowings against TIFFs and Trids have a zero default.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so the just you know, I just want to try to make more sense of this language that's been kind of uh energized here that this is some sort of giveaway because you know, as we continue to look at downtown and the need to really make sure that people know that downtown matters.

And I don't think we're I agree with I don't think we're doing a good job telling that story, and I I think we've had I've expressed that to everyone.

Um and I know it's a balance because we don't want to say, you know, we have people who are really invested, we have a whole separate business uh you know um entity that uh the the has the bid for downtown and the PDP and they're really promoted.

We just have Picklesburg.

We want people to come downtown, we don't want them to think that there are tumbleweeds going through the streets.

Uh, but it is you know a story that you know we should tell.

And you know, for our our residents to not really understand uh, especially since I've heard so many commenters say that I I'm really hearing that downtown doesn't matter in in most of the comments.

And so I think it's best that you know we have a better understanding of what downtown uh matters for our not only our larger budget, but also just how we continue to move forward.

I mean, we're talking I represent downtown and we're talking about converting these structures where there's residents, and I would have I would have to represent those residents.

So these are people that live in Pittsburgh, these are people that could come to Pittsburgh and live, current residents that could take advantage of the affordable housing that would be downtown.

And I'm looking forward to that.

I know that this council has been on the forefront of of doing that, whether that's through the LERTA or uh the conversion funds for the URA.

Um, you know, there's multiple ways that this council has tried to step up and and make these conversions happen.

And so we're seeing this once again that we need to continue to uh inject more resources into these projects so that we can have uh for years to come more than 40 years.

You know, more than 40 years, we can actually have uh a downtown uh you know that is producing the amount of tax revenue that we expect.

Um we had a a bridge that just got blown up right outside of a tunnel.

I don't want to see that downtown.

I'd rather not see buildings just continually, you know, come down and we're celebrating that.

I want to be on the opposite end of that so that we're really going into the neighbor uh to the neighborhoods and delivering.

I can say for myself, uh being a city council person for uh you know um the past seven years, it's been incredible to work with individuals in my neighborhood to really deliver on projects and on what what I wasn't seeing uh in uh people that have reached out who are against this trip or people that I'm actually working with to get those projects done.

And I think it's important to recognize that Spring Hill was called out twice here uh for the lack of transit.

I thought uh we should recognize the amount of um the amount of investment that has taken place in Spring Hill.

I think it's a great example, and it's gonna continue.

Uh so let's talk about the 200, and this is you know how why why downtown matters.

Uh we were able to build sidewalks from a 200 unit uh apartment complex, uh affordable housing complex that uh was literally it's literally cut off.

And we built sidewalks to the new, we built a half mile of sidewalk to the new park.

Uh and that park is uh being renovated uh for upwards of six million dollars.

And then we also connected that part of our our neighborhood, the 200 units to the only bus stop that we have in the neighborhood.

And just recently uh we also are starting to invest in the sidewalks in the major corridor where we have been seeing people walk on the street uh even with strollers, and it's completely unacceptable.

So uh in this coming month, you'll actually see uh traffic calming happen on that street and also for uh on Iten Street and also Ryan.

And so it's been incredible to work with people in the neighborhood that are committed to that to that effort.

And so I just I just think that it's um you know it's it's something where I see what happens here with with public comment, and I wonder, you know, how could how could um you know how could we really show that downtown matters for our neighborhoods and I I think it's uh I think it's a good story to tell about all the good projects that are happening and continuing to happen and and not to act like government just turns its eye to uh these neighborhoods and we're committed.

I mean, I haven't when we you know put sidewalks in, there was never a sidewalk for this one bus stop.

I never heard from any transit people about how we uh you know piggybacked off of one project in Spring Hill to actually, you know, so people weren't standing in dirt in a bus stop.

Uh so I never you know, no one came to me.

That was just something that government stepped in and we did that.

And we continually want to uh know from the public where they're where we're lacking so we can do better.

And I think that's I think it's uh also important to recognize uh something that I that I want to get to, but I don't know fully, and which is the conversation around affordable housing.

Has any of the affordable housing advocates reached out about any of these projects that are happening downtown, the affordable ones?

Because from my understanding, this would take the affordable housing numbers from uh you know upwards of the whole the whole downtown if you count every unit, about 21% of those units would be affordable.

Have you all been contacted about how these are the projects that were there in the pipeline for this trid that we're looking at?

I think there's roughly five or six.

Some are 100% affordable.

Have you all been contacted by any of these organizations?

No, we have not been contacted by them.

Okay.

So but we have been in touch with our affordable housing partners.

Okay, great.

And how does that how does that happen?

Um we have uh we have ongoing relationships with them.

They they need they need tools to help move their projects forward, and this downtown trid can help with that.

You said they have tools.

So who are the partners?

They need they need tools.

Like Beacon.

Beacon is a wonderful partner downtown.

I think they have three projects coming out of it.

I guess I was talking about advocates that can be.

Oh, advocates are saying there's no this this is a giveaway developers, there's gonna be luxury condos, but I'm hearing you all say there's we're gonna we're gonna produce more affordable housing downtown than any other neighborhood.

I mean, well, I'm sorry, that's a pretty big statement, but you know, where there is luxury condos.

I I don't believe we've heard from advocates.

Uh I mean Yeah.

Except for listening to them in, you know, our our meetings, your meetings.

Right.

Okay.

I want to speak for my colleagues, but yeah, so I feel like the the effort that I'm hearing from some of the affordable housing advocates that it's not a win unless they're able to write it.

That if we actually just go and do it, if we go and do it and we work with Beacon, we work with other individuals and we put in uh you know requirements in the LERTA to say that you have to do X amount of affordable housing if the if you get any tax break.

And then also in this when we work with all the projects that are LITEC, which are you know, those are the only ones that are getting the money, but they still have a gap, right?

Is that correct?

The Light Tech Prime Special.

Require significant.

They always have a gap.

It's lots of gap financing is required.

Do you think the housing advocates aren't aware of LITEC?

Like, should I think it's about how does the last time it's hard to do it?

It's a public process, right?

Where it happens at the URA and they're talking about very public process, yes.

And we and we um seek board authorization to help fill those funding gaps in LITEC projects and those go to our board.

Okay.

And and the Hoff, the Hoff Advisory Board and the U then the URA.

Okay.

And for 40 years, this 40-year um talking point, this is for the whole um uh basically it's for the ability in those 40 years to take out these bonds.

Right.

Every time you get to come back to the table for $50 million or 40 million dollars.

It allows for multiple borrowings within the term of the trip.

Subject to authorization of borrowings.

Okay.

All right, good.

On just one note on that.

So the multiple borrowing rounds across 40 years just for context.

So I know we've talked about multiple borrowings and 20-year stretches and coming back to council.

For context for council members, the general obligation volumes that council routinely votes on are also for the same 20-year terms.

This is not an abnormally long term.

It's a term that council's very, very familiar with and votes to approve almost uniformly every single time without fail.

Okay.

Great.

And then we also have a transit advocate.

Did the transit advocate reach out about the transit piece of this yet?

No, but we're in touch with the port authority.

Oh, okay.

And we've we've heard their public comments in the meetings.

Were they involved with the Manchester Trid at all?

I don't think they can reach out at all.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

I guess there's a big disconnect here where we are working with uh members of a of a union that are you know really trying to make sure that they have a seat at the table.

And I I really want to have that conversation of how we all get wins.

Um but I really think it happens just like you know uh we've had some other conversations with NTTs who are getting a win here, or at least they're celebrating with us that you know we could maybe try to have a better understanding.

I don't know.

I'm trying to, I'm a little bit perplexed here why uh those conversations haven't happened.

Not on you, but just you know, just in general, since this has been in the public for like a hundred and six days.

Yeah, I appreciate your support and encouragement on this, and uh and I agree that um there's a more clear story to tell than I think sometimes um is being um heard um at this point in time.

And I think that's a you know a good charge for all of us collectively.