Cable Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Standing Committee's meeting for Wednesday, July 29th, 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. Sharland.

Here.

Mr. Coghill. Ms. Gross. Mr. Lavelle.

Here.

Mr. Mosley. Ms. Salinetra. Here. Ms. Warwick. Mr. Wilson.

Here.

Ms. Strasburger, chair. Here. Five members present.

Thank you. Our next order of business is to amend the agenda. Can I have a motion to amend? So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

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... Comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before City Council. Profanity will not be permitted. Please state your name and neighborhood for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. Our first registered speaker is Chief Ikohana Hamakina. Okay, we will move on to our second registered speaker, Seth Bush.

Good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Fantastic. My name is Seth Bush, and I am speaking today on behalf of Mike Pittsburgh in Lawrenceville, where I am the Senior Advocacy Manager.

I am speaking at the point of the proposed amendments to the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Section 541.02, that would remove the words for vehicle. The way the municipal code is written, it appears that a person can simply claim that they are parking illegally in order to either avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety of any person or vehicle.

Following this code to its conclusion, a driver is exempt from following the law by simply claiming that they are protecting the safety of their vehicle.

This means that a driver could make this claim to get away with parking in front of fire hydrants,

on train tracks, within 20 feet of the driveway entrance to a fire station, within an intersection, on a crosswalk, on bridges, in tunnels, at any place signed no parking, in bike lanes, in front of bus stops, and on sidewalks, in addition to other areas.

This is a dangerous loophole in the city's laws, and closing it with a simple change is common sense. There's already a provision for emergencies, so the drivers won't get a ticket if the car breaks down where parking is prohibited.

One of the most concerning effects of this loophole is that the police are reluctant to give tickets for sidewalk parking violations as they can easily be overturned by the time they get to the magistrate based on this line of code. Without this enforcement, Pittsburgh drivers have come to believe it is acceptable to park on sidewalks across the city, which forces pedestrians to walk in the street where they are much more likely to be struck and severely injured or killed by a driver. Furthermore, sidewalks are not meant to hold the weight of cars and quickly degrade, leading to more dangerous obstacles for pedestrians and especially our neighbors with disabilities who rely on safe, accessible sidewalks to get to doctor's appointments, grocery stores, and local businesses. We are asking you to make a common sense change that would close this dangerous parking loophole by striking the words or vehicle from the law. We must not put the safety of vehicles above the safety of people.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Zoe Abenza-Bridges. Okay, we will move on to our next speaker, Dylan Basescu.

Thank you. My name is Dylan Bosescu. I live on the south side of Pittsburgh. I've kept my comments on the weekend lockdown on the south side largely impersonal because this isn't just about me. It's about this community and this city. But like I just said at the top, I also live here. I bike to work through the lockdown area. I spent my time on the weekends there before all of this. So yes, it's also personal for me. I want to tell you about some of the businesses this is hurting. Businesses I used to enjoy on the weekend on the south side that are no longer available without intolerable harassment. Dolce Taqueria near 13th Street serves tacos and drinks to late night crowds that don't require alcohol, and it does it consistently above par. I love the Carne Molina there. It's rich, it's refreshing, and a little hot just the way you want on a summer night. And I wish I could take any of you there sometime when private, unaccountable strangers were not haranguing you for walking down the street. If you haven't gone, try it. They need the support when a street lockdown has locked out their customers. Finn McCool's near 15th Street was the first place I went for a drink when I moved to Pittsburgh. It was the wintertime, it was cold and windy, and they welcomed me in. I got to meet the fine people of my new home, and I'll never forget the student there who asked me about my work, connected with me on LinkedIn, and talked about his interest in pursuing the law like I have. That's a model of the kind of person we should be able to see thriving here, learning here, enjoying life here, unmolested by a presumption of suspicion born of fear. Now, I mentioned intolerable harassment up at the top, and that deserves some details. I am, surprise, not a woman, but women in my life have told me that the security for this lockdown have subjected young women to pat-downs, groping, and a blatant disregard for trauma and humiliation faced by people who have been victims of sexual violence. Having their bodies touched without their consent by strangers when they have done absolutely nothing wrong is intolerable. There is a reason I called this lockdown disgusting weeks ago. And there's a reason I told you not to pretend you didn't know. Because these sorts of injustices are inevitable with the policies you have allowed here. And now you know. And it is still, still up to you what you will do about it. And I can only end with the same refrain, because you always can and you always should end this lockdown now.

Thank you. That exhausts our registered speakers. We will now take comments from those in the audience wishing to speak.

Good morning. My name is Yvonne F. Brown. I live at 715 Mercer Street. That's in the Hill District, but it's up on Bedford, that senior citizen home. It's 190 apartments, and the building is called K. Lee Rivers Towers. Now, usually every time I come, I'm usually coming with complaints. But today, I wanted to say something that I think it should be said so that everyone will know the type of services that we receive. And I wanted to say to our head clerk, and I talked with Dr. Miller, too. And he talked to me, and what we both come to realize is that she is out of sight. She is professional, and she does respond to the citizens. And that's the only thing we're asking you to do as council people. You're getting paid quite a bit. You can at least respond when we talk to you, even in city council, even in this I mean, hall, when I'm talking to you now, you could at least respond. You respond when you think I'm saying something that you don't want the people to hear. But citizens, I have been coming down all these years, and there's a lot of times I'm coming down with complaints. But let me today, I feel it's on my heart that I need to tell you as citizens who watch this program and also you city employees, city employees that have stopped me and said that they agree with some of the things that I'm saying. They agree that you treat us citizens in our home. This is town hall. Town. Do you understand what town means? Everybody should be able to come in here and speak to you, and you should be listening. We should all be at the table. I don't like to be back there, because we're back there, and here comes a councilwoman, run back and talk to them while we're talking. Come on, give us some respect. Please. And I thank all of you city workers and everyone that has stopped me and said, Ms. Brown, keep coming. Or Ms. Brown, I understand. Do you understand? It's hard. It's hard and I'm getting... sort of tired, and Dr. Mills said, don't ever say that, but I am. My daughter's been coming, and she may keep on, she couldn't make it today, she's going to keep on coming. I might stop soon, because I am really tired, but before I stop, I want to say to every one of you that has said, fight for your son, I want to say thank you. And all the times I've been coming, I've been saying about how he was in pain, And I felt it. But I realized God sent me his pain. He wasn't in pain when he died. So all these years that I've been coming down here, at least that has given me some kind of thankfulness. He wasn't suffering when he died. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Special Agent Sunshine, the missing child, Cerise Taylor. Thank you, Lord, for your wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to endure this trial and the strength and courage to finish the race. In Jesus' name, amen. The title of my message is Stay Strong. That's what he screamed to me this morning, stay strong. Sometimes it's hard when you're being gang-stalked, when your communication is being blocked, when you don't have a phone and you can't communicate with anybody because you're being blocked by the city you live in. Because of the identity theft fraud investigation that they're part of. Because of all of the fraud connected to my case of being homeless that you guys are a part of. It's amazing. Proverbs 25, 19, it says, like a bad tooth or a lame foot is reliance on the unfaithful in times of trouble. You guys aren't faithful. There's too many people coming in here who are not happy with the communities that they live in that you guys are supposed to help them live in. They're suffering. We're struggling out here. I sleep on concrete. How? Because I had two houses I was born with. You stole them, sold them, and got somebody selling drugs out of them? And you think the FBI ain't coming? Yes, they are. We're forced in Jesus' name. Proverbs 25, 5, it says, Remove the wicked from the king's presence, and his throne will be established through righteousness, not wickedness. That ain't what it said. Y'all drive on wickedness. Y'all practice voodoo. Y'all rob graves and cut out body parts for death rituals. Have mercy. Like for real? Proverbs 16, 16 says, of what use is money in the hand of a fool? Since he has no desire to get wisdom. None. None. Which all do with the money. Like really? I challenge y'all. Come out here on the street. Lead this meeting. Go to your accounts. Take out 10% of what's in there and get people off the street. I guarantee. None of y'all did it. That was over a year ago. Do you know how many more people are on the street now? And I'm still out here. But listen. And feeling, I feel good for how he's using me. I'm so grateful. Today's joke has to do with this dress. Hey, Michelle Obama, how you doing? It came from the Washington, D.C. marketplace. Imagine that. But it was in a closed closet at a place where I eat. In Jesus' name, thank you, Lord, for using me as a vessel to do your will, not mine. Amen.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Are there any further speakers? Seeing none, we will move to our standing committee's agenda. Our first committee is the Finance and Law Committee. I'm sorry, actually, we are going to take it just slightly out of order, move down to the Land Use and Economic Development Committee because we have a council member who has another commitment and This this bill needs to move today. So this is going to be bill 518 under land use and economic development committee

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 said improvements, method of assessing specific properties to be benefited, establishing a Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association to conduct administrative procedures for the Neighborhood Improvement District, providing for the establishment of a separate account for deposit and withdrawal of project funds, and providing the cost thereof.

I'm sorry, motion to project fund.

Motion to approve.

If I may.

Do you want a second?

Second, yes. So I need to motion to hold for a people-class public hearing, but I need to amend the bill first. So the first motion I'd like to make is to amend this bill to add the final plan to it as an attachment. Okay. So motion to amend. Second.

Discussion?

So just briefly, this adds the final plan to this legislation. As members know, this is something I've been working on since I took office. This final plan will be mailed out. It should actually be in the mail today as we're speaking here. All the property owners, business owners, and tenants within the district will be receiving the plan like they did for the first public hearing. This second public hearing will be scheduled right after recess. I believe we have the date locked in as September 2nd. We'll have a second opportunity for a public hearing to hear feedback from folks within the district, property owners within the district specifically. And from that point forward, we will have a 45-day clock where we will accept votes for or against this plan. That is all governed by state statute. That is the next step here, and I ask for members' support as we move forward. I just want to address something quickly. This has come up, I think it's finally starting to get the attention that it deserves in the media here. One of the comments that was made on local radio was that if we do this in Southside, the next thing we're gonna do is form a business improvement district in downtown or Oakland. Well, those already exist. And I just want to say that this is how modern, thriving business districts are run. We looked all throughout the nation at other business districts, and successful business districts all have this. This is not a tax. I think that is very important to make sure everybody's aware. It's not a tax. It's an assessment that stays within the district. The district controls how it's spent. if the district decides that they want to spend money in a way that maybe the city wouldn't do, they can do that. That's their choice. This isn't something that creates a slush fund for anyone on the district, for me, for the city, for anything else. This is truly the district taking control of its own destiny here. And I think it is the most important thing that I can do in my time in office here. With that, I would like to motion to hold for cablecast public hearing. Second. Discussion?

Discussion. I think we need to vote. I'm sorry. We haven't voted on the amendment yet, so we're still discussing the amendment.

That's why you're the chair.

Well, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor of amending bill, sorry, turn in front of me. 518 please say aye aye bill has been amended and now a motion

Motion to hold for cablecast public hearing.

Second.

Discussion?

The second public hearing is required by state statute? Correct. Okay.

Yep. Yeah, we have to hold two public hearings. The first one was on the preliminary plan. There were some small adjustments from the preliminary plan to the secondary plan, but two mailings. You will also have seen that I have spent a ton of money out of postage. Okay. know to make this happen and also my my staff uh and the clerk staff has spent a lot of time stuffing envelopes um because it is too big of a plan for us to do it with a machine so okay um yep thank you yeah councilman conkel thank you madam chair

Let me get this straight. So you're going to put out something for them to vote on. Is that right? Yes. Business and property owner within that confined district.

Property owners, not businesses.

Okay. Oh, property owners. Okay. That's interesting. And it's going to be governed by the state?

State statute dictates how these are created. It is the Neighborhood Improvement District law. Okay. I forget when it was last updated, something like 2013. So OBID and PDP were created out of the previous statute. We will be the first.

That's more democratic than that. Yeah. So I'll be interested to see your results. So good job. I mean, I know you've worked hard on it, so you explained it well.

Yeah. Further discussion? Seeing none. Well, obviously, I'll give you congratulations when you get over the finish line, but congratulations to the point that you are today. I know that you've taken all the necessary steps, not just mandated, but to socialize the idea, to have a trial run with what it would look like with a... a business improvement manager on site and that sort of thing with the support of others. So you've taken all the right steps to demonstrate the success that could be if you get this over the finish line. And I hope that that happens.

Thank you.

All right. All those in favor of holding Bill 518 for cablecast public hearing, please say aye. Aye. we will hold for public hearing and if the madam clerk and colleagues will indulge me we will now move to the one bill in recreation youth and senior services committee that is bill 773. of course take your time

Bill 773, resolution transferring the amount of $200,000 to the Department of Parks and Recreation from the Stop the Violence Trust Fund for staffing and supplies to support out-of-school time services and programming at McKinley Recreation Center.

Motion to approve discussion. I'll defer to the bill's sponsor.

So again, you know, We saw this happen last week, moving money to a rec center that doesn't have city services. If that's the vehicle that we'll be using to fund these programs, I want to make sure that my district folks at Upper McKinley that do summer and after school and senior programming and don't receive any funding from the city, that they have the opportunity as well. So we introduced this legislation and I will ask for member support in passing this.

Okay, so next is Council Member Warwick.

Yeah, I just wanted to say, you know, this is great. Thank you, Councilman, for introducing this. You know, I think that this is a good, you know, first step. These are two... I mean, you know, obviously, Bergwin and this bill for McKinley, you know, these are city facilities where we have community groups providing services that we, the city, provide in our own rec centers, right? Like, you know, comparable services. And... think it's important that we as the city are invested in those services and I would you know love to see that you know every kid in Pittsburgh have out of school and you know after school and summer programming you know quality free after school and summer programming available close to home and I think that's something that we can do. I mean, you know, it's not going to happen all at once, but starting in locations that are both high need as well as in our actual own buildings, I think is a great first step. So I appreciate the councilman, you know, putting forward this bill for his district. Thanks.

Any further discussion? Councilman Coghill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I was supportive of your, you know, the Bergwin, the Bergwin. I thought that was a good use of the Stop the Violence Fund. I really did. I think, you know, fits the criteria. And I think we could probably all make the argument that we have something, all of us have something in our district that could use those funds, that could go towards whether it's programming for children or you name it. Councilman Charland, you've inspired me. I have a couple of, you know, the places that I know could desperately use this money, and they reach out to children, and, you know, they're ideal for this. So I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'll be supportive of your bill, Councilman Charland. I was supportive of Councilwoman Warwick's. And, again, I feel like it's good use of money, and whether it's in print or not, I will... I will gladly support any council member who has a need, as long as we can justify the need, for programming or whatever it is or facility in your district to use this Stop the Violence Fund, a small piece of the Stop the Violence Fund. So, you know, if we start with $200,000 per council district, I think that's... i think that's great i think utilizing that money in a constructive way that we know where we could put it and it will make a big difference so so i'll be supportive of both and i hope if and when i propose something you'll also be supportive so thank you councilmember warwick

I'm sorry, I didn't see a hand. There's a lot going on over here.

I just want to again congratulate both of you on a great program and the inspiration. We will be looking to do the same thing at Reem Rec Center in Mount Washington. I just want to let folks know that we are looking at that. This is a great program. We have... rec centers that do great deals of work and good work with the community and with the kids and get nothing in return. So I think this is an enormous opportunity for us to create some more programming where there is none. So I thank you both for this.

Thank you.

Second round, Council Member Warbeck.

Yeah, and I just, because I know that we are talking specifically about Stop the Violence funding. I think that I would love to find... all types of funding to do this kind of work. But I do want to just underscore that the Stop the Violence Fund is specifically for high-need communities that are impacted by gun violence and the kids who come from those communities, right? So that would be just something as sort of a reminder overall when we are talking about these funds, which is the case, I believe, Councilman, in, is it, it's Beltuver, right? In Beltuver and also in Glen Hazel. So, thanks. Yeah, thanks. Council President Lavelle.

Thank you. I will support this today, but I do just want to say that I don't believe this is the most appropriate use of these funds or this is the appropriate source for what the councilman is trying to achieve, although I'll be supportive today. I just want to remind members that these funds were specifically set aside for violence prevention efforts, specifically to reduce homicides, 80% of which are unfortunately due to gun violence. And so these funds are designed to do specifically that. and of which if you talk to those sort of in the field doing the work they'll tell you there's maybe 30 to 50 truly truly bad actors and then there's maybe another 500 or so that are on the edge of potentially becoming a bad actor or potentially having something better happen with their lives and these funds are designed to really get at that target population and if you talk to director Shelton if you talk to Cornell Jones and others what they'll tell you is The rec centers do not bring in those target populations. They're not there, they're not going there, no matter how much they've tried to program, that population of youth are not going to our rec centers. And so while yes, I agree with all my colleagues that having robust rec centers, having robust after school activities is very important and we should be funding that. that this source of funding is not the appropriate vehicle to do that because this source of funding is not doing, targeting our rec centers is not dealing with our specific use of funding. What they will also tell you is what we could do is there are programs out there, and I'll point to Cafe Momentum as well, as one example that truly, truly is dealing with that target population. That there are those 500 youth, there are programs out there that are absolutely working with them and doing good work, but maybe they truly need The rec center opened till midnight. I'm just making this up on a Friday or a Saturday evening. And so while we may not have to staff it, if we were to provide the vehicle where they could truly do a midnight basketball league or some other activity, that that would be the better use of funding to put it to those organizations that are really doing the work. And then we provide the resource, the place for them to act, for them to, uh, be at no expense long story short again i understand why council is doing this and i'm supportive um because the money is sitting there and if we could put that money to some good use why not so i totally get it i'm just making a longer term argument of how we should be expending these dollars thank you

Thank you. Further discussion? I was just going to sort of underscore what Council President just said and say I'll support today, but, you know, I think we all know that this isn't a long-term approach, and I really look forward to seeing the allocation plan from the Stop the Violence Committee because, or task force, because, you know, I think that we both want to learn from lived experience from those in the communities saying this is what we need and the data that demonstrates who were the effectiveness of various approaches that we've tried before, what's needed now versus what we needed in 2021, and also what's working in other similar cities. And I... You know, I just have former Councilwoman Kale Smith's words ringing in my ears. We throw money at the youth and nothing seems to be changing. I don't think that's actually the case right now, but I fear that if we continue to, you know... do what we feel, what we think feels good and not what is data informed that we won't actually be addressing the challenges facing the city today with regard to youth violence and violence in general. So I really look forward to seeing what the allocation plan what that looks like and what the task force comes up with in that regard. Councilwoman Gross. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, I also want to do both. I'm definitely supportive today. I definitely am eager to see kind of like the learning lessons and how the Stop the Violence plan and funds move forward because there's been some learning experience now. I think there's some really great examples out there and some great programs. Thank you, Councilman Lavelle. But I'm also a reminder, as I said last week, or the last time we talked about this, let's also focus on our parks and rec budget and opening these rec centers because there's a separate other value to creating social networks in neighborhoods, to creating safe places, but also creating those bonds between people. I'm often reminded when we're working with our residents who are concerned about schools and school closures that you lose that focus people-to-people connection, right? When all the kids in a neighborhood don't go to the same school or their school is gone and now they all go to different schools, parents don't even know each other. Let alone the kids knowing each other. And our rec centers can fill in that gap and used to fill in that gap. And we have far too many closed rec centers or unstaffed rec centers. And we are underfunding Parks and Rec for far too long because that creates the kind of social fabric that keep all of us safe, right? It's important for all of us in whatever shape or form. So thank you. I appreciate it. Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, thanks. I know that I've definitely been a part of conversations years ago, particularly with former Councilman Ricky Burgess, you know, about the... the Stop the Violence Fund and spending it on youth, like basically our rec centers and having after school programs. I know Philly has a great program where children literally walk to the after-school program right after school. I know that this is something that I disagree with only spending it on organizations that only spend it on directly that would impact individuals that would pick up a gun. But I think we can do both. That's why I always just thought it would be impactful to even... I mean, I always took the term violence to mean several things. And I think for the general public, it would seem that... Spending it on after-school programs or rec programs in the time of large groups of teens being in certain areas and trying to meet up and do activities that would be unfavorable to a lot of people. know would make sense to spend it on after school programs so i think that's you know definitely the sign of the times uh of why this would be a good argument to use stop the violence funds for that uh but also i think what the difficulty is and i've been a part of even the recent meeting is just to you know hear the amount of uh money that's in the south of bonds fund and um the time that it would take to, there's been a lot of time to try and figure out how we spend money in this very specialized, what I think would be special, like people who work in this space would be specialized to figure out how to stop individuals so they're not acting out in terms of committing gun violence. So definitely want to spend money on that. I just always thought there was a component that we could do more like a baseline measure that we could spend money in terms of, you know, programming, after-school programming. Even the programming that is happening at Perry High School, which I believe, you know, is a good, I'm talking about safe passages, is a good use of stop the violence funds, you know, we could, I mean, what's to stop us from entertaining conversations of how we move that type of model into our rec centers? So I think it's a good conversation, and I just hope we can continue to talk about how we have more of, you know, that baseline programming approach. throughout all the city of Pittsburgh, and also at the same time look at this, look at the groups just like, you know, the great example of the restaurant. What was the restaurant called again?

Oh, Cafe Momentum.

Cafe Momentum, you know, but also at the same time do that. So, you know, I think it's been said here at the table we can do multiple things at once, but I've definitely always been interested in how we can have really great restaurants

school programming mostly as just like that baseline that we go off of thank you thank you further discussion councilmember Warwick I do just just since we're talking about after school I do want to make a pitch for that you know there's a pilot program that is is still in the works we're still working on getting folks staffed up but where in communities where there is no after-school programming offered, you know, that we, you know, our staff PPS buildings. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how that pilot goes. And I think that, you know, with the school closures and whatnot, there's definitely opportunity for us to be collaborating with PPS to make sure that, you know, within walking distance of people's homes, there's... there's an open door for kids after school and in the summer. So, thanks.

Did I see a hand over here? Councilman Coghill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to say, I agree with you, Council President. We don't want to lose focus on what this money is intended for, and that is not my goal by any means. But Again, I think all of us have at-risk youth in our district in one way or another. I personally am not thinking rec center. I know that we've talked about rec centers and investing in rec centers. I think that's great, and I'll be supportive of that. I'm not going to mention the name right now, but I'm thinking of an organization that works with at-risk youth in my neighborhood where I think this is like the perfect injection, meaning $200,000 to really give them the boost they need, show them the appreciation that I feel personally from the work that he does. He brings Latino and all different nationalities together, and they have one common goal, and that's just to – you know, respect each other, have things to do, soccer, bow and arrow, or archery, you name it. So I'm not thinking rec center, just for the record. But, you know, I'll make that case when the time comes, and hopefully you'll all find it justifiable to use a small portion, just a small portion, is what we're talking about, of the Stop the Violence Fund, which I think will go a long way. So that's just my thoughts. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Since we've, since Cafe Mo, oh, sorry, go ahead.

I did just want to recognize that this isn't, you know, this isn't like a conversation that, I mean, I don't know, I don't think anyone here is an expert on how to solve gun violence. You know, I know there's a lot of experience here, but, you know, I'm definitely, you know, since I sit on the committee, definitely willing to hire any expert to figure out how we get to this plan. But from my understanding, like, You know, to leave, I don't know. I know this is a really difficult conversation to have, but, I mean, we definitely need to get somewhere in terms of using this money appropriately, you know, to actually solve the issue with gun violence. And, you know, the amount of money that is still in the account, I think it's, I'm going to put a number out there, it's $17 million. 6, 7, 8?

It's about 6, 7. 6, 7? 6.5 or something like that, yeah.

Okay, sorry, I don't know why I thought 17. So, but it will be, you know, there's another 10 that comes in every year. But anyway, the point is just, you know, just to have that plan. And, I mean, I'm happy to even just be reminded here, like, is this... Like this annual allocation plan, if you allow interrogative, could you remind me how far we are in terms of getting to that? So Monday?

Yeah, this past Monday, the steering committee met, and we began to sort of outline what the sort of three pillars related to how you spend the funds down. We... Also acknowledge that the last round of grants close on July 31st that were sent out to the various organizations. And so there's the effort to prepare for that, which will begin this fall. And so we're probably about a month or two away from sort of having that plan ultimately together on what that looks like. We did have. Preliminary, I would say very preliminary numbers of how much money would be spent on prevention, how much money would be spent on intervention and reintegration. So we did have preliminary numbers, but unfortunately the budget person wasn't able to attend on Monday, so we couldn't drill down on the specifics.

Okay. But working through that, and this will be the first time we did it, right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to, I thought it was helpful maybe just to get that on record because I know it's something that everyone wants to see happen. So thanks.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Just wanted to mention, since Cafe Momentum was mentioned, that they have their second pop-up at the City-County Portico today for lunch service, 1130 to 1. Cafe Momentum will be out there for meals for the public, anyone who would like to grab lunch. All right. All those in favor of Bill 773, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That will take us back to the top of the agenda. Thank you all for your indulgence and taking those early. It's a long agenda, my cursor's still moving up. All right, Finance and Law Committee, supplemental new papers, Bill 776.

Resolution transferring the amount of $270 within the 2026 operating budget from the Office of the City Clerk administrative fees to the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure for the purpose of operational services.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion?

Brief discussion. This is the third piece of legislation I had today. Just a very small amount. We need to have some signs built in Knoxville, and this is to cover the cost of them.

Other discussion? Councilman Wilson.

$200. Okay. Okay.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of Bill 776, please say aye.

Aye. Madam Chair, can I cast aye on all remaining bills? If I can join again. You've got a pretty long agenda today.

So noted. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bill 782.

Resolution amending Resolution 740 of 2025, which provided for an agreement or agreements with Center for Hearing and Deaf Services, Inc. and Global Wordsmith by increasing the authorized spend for Global Wordsmith by $19,000 for services through January 2027 for a new total cost not to exceed $136,000 over five years.

Motion approved.

Second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 782, please say aye. Aye.

Thank you for your service. All right.

Affirmative recommendation. Bill 783.

Resolution further amending Resolution 855 of 2011, effective December 29, 2011, as amended entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2012 Capital Budget and the 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program and Approving the 2012 through 2017 Capital Improvement Program by adjusting various line items in conformance with city council's 2012 capital budget amendments by removing unencumbered funds from projects pending closure pursuant to chapter 218 of the city code motion approved second discussion seeing none all in favor of bill 783 please say aye affirmative recommendation bill 784. Resolution further amending Resolution 858 of 2014, effective January 1, 2015, as amended, entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2015 Capital Budget and the 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2015 through 2020 Capital Improvement Program by Removing Unencumbered Funds from Projects Pending Closure Pursuant to Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 784, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 785.

resolution further amending resolution 7.72 of 2016 effective January 1, 2017 as amended entitled resolution adopting and approving the 2017 capital budget and the 2017 community development block grant program approving the 2017 through 2022 capital improvement program that removing an encumber funds from projects pending closure pursuant to chapter to 18 of the city code.

Motion to approve second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 785, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 786.

Resolution further amending Resolution 863 of 2018, effective January 1, 2019, as amended and titled. Resolution adopting and approving the 2019 Capital Budget and the 2019 Community Development Block Grant Program. in the 2019 through 2024 Capital Improvement Program by removing unencumbered funds from projects pending closure pursuant to Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 786, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 787.

Resolution further amending, Resolution 840 of 2019, effective January 1, 2020, entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2020 Capital Budget and the 2020 Community Development Block Grant Program. and the 2020 through 2025 capital improvement program by removing unencumbered funds from projects pending closure pursuant to Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 787, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 788.

Resolution further amending Resolution 647 of 2020, effective December 23, 2020, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2021 Capital Budget and the 2021 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2021 through 2026 Capital Improvement Program by Reappropriating and Reallocating Funds Closed Due to the Requirements of Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 788, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Bill 789.

Resolution further amending Resolution 886 of 2021, effective December 27th, 2021 entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2022 Capital Budget and the 2022 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2022 through 2027 Capital Improvement Program by removing unencumbered funds from projects pending closure pursuant to Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 789, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 790.

Resolution further mending resolution on 2420 24 effective December 18 2024 as amended entitled resolution adopting and approving the 2025 capital budget the proposed 2025 community development program and the 2025 through 2030 capital improvement program re appropriating every allocating funds close due to the requirements of chapter to 18 of the city code should prove. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 790, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 791.

Resolution further amending Resolution 834 of 2025, effective December 21, 2025, as amended, entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2026 Capital Budget, the Proposed 2026 Community Development Program, and the 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program by Reappropriating and Reallocating Funds Closed Due to the Requirements of Chapter 218 of the City Code.

Motion to approve.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 791, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Deferred papers, Bill 39.

Ordinance directing the Allegheny County Board of Elections to place before the qualified voters of the City of Pittsburgh at the 2026 May primary election a referendum question. Shall the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter Article 3 legislative branch be amended by changing the budget approval rules to ensure timely passage at the end of a legislative session?

Motion to hold one week.

Second. Second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of a one-week hold on Bill 39, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Bill be held. Bill 654.

Resolution amending resolution 723 of 2022, effective December 27th, 2022 entitled resolution adopting and approving the 2023 capital budget, the 2023 community development program and the 2023 through 2028 capital improvement program by reducing play area improvements by $60,000 and increasing public safety equipment by $60,000. Second. Discussion?

This is something we've been working towards with our police to have more cameras on Grand Avenue. It's a great opportunity to have more eyes on.

I made you shut that off before.

Oh, I'm sorry. But anyway, that's what this bill is. It's to purchase cameras for Grandview Avenue to help deter some of the illegal activity that's going on up there during the evenings and late at night and definitely on the weekends. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Coghelman.

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you. I follow it closely, of course, and so does Lisa. So any added measures up there is wonderful. So thanks again.

Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 654, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. New Papers, Bill 756.

Resolution repealing items in Resolution 363, effective May 30, 2024, in order to rescind the sales.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 756, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 757.

Resolution providing for the sale of certain property acquired by the City of Pittsburgh at tax sales items A through A, 539 Robert Street, District 6, 539 Robert Street, District 6, 805 Clarissa Street, District 6, 0 Rosetta Street, District 9, 1062 Premier Street, District 7, 6941 Mount Vernon Street, District 9, 0 North Mertland Street, District 9, 706 Brushden Avenue, District 9, 1408 Beach, View Avenue, District 4, 0 Coast Avenue, District 4, 952 Iton Street, District 1, 1457 Firth Street, District 1, 0 Brighton Place, District 6, 2316 North Charles Street, District 6, and 2651 Perrysville Avenue, District 6.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion. Discussion? Councilwoman Gross. If I may, we don't often see District 7 parcels, and this one is just a tiny portion of land in someone's backyard that they, I think, already have a driveway on. So just as a word, you know, just so we know that we're not kind of just going to the market for a parcel in Stanton Heights.

Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion?

So, Pittsburgh.

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 757, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Bill 758.

Resolution authorizing the execution of a quick claim D, conveying all of the city's right title and interests, and into the property located at 7217 Monticello Street in the 13th Ward, City of Pittsburgh, and designated in the D Registry Office of Allegheny County, is Block 050-174-F136 to Marvin Miller. for $3,000 relating to the full and final settlement of the case filed against the city.

Motion to approve. Second.

Second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 758, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 759.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of Brian and Donna Albert for a single payment in 2026 in an amount not to exceed $515,000 in full and final settlement of litigation filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.

Motion to approve. Second. Discussion?

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 759, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 770.

Resolution further amending Resolution 855 of 2011, effective December 29, 2011, as amended, entitled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2011 Capital Budget and the 2011 Community Development Block Grant Program. and the 2011 through 2016 Capital Improvement Program by reducing District 1 neighborhood needs by $55,000 and increasing park reconstruction by $55,000.

Motion to approve.

Second. Second. Discussion?

John's this is for a part of it in the. The spring garden is such a community and it's nice to be able to use the neighborhood needs for something that is a. You know some a project we already have gone so pressure that we have some of these older funds that we can move to this project so we can make it make it a nicer space for the community, thanks.

Thank you. Further discussion? I want to congratulate you on using some of your neighborhood needs funds.

It is quite the accomplishment. A 20-year-old program. Yeah. Thank you.

We all want to expand. Okay. All those in favor of Bill 770, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That takes us to invoices. Is there a motion on invoices?

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? seeing none all those in favor of invoices please say aye aye aye invoices are approved enter the departmental transfers is there a motion motion to approve second discussion seeing none all in favor of transfers please say aye aye aye transfers are approved that moves us to p cards is there a motion on p cards motion to approve second discussion Seeing none, all those in favor of P cards, please say aye. Aye. P cards are approved. Public Safety and Wellness Committee, chaired by Councilman Coghill.

Bill 744, resolution authorizing the Mayor, Director of Public Safety, and Director of Human Resources and Civil Service to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Ross and Carol Neese Foundation for the purpose of receiving grant funds in an amount not to exceed $1 million to hire a head of talent acquisition Public safety to further the city's efforts in recruiting and retaining public safety staff.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 744, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation. Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Councilwoman Salinetro.

Supplemental new paper, Bill 781, resolution authorizing the Mayor and Director of Public Safety to enter into an agreement or agreements with the United States Soccer Foundation for the purpose of receiving grant funds from the mini pitch program grant in the amount not to exceed $100,000 to install a mini pitch at the Ormsby Recreation Center. Second.

Oh, sorry.

No discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 781, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. New papers, Bill 752.

supplemental agreement or agreements with Michael Baker International Inc. for costs associated with the construction phase of the Charles Anderson Bridge project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $4,077,687.40, an increase of $250,837.47 from the previously legislated contract authorization, reimbursable at 100%. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 752, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 753.

Bill 753, resolution authorizing the director of the Department of Finance and the director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh to enter into an amended agreement of sale with various property owners in the 17th ward of the city in order to advance the Newton Street project, providing for the payment of the cost thereof not to exceed $1,124,727, an increase of $20,070 from the previous authorization. Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 753, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 754.

Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the Director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a supplemental agreement or agreement with Johnson, Murmurin, and Thompson for costs associated with the final design phase of the West Carson Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the costs thereof not to exceed $1,378,913.21. an increase of $790,914.71 from the previously authorized agreement, reimbursable at 95%. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 753, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 754.

Resolution authorizing the Mayor and Director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh to enter into a supplemental agreement or agreements with Johnson, Murmurin, and Thompson for costs associated with the final design phase of the West Carson Street Bridge project, providing for the payment of the costs thereof not to exceed $1,378,913.21, an increase of $790,914.71 from the previously authorized agreement, reimbursable at 95%. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion? Discussion. Sorry. I wondered if I could have our DOME folks up here.

Good morning, everybody.

Jeff Skalikin, director for Domi. Eric Suchler, chief engineer, Domi.

Can you give us a little bit more explanation as to why we're increasing it so much?

Sure. Yes, this is for the West Carson Street Bridge project. So we have completed the preliminary engineering phase of the project, which is what was initially authorized. And now we have completed negotiation for the scope of work for final design. And that's what we're adding through this contract. So with most of these projects, they're kind of broken into those two phases. We authorize the first part first. Once that information is determined, we can... know negotiate the final design scope and then we add that amount so this is an already negotiated cost it is right right and this was uh understood from the beginning that we would be adding this as we got to this appropriate part of the project okay all right thank you further discussion okay seeing none all those in favor of bill 754 please say aye

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation. Thank you so much. Bill 755. Thank you.

Resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the Department of Public Works, and or the director of the Department of Finance to enter into an agreement or agreements with PI companies for the purpose of reconstructing a portion of the city of Pittsburgh's Three River Heritage Trail for an Esplanade redevelopment project at no cost to the city. Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of Bill 755, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That takes us back to Land Use and Economic Development Committee, chaired by Councilman Wilson. Bill 1545. Bill 2025-1545.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title IX, Zoning, Article I, Introduction and Establishment, Chapter 902, Zoning Districts in General, to add Inclusionary Zoning and Zoning, Article III, Overlay Zoning Districts, to add a sunset clause to 907.04AIZO, Inclusionary Housing Overlay District, Articles IV, Development Standards to Amend 9-1507, Performance Point System, Article 2. Base Zoning, Chapter 905, Special Purpose District, Article 4. Planning District, Chapter 908, Public Realm District, Chapter 909, Plan Development District, Article 5. Use Regulations, Chapter 911, Primary Uses, Chapter 912, Accessory Uses and Structures. Chapter 913, Use Exceptions and Conditions Not Listed in Use Table, Article 6, Development Standards, Chapter 914, Parking, Loading, and Access, Chapter 916, Residential Compatibility Standard, Article 8, Review and Enforcement, Chapter 922, Development Review Procedure to Remove Minimum off-street parking from the zoning code, Article 5, use regulations. Chapter 912, accessory uses and structures. Article 9, measurements and definitions. Chapter 925, measurements. And Chapter 926, definitions.

Motion to approve the discussion. Second.

Discussion?

Yes, I'll send it over your way.

I'll just say something about procedure, and I think that's all that I'll say for now. Let's see. So the bill that was amended by substitution and then sent back to Planning Commission was approved by Planning Commission in June, sent back over to Council, and prior to it being sent to Planning Commission, City planning, our zoning administrator and city planning made some amendments to it prior to it being sent to Planning Commission to bring it in conformity to the bonus point programs that already exist in the city. And that is what Planning Commission voted on. And so therefore, the amendments today reflect the changes that were made prior to being sent to Planning Commission. We have our zoning administrator here today, if anyone would like to hear from her. But really, the point of it being brought today is that we do need to call for another public hearing on this bill. this would allow us, you know, and the public, all recess to be able to absorb what's in the bill, absorb the changes that have been passed by the Planning Commission, absorb the conditions that have been placed on the bill by the Planning Commission, and have those weeks to really understand it prior to a public hearing being held in early September so wanted to make sure to give everyone time to sort of understand hopefully vote on amending my substitution today and then understand what's in there before taking any further action which would be a public hearing so that's all I have for now councilwoman gross so I'm just trying to follow that narrative because I don't think it really

I understood it, so thank you for describing that. So council approved an amendment to our bill. You did an amendment by substitution. I think I recall I voted no. But anyway, so that text file went to Planning Commission for review and recommendation, which it's supposed to do as per ordinance. But reviewed instead, A planning department text? Correct. So that we didn't get a review of the text that we sent to them? Correct. That seems out of order to me.

I don't know.

Okay, so we should send them back the text that, again, admittedly, I have a no on it, but they're supposed to review the text we send them.

I have been told that this is the time that we have to amend by substitution what was reviewed by the Planning Commission.

But they didn't review what we've sent them. So if we send them something new again and they cannot review that and just review whatever they want? So... I think we all need to take a minute to understand what's going on. I'll admit, I just asked for a legal opinion that Council would have known on yesterday on something else, but it's not following procedure that it's supposed to follow by ordinance. I'll let other members say what their part is. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Council Member Warwick.

I can't speak to the procedure. I do want to... I guess I would like, so if we're looking at doing a public hearing in, you said early September, so we're going to shoot for- It would have to be sometime after council recess.

That's all.

Yeah. I mean, I would really like, so this, I can't go to my neighborhood groups with this, right? I would like to go, because if there are some major changes- Again, I don't know what the changes are. Yeah, so if this is new text that has come, that the zoning team approved via planning commission that we haven't seen yet. I don't feel comfortable voting on it without understanding it myself, A. And also, I would like to be able to make sure that my community groups can understand it, too, if that's possible. I don't know if we want to call. Yeah, sure. Come on up.

I'll let other members ask questions.

Is it possible to get, even if it's just a one-on-one call, a summary of this so that either have someone from the zoning team come to my community groups and explain this, because that's what we did before, right, back at the very beginning of the HNA, right? Like way, way, way, way back at the beginning. Is that something that the department would be open to doing? And if not, I would like to be able to do it as best I can, so I would need some kind of a summary that I can share.

Good morning, Council. Carolyn Ristow, Zoning Administrator for the City of Pittsburgh. We are absolutely open to working with you to figure out the best way to prepare materials, figuring out staffing so that we can help you reach out to your communities and explain what's in this bill. It's a very long bill. It's covering multiple topics. It is very complicated.

That's all for me for the moment.

Thank you. Further discussion? Second round, but first round, Councilman Wilson.

Okay, so I didn't go straight to the note on here for a public hearing because I was handed this pack with a yellow paper on it, so I thought maybe there was an amendment to do here before it went to a public hearing. So that's not the case?

To take a step back for a second, the council, as Council Member Strasburger stated, made a recommendation on an amended by substitution version of this bill that went to Planning Commission. Planning Commission reviewed that plus recommendations from staff, and they voted to make a positive recommendation provided it's amended by substitute with the staff recommendation.

uh language that we worked with Council person Strasburger on um and so this is different than the the prior iteration that was at this table it's been changed already yes so what's this with like why is it underlined and bolded like is this showing what was changed at the planning question Like is this language that was added? It looks like a bonus goals and points.

I don't think that, oh yes, this first item.

It looks like you're showing what was changed.

So this package, we did format it the way that we typically format legislation. So all of the changes, including the ones you have seen before, are underlined or struck out. There is no distinguishing characteristics between those edits that you haven't seen before and the ones that you have.

So I... Sorry. I... I have a similar experience. I had a similar experience at the Planning Commission. I misspoke. It wasn't for the vape shop. It was for the North Shore Entertainment District. You weren't part of that.

Was that the signage one?

Yeah, it was the signage one. So is that, you weren't here, but we did a lot, we did changes to the bill at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted on those changes.

Yes. And I'm pretty sure we did do that on the Vape Shop bill as well, that we did amend by substitution.

So what is the mechanism that allows that to take place at the Planning Commission?

The Planning Commission has the authority to make conditions, and their condition was that it be amended by substitute with the substitute language. In its entirety.

Yeah. I mean, look, I, since I've been a part of a similar, you know, the process like this, which seems like this is what happened, I liked it because it prevents any, like, council just sending a bill over how many times are we going to bring it back here? It's still something we vote on. It's still something that, for instance, the entertainment district one, I actually thought it was, I had some criticism on how we were working with planning commission at the time and their resistance to just vote on it. I did just want the planning commission just to vote on what was written. But we end up going back to the drawing board and saying, OK, what are our goals here? We had a pretty good, robust discussion with the stakeholders and everything. And so I did think that was really productive because it did just get to the heart of like, OK, what are you trying to accomplish here? This isn't just some, you know, authorization. you know, authorizing, you know, the mayor to, you know, spend up to a certain amount on, you know, a bridge. It was, we're going to come into contracts. It was a, and we're changing the code. So I did appreciate the in-depth, you know, conversations around that and the organizing that happened. then they ultimately voted on something that you know came back to council and we voted on it so we could have just voted it down if we didn't like it yes and then just you know sent back something if we just literally wanted the planning commission to keep on doing that and saying no we only want you to vote on these words but we did have a very robust discussion about how we're trying to accomplish you know the goal we're trying to accomplish so yeah You know, being a part of this, you know, I did have, I did think it was good that we did that. And I think, you know, we came out on the other side where planning commission was able to implement, I'm sorry, planning staff would be able to implement something, especially with enforcement or approving the application or approving the zoning. You know, they felt comfortable that they could they could do that. Yes. And so I thought that was also an important key. That was like the key thing. Like, you know, I remember Corey Lehman saying, like, I don't even know how I would do that. You know, and then you got the stakeholders say, well, this is. know just do this and he's like i don't like what am i going to do hire 10 more staffers to do like we had to work within our means and so i did think it was very productive because it it did you know reflect what the planning staff could actually accomplish so and that was that one instance but um so i'm not aware of everything that took place here but i will say that this isn't this is common It's common. I've gone through it several times. Thank you. Yes, thank you.

If I may, I just want to clarify a few things. One is I sent you all an email last week just informing you that this would be coming back to council. And at that point, and actually today, I was under the impression that we were not going to be taking action on any amendment by substitution, that we were simply going to be holding the bill that we sent to Planning Commission to public hearing. And then at that point, we would... have the copy of what Planning Commission recommended along with their conditions to absorb, to understand, and if you want to, take to community groups. And I think that there was just a little bit of internal miscommunication or assumptions made that amending by substitution before would give the best opportunity for the public to understand what's in it, right? Formally, if it's on the books. That creates a little bit of a conundrum for us because we... um uh we have not yet so it's not been socialized with council and we have not yet absorbed what's in it so to take action now i understand doesn't feel appropriate for a lot of members who haven't had the chance to actually read what's in it it is a bit of a conundrum i personally would like to act only in the form of holding for public hearing today so that we can just get the public hearing scheduled since we have a recess coming up since we have all this time that you know will allow us to um work on this kind of in the intervening weeks i would like to move forward so that we can at least get the public hearing scheduled um i can certainly you know um We can talk at a table here. I'm comfortable with that. This is just public procedure as to what the, weighing the benefits and the downsides of having us act on the bill that was before us. that we passed move to holding for public hearing and then amending by substitution, you know, the next time that we meet after we've had the opportunity to review it prior to actually holding the public hearing or after, whatever procedure calls for.

Yeah, absolutely. I do want to respond a little bit to the notion that this is how things always happen, because it really is not. We've seen a lot of packets come back from planning commission in the last 10, 12 years. And conditions are usually like, you know, four bullet points, maybe five. You know, change this sentence. Maybe do some really technical corrections. You missed the numbering. You know, we want it re-numbered this way. There may be something a little more substantive. But this is a large packet. So, zoning administrator, I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit. And could you read for me which of the zoning base layers this amends? So we all understand that what we sent was an overlay. And this is amending zoning districts across the city. So starting at the top.

To clarify, do you want me to read it as summarized here, or do you want me to name the exact districts? You don't have to read all of the details.

I want to know, so council members generally know which parts of their district are which zoning categories. So which zone, are you amending only LNC?

So you want the actual names?

I want you to say which zoning categories are being amended, yeah.

Yeah, so I will state the district names. The high-level summary is any zoning district that allows multi-unit residential is being amended to allow for the affordable housing bonus option.

Including 60 additional height. 60 additional feet of height. So yeah, since I have the floor.

But go ahead and just read them. So that would be the RM, which is the multi-unit residential. That is the NDO, which is neighborhood office. That is the LNC, which is the local neighborhood commercial. That is NDI, which is neighborhood industrial. UNC, which is urban neighborhood commercial. HC, which is highway commercial. GI, which is general industrial. UI, which is urban industrial. The UCMU, which is the urban center mixed use, is also included, but that already has the ability to use the affordable bonus points. We were just cleaning up the language to be consistent with the other districts. The same with the urban center employment, the UCE, that also currently has affordable housing bonus option. Because of the changes to the language, we had to make some changes in that district. Also, the RMU, the residential mixed use, already has affordable housing bonus. Cleaning up the language should be consistent. The Riverfront Zoning District, with its five sub-districts, again, currently has the affordable housing wellness program, and we're just cleaning up the language for consistency. Grandview Public Realm has four sub-districts, only three of which allow multi-unit residential. That would be the sub-district B, C, and D, and those are being amended to allow the affordable housing bonus program. Uptown Public Realm is another zoning district that already has the affordable housing bonus program, and we're just cleaning up the language to be consistent. Specially planned District 4, which is Station Square. Let's see. Much easier without that clip. I misspoke. We are not... The edits to SP4 Station Square look like they are... They are the same that you had seen before. It's just the parking edits in that district. Then I believe that would be... I believe that would be the list of the districts.

probably one of the things that would be helpful would be to have that highlighted. I don't know if this is on an Engage page, and it already lists those right at the top, but people generally know in their neighborhoods, I don't know, in my district, people know in their neighborhoods what zoning is near them, what their business district zoning is, et cetera, et cetera, so that they can better visualize what near me is going to change. So I appreciate that. So I think that's one of the to other members' points, like this is so different from what we sent over. We haven't, we don't actually even know what's in here. Which brings me to my other point, which is that procedurally, what happens in ordinance is that the planning commission was like, no, we don't like what council sent us. This is like a radically different plan that we're sending to council, right? So much, so many changes, so many base layer changes for the affordability part, which didn't have base layer changes in the affordability plan that we, again, I voted no on it, but that's what council sent them. that it's this thick and it needs to be amended by substitution because it's just such a big, big, it's just not the same document at all that we sent over. So what the ordinance says the planning commission is to do is they rejected the plan that we sent over. They should send us back a rejection. And the council can overrule the rejection with seven votes. But we can't do that because we now, you're putting this in front of us, without a ruling on the other bill that we actually sent you. So you didn't accept the bill we sent you. You've sent us a counterproposal. And so I just feel that it, in a way, takes away council's option to overrule the planning commission's rejection. So I don't think we are debating this here. So... I'm just kind of processing this out loud, trying to think through it, which is, I think, the point of standing committee. So, yeah, those are my thoughts right now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'm going to take just a little bit out of order because what has – I'm not going to argue with what Councilwoman Gross just said procedurally, but I just wanted to state that What's my understanding that the intention of the changes that were made prior to, at the recommendation of city planning prior to it being sent to Planning Commission, were to, to Councilman Wilson's earlier point, were to simplify the administration of the Affordable Housing Bonus Point Program, right? What would have happened before, with the version that council passed, while it was, legally defensible, it probably would have been much more difficult for planning staff to administer because it would have established a wholly separate bonus point program and scheme from the ones that we already have. So what I understand was that major changes were bringing what was passed by council into conformity with existing bonus point programs that already exist, RIV, Oakland Plan, Uptown, which then, to the point that Councilwoman Gross just made, requires several changes throughout various points of it, but the actual changes that were made are very simple to understand, and in fact, anyone can go on to the planning commissions, and I'm sure we can receive a copy of this, the planning commissions, the slide deck that was presented, and see that the actual substance of the changes are fairly simple. But require, because of zoning, requires like amendments to various, you know, subcategories of various districts. So anyway, just wanted to state that. I believe Council President Lavelle had a comment next and then Council Member Warwick and Council Member Salinetro. Council President.

Oh, sorry. We're having a sidebar. So I'm going to try to split hairs a little bit. So I pulled up the summary from the Planning Commission where the decision date was January 29th, 2025, and they sent over to Councilman Gross's point. The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation on City Council's bill. With and then they have about 6126 bullet points that are then reflected in all of this. And it says with the following conditions to be amended at the time of introduction at city council. But we as a body have not determined whether or not we want to accept those conditions. And so that's sort of where we're stuck at the moment. But yet and still, no matter what, we have to hold a public hearing on this thing. And so my recommendation would be to hold this bill for a public hearing, make all of this stuff and the summary public, so that the public can come down and make comment on whether or not they believe we should accept these conditions, and then council should then take up this bill and decide whether or not we want to accept these conditions in whole, in part, or what we want to do with it. It's just my own thinking of how to sort of parse this out, if that makes any sense to members.

Thank you. Council Member Warwick, followed by Council Member Salantrao.

Yeah, so I just want to reiterate, I mean, so overall, I mean, I know what I think, right? Like, I'm very disappointed that we voted down mandatory IZ in large projects, right? That's sort of, and I recognize that this, you know, optional IZ was put forward. you know, be that as it may. But how I vote on this, I really, so I remember back, I mean, and I don't even honestly remember the context, whether it was about an IZ bill or whether it was about, there was some other bill around like personal care. I can't remember, but I do remember having a community meeting and getting lots and lots of phone calls where folks in my district, just regular folks, right? Not people who are like zoning, you know, zoning savvy or whatever, were beside themselves just about something that they'd read or whatever they were like, they're gonna build an apartment building right in the middle of my resident, you know what I mean? And so, you know, we have these annual community meetings the timing was such that we were you know my office and I was were able in each meeting to have up a map of the neighborhood to be like okay like here's you know just to calm people's just to help them understand that this didn't mean necessarily what they thought it meant. This feels big enough that, again, I would really appreciate, and we can talk about how to do it, but some type of forum where I am giving the residents in my district an opportunity to come and to understand even if it is like a repeat, because we've been talking about this for so many years at this point, more than just a public hearing, right? Because we know that, I mean, you can organize and people can come down, but I actually want to make sure that people understand, and I don't want them to just get you know, no knock on our friends in the press, but I want to be able to give them an in-depth explanation. Ideally, it would be someone from the planning team that could do that, you know, together with me. That would probably be better than just with me. So if that's something that we can work out, and as far as the timing goes, I mean, if we could push, I mean, at least the vote. I don't know about when the public hearing happens. I don't anticipate people coming down for public hearing necessarily, but just to be able to explain to the public. And that'll help me make a more informed vote because so much has changed. And I know that even though I'm disappointed that this is not mandatory IZ, it feels like these changes go beyond that just in terms of height and what can happen in a given community. I'll leave it at that. Council member Sal Netro.

Yeah, I obviously I wasn't here in 2025 when this bill was first introduced. So Carolyn, I would need for you to also agree to come to my community, both in the West End and in Mount Washington, since we're making changes to the Grandview public realm. And it's very touchy for them. You know, they're very protective of that zoning. this is a lot of changes when I didn't know the beginning of it. So it's very hard for me to make a decision on what we should do with this today. But I definitely want to make sure that my community is informed, both the West End and Mount Washington, about everything that's changing here today. Thank you.

Yeah, and we'd be very happy to work with any of the council members that would like us to help provide educational materials, and ideally we would also be able to provide staffing to come out to those events.

Further discussion? So just to reiterate, what I thought we were doing today, which is what I communicated to you all by council as information, not as deliberation, by email I think last Thursday or maybe Friday, was that we would be taking action to vote to hold the bill that we you know that we passed that we're familiar with um for cablecast public hearing um we can still do that today and if that's if if council members are comfortable with at least that action to keep the ball rolling on this while we absorb while everyone absorbs some of the changes here and has deliberation and discussion over the next several weeks, then that is possible. That is a possible vote today. I think, just to throw it out there, the only other option that we have before us could be to... to hold the bill to hold the bill um that would require us to extend to you know to extend to extend to file for an extension or vote on an extension because that will be butting up against the 120 day um time frame since the last public since between planning commission action and our um public hearing our vote so

Point of order, can we do both of those as motions right now? I don't know how that works. The other ones have bill numbers, the extensions of bill numbers.

Sorry, for the extension, we would have to have a separate piece of legislation. This is a vote for a public hearing.

So anyway, I think those are some of the options before us.

Do we have time to do the extension as a new paper? Do we have time to do the extension as a new paper after?

I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, yeah. Council Member, okay, we could do it Monday. Council Member Wilson.

Motion to hold for cablecast bubble gearing.

Second.

Discussion? Council Member Gross. Yeah, it was appealing to me that we just do the hold. And so, Madam Clerk, I don't know if you have dates in front of you. I'll give you a minute here. When do we run up, or if anyone else at the table knows when we run up against them? And it's a shame that we're at the 120-day clock. That's a very long time. That's like four months. And this is just on standing committee now. When was it passed? Or when was this thing that isn't the bill we sent them positively recommended passed?

I don't have the Planning Commission Day off the top of my head, but I have the 120 days off the top of my head. So the 120 days expires September 30th for this. So because of the recess, I think that's part of the reason why we're taking this action. Like, we're not right up at the edge of the 120, but because of recess, this would be a good time to take steps.

So the reporting recommendation was received June 12th.

It's when they vote on it that the clock starts. I'm not mistaken. So it doesn't start when we receive it. That starts when Planning Commission voted on it. June 2nd was the hearing. Thank you. So I'm assuming the 120 days from June 2nd is September 30th that you gave. So September 30th. And then so we could hypothetically just do the motion to hold. And then we can figure out what we're really having the public hearing on and take it up after recess. We can introduce on, I think it's August 30th, the first day back, the paper to do the extension. It's a Friday that we have, I think, a... regular meeting at the end of August. Maybe it's not even the 30th. Maybe it's like August 28th.

I'm checking a date now.

Yeah, so we could do an extension on August 28th. So I'd actually prefer to digest this a little more before we motion for the public hearing. Further discussion? Councilman Cockhill.

I understand all points. I mean, I think it makes complete sense what the council president said. You know, we have weeks to mull over this and check and fact check and talk to zonings, talk to planning if we need be. And at that point, we could deny it or approve it. So I don't want us to be... the later of the process. I think it's ample time for us to learn what's in it and what we don't like. And quite frankly, I feel like, yes, it's a lot of changes. It's a big packet. But in reality... To me, at least on the surface, it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of changes, to be honest with you. So minor details that needed to be worked out for legal purposes and documentation. So I'm fine with proceeding, as the Council President suggested, if the will of the body is there.

Further discussion? Council Member Salinetro.

Let me ask you, if we approve this today for a public hearing and it comes back to the table, can we still make changes after that if there's something in there that we don't know what we can still make changes at that point? Yeah, especially if it doesn't have to be. be voted on right past the 30th I mean you know these things take time you're talking about going to community meetings and not everyone has a monthly community meeting sometimes they're bi-monthly so yeah some people don't have community meeting so just wondering can we go past the date of September 30th or is that a hard stop

I don't know if you want to answer, interrogatory, either way.

Yes, the September 30th date is the date per code that you would have to hold a public hearing unless an extension is agreed to in writing. So if you make a motion to extend the date of the public hearing, you can do that. Once the public hearing happens, I believe it's 90 days that you would have to take action. So you do have a period of time to digest the information from the public hearing before you have to take action. Again, we can agree to an extension in writing on that 90 days if more time is needed.

Council Member Gross.

Thank you. If council members are wanting to move forward the public hearing, I would suggest that it not be scheduled right after recess. Most of the committee meetings in my district don't meet in August. And what's today's date? August 1st is what, Saturday? And so there isn't time, right, to have the discussions in the community. It's August in Pittsburgh. We're going to be having these discussions in the neighborhoods in September, right? which I think should happen before the public hearing, because it's not fair to people to be like, well, you had the opportunity to vote or to show up and have public comment, but nobody told you about it, and we didn't have a discussion about it in the neighborhood. So it's going to be tight anyway. I think we're going to end up doing the extension anyway, but if council members want to go ahead and motion for the public hearing, I would request, since the president controls chambers, that the president and council not schedule this public hearing on the heels of August recess. before we have time to go around to neighborhood groups that don't meet in August, right? So we'll be meeting with our community groups in September. And so I think it's only fair to have the public hearing after council members have fair time to actually talk to the residents. And that won't be until September. Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion on the motion to hold for cablecast public hearing. Okay. All in favor of holding Bill 1545 for cablecast public hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any nos? Any abstentions? Affirmative recommendation for holding cablecast public hearing. All right. Thank you very much. That moves us on to Bill 2026, Bill 8. Madam Chair,

The Center Avenue in the Hill District was designated Main Street, and DCD is in town today meeting with us about it, and so I have to get to that meeting, so I just want to register an aye vote for the remaining bills.

So noted. Thank you.

ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh code title 7 business licensing article 7 service businesses adding a new chapter 768 short-term rental housing motion hold for eight weeks discussion eight weeks discussion seeing none all in favor of bill eight of holding bill eight for eight weeks please say aye aye bill will be held

Bill 518. I'm sorry, new papers, Bill 760.

Resolution further amending Resolution 840 of 2019, effective January 1, 2020, as amended entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2020 Capital Budget and the 2020 Community Development Block Grant Program, approving the 2020 through 2025 Community Improvement Program by reducing 31st Ward Community Action Group by $468.49 and increasing Lincoln Place Presbyterian Church by $468.49 and authorizing subsequent agreement or agreements. Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Oh, I'm sorry.

Was it not my... Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 760, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Bill 761.

Resolution further amending Resolution 857 of 2023, effective December 27, 2023, as amended in title. Resolution adopting and approving the 2024 Capital Budget, the proposed 2024 Community Development Program, and the 2024 through 2029 Capital Improvement Program by reducing 31st Ward Community Action Group by $10,000 and increasing Lincoln Place Presbyterian Church by $10,000 and authorizes subsequent agreement or agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 761, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation.

Bill 762. Resolution amending Resolution 863, effective January 1, 2019, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2019 Capital Budget and the 2019 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2019 through 2024 Capital Improvement Program by amending various line items in anticipation of the pending eight-year U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funding clawback deadline.

Motion to approve. Second.

Second discussion. Discussion. Thank you. Are these in a particular, are these like PSG in a particular district? Because I have one on the agenda. Does anyone know which one this is? It doesn't say in the title what it is and I don't have the text file in front of me. Because it says like various line items, right? And so, which, like program or neighborhood or community organization? Oh my, well, okay. Yeah. I just really needed the text file, but.

Hey, Jay Miller, program supervisor, community development.

Michael Knight, fiscal and contracting supervisor, community development.

I was actually asking a question of Madam Clerk. I'm sorry, did someone invite you guys all up? Because I didn't need to bother you.

Just assumed.

Okay, next time you have to, someone has to beckon you. Is that rules? But that's okay. Do you have the line items in front of you? What does the text of the bill read?

I will tell you it's not public service grants.

It is the... 760. I got it. This is a lot of stuff from the capital budget. CDBG personnel complete. Do you want the line item amounts too?

Yeah. Okay. I mean, is it very long? Okay. Yeah.

CDBG personnel plus 330 complete streets minus $27,771.26. Facility improvements decreased by $1,145.66. Fair housing, minus $365. Neighborhood and economic development, minus $5,944.73. Play area improvements, minus $657.52. Play area improvements, again, minus $5,317. St. Andrew's Lutheran Church, minus 21 cents. And then the money will be transferred to CDBG Administration, plus $41,198.08, plus the $3.30 from the CDBG personnel I mentioned earlier.

Okay, and I thank you to Madam Clark, actually, who just, like, literally gave me the piece of paper, so I appreciate that. So these are, like, the 2020... 18, 2019 allocations?

Yes, ma'am.

That are being, so they didn't get expended? Correct. Like that neighborhood traffic calming, there was 30,000 CDBs getting it expended? That's kind of amazing. We spend so much money on traffic calming, and then we, or until we run out. And do you know if that one was for like a specific project that got changed or didn't?

Department just could not spend it. These amounts are all amounts that couldn't be spent.

But you don't know which traffic calming project was it?

I'd have to dig in, but no.

Yeah, because, gosh, we blow through that money, and we feel like we'd like so much more. I'm just surprised. Okay, so we're increasing the CDBG administration, which we're going to assume would loosen up money from another budget year for CDBG administration, like for this year.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The thing is, we're up against the deadline, and we have to spend the money before.

Yeah, sure, sure. So, you know, sometimes we swap the money out, so it's fine. But, like, we did it. Did we not fully fund your department this year?

We are fully funded, but I'm going to turn to Michael, who's our fiscal and contracting supervisor, who can explain it just a little bit better than I can.

Okay.

Sorry.

No, that's the exact right thing to do. I don't know why they're all up behind this guy. Not a problem.

So the funds that are being reallocated to CDBGM wouldn't necessarily be a benefit in our department per se. Those funds in return would be converted over to pay off our indirect costs to the city of Pittsburgh. So all the funds that Kelly just mentioned and that you see on those documents will be THEN BE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE CITY OF PICTSBURGH'S INDIRECT COST LINE ITEM, WHICH WE PAY INTO EVERY YEAR TO COVER THE COST OF SERVICES.

OKAY. BUT DOESN'T IT LOOSEN UP SOME 2026 CDBG BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT INSTEAD?

I mean, hypothetically, it could.

Okay, but we're not sure yet, basically. Yes. Okay, okay. We can follow up on that. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do probably, since you're already here, I'll maybe ask, I was going to hold the CDBG line items that you were, the next, the two bills, 768 and 769. So if you want to just hang out, we'll get back to those ones. Okay, thank you. That's all I have, Madam Chair, sorry.

Further discussion on Bill 762? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 762, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 763.

Resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to enter into an agreement or agreements with agencies to provide supportive services related to the home ARP program for a total not to exceed amount of $105,820.37 over four years. Motion to approve discussion. Second. Discussion? Second.

First, I do have a question with this bill, but first, there's an amendment that you all have, a yellow paper related to Bill 763. It looks like it's eliminating the ability for them to do entry work. So motion to amend Bill 763.

Second. Discussion? This was at the request of OMB, correct? seeing no discussion all those in favor of amending bill 763 please say aye aye Bill is amended. Any further discussion? Yeah. Mr. Wilson.

I just had a question. What center is this? What center? Is this related to any particular center?

No, no, it's not related to any particular center. We're having, Auburly is going to be doing, handling part of, with home ALP, there are those four qualified populations. Part of it will go through the link, which is a bill that's under Councilman Mosley. The other part is... Oh, that's mine.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Sorry. Okay. The other part is to have Auburly handle two of the qualified populations that the link can do. So they'll be doing administrative work, which includes some case management, referral services.

So Auburly, where's Auburly located?

Their main location is out in, of course, McKeesport. But we do fund Auburly for our ESG program. And they'll also be working with the home ARP program with one of the locations at 800 Penn and 209 9th Street.

Okay, so this is for 8th and 9th Street?

Well, not just for that location. It's with different programs that are getting affordable housing. So there are different programs that are going to get money through the Home ARP program. One is 800 Penn 209th Street. There's one that's Action Housing has a program with Bethlehem Haven.

Give me one second.

um the may building which is also in downtown and i swear there is one more project that's within the city all the projects are within the city limits though if that's what you're concerned about okay all right i know there's a one up in arlington so if there oh that that is another program we're working with overly that is the support of certain excuse me not supportive services that is the non-congregate shelter program actually It's more of the affordable housing, but we'll be working thoroughly on that program too. Okay, is that related to this bill? No, that is not related to this. All right, thanks. Too many programs going on.

Further discussion? The bill is amended. Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 763, please say aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation. Bill 768.

Resolution further amending Resolution 840 of 2019, effective January 1, 2020, is amended entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2020 Capital Budget and the 2020 Community Development Block Grant Program and the 2020 through 2025 Capital Improvement Program by reducing various organizations by adjusting various line items funded by the Community Development Block Grant in program year 2020 and to authorize subsequent agreements.

Motion to approve.

Second. Second. We could read the next bill with it, if you don't mind.

Bill 769, resolution further amending resolution 647 of 2020, effective December 23, 2020, as amended and titled, Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2021 Capital Budget and the 2021 Community Development Block Grant Program. and the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program so as to identify specific public service grant projects in Council District 7 and authorize the subsequent agreement or agreements for operation, administrative expenses, maintenance, purchase of equipment, and or rehabilitation of neighborhood facilities on behalf of the residents of the City of Pittsburgh.

Motion to approve.

Second discussion. Actually, I'm going to motion in a minute to hold both of these bills because I want to thank CDBG for helping us. Both the... organizations that have been struggling to meet their deadlines helping uh and working together to help them actually get in all of the paperwork because it's really burdensome if everyone i'm sure has noticed for the community organizations um and then also could you explain kind of like what you told my staff this week so i'm not sure i had eyes on it something that like the old dollars can only be moved to 2026 grantees or something like that.

Yes. So as probably you are all aware, we have been working over the past couple of years to just make our program increasingly compliant and audit proof because all of these federal funds are under so much scrutiny and so much attempts to, you know, find excuses to not give them to cities. So we are, to that effect, anytime we have to reprogram facilities, public service grant funds that were not spent we are asking that they go to a group that has an active application because some of these funds are from five or six years ago and there's a really good chance that the program that they were applied for or that if an organization applied in years past they might not still be running that program they might have not have this money accounted for in this but in their budget and since these are reimbursement grants it's really important that they have the plan set to go so that they can spend the money and then be reimbursed. And additionally, if they are going to an applicant that has been vetted, we know that they have an eligible application because we get so many applications that just don't fit within the strict guidelines of CDBG.

So there's like a list that your office has of like the current applicants that you've already vetted to be eligible.

Yes, so that is the list of all eligible applicants that goes out once the application period closes. I sent it out to the chiefs of staff, and it was all of our eligible 2026 applicants. Once I got all of those, then we had gone through our records and found money that had been sitting for our three- or five-year span groups that had relinquished funds, things like that, and I sent a follow-up email and said, these are additional funds that can be allocated. The majority of them were below the $10,000 minimum, so best practice is to just add them to a contract that's coming in, because less than $10,000 is not worth that burdensome paperwork for pretty much any organization.

I guess, though, so, again, since I'm holding these so we can figure out which ones are the eligible projects in my district. So, hypothetically, though, if we assembled, like, the $10,000 level that you all prefer to get to, then that could be a project. Instead of one that already has $10,000, and then you're going to add another $5,000 to it, which is, I think... of what your initial suggestion was but you know there may be other projects that did you know didn't you know we couldn't assemble 10 000 for that maybe now we could if there is additional funding to hit that 10 000 then yes okay um like you would could then fund six groups in your uh from your 2026 applicant pool yeah gotcha okay all right so thank you i appreciate the help that's all i've got madam chair thank you no further discussion

Was there a motion that we were expecting to hold these?

Oh, I didn't actually motion to hold, did I? So I'll just say motion to hold. Like, if I even do, like, three weeks, it gets us, you know, it's after recess, so we have plenty of time to work it out. Okay, thank you. Motion to hold three weeks. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of holding Bills 768 and 769 for three weeks, please say aye. Aye. Bills will be held. Bill 771.

Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title V, Traffic, Article VII, Parking, Chapter 541, General Parking Regulations, Section 54102, Prohibitions in Specified Places, to remove language providing an exception to parking prohibitions for the protection of a vehicle.

Motion to approve discussion?

Second. Discussion?

Thank you. I was going to say several years back, I think maybe it was Three years ago, I introduced a bill that added into the code that you weren't allowed to park a vehicle in a bike lane. So that was implemented, but then there was previous language that was already in there that basically gave a loophole for people to take it to court and say, hey, I was parking on the bike lane because I was protecting my vehicle. Or I was parking on the sidewalk because I was protecting my vehicle. So I know that that's what was given. That was reported back to me several times. And so in working with Mike Pittsburgh, who I worked previously on this bill with, we're attempting to remove that language from the code. I hope that is a good enough explanation.

Thank you. Further discussion? Council Member Warwick?

Yes, so just to clarify, so if someone was parking on the sidewalk, they could get ticketed, and so you're saying that was something in court, they were going to court and saying, oh, so like my, so that my, whatever, side mirror doesn't get hit, I was parking on the sidewalk? Interrogatory.

Yeah, I don't know exactly what was said, but it was, you know, like, so just to answer your first part was, you know, on a sidewalk, there's actually a whole list of, it could be like intersection, sidewalk, bike lane, and bike lane was the one that we added. There's like... There's like 10 different ways that someone could be given a ticket for this. So we added that bike lane one. So yes, yes to that. And also several other ways you could put a vehicle in the right of way. And then to the second part, I don't know the exact specific, Like, reason the defendant gave, but the reason the judge has been hesitant to rule or officers were hesitant to give the ticket was because there was that language in there that said, or to protect, or a vehicle, like, or for the safety of the vehicle. So... I think it was something that actually was that serious. Sorry, I'm not... No, no, that's great.

No, yeah, that's great. I'm fully supportive. I don't... you know, anti-car.

Hello, we agree. Alas.

Any further discussion? I'm just going to kill some time while we're waiting for our clerk. I think this is... This is really great legislation. I'm glad that you've seen this play out in court and then learned that we actually need an ordinance change to be able to make this defensible in the courts. I guess I'm opening a can of worms with this question, but have we discussed... enforcement have you have you contemplated enforcement or what might be the potential now that we have so many changes that have happened both with regard to ticket by mail and parking authority partnering more closely with Domi and you know all of our potential there if you don't have an answer today that's fine I'm curious though what the conversation's been

Yeah, I think it's been going really well, actually, from the parking authority side. I mean, there's hundreds of tickets that have been given for people that are parking in a bike lane. So I think this would further enforce that. And just to clarify, like the language that we're taking out, I just want to read, if you're okay, I'll just read the paragraph real quick. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to protect the safety of any person or vehicle, and that's the one word language are taken out or in compliance with law. Or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device. No operator vehicle shall and no owner of Eagle shall allow the vehicle to and then. You know park in a bike lane part that there's all this list of everything so.

That's it.

Yeah, for the enforcement, though. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's been going well from the parking authority side. I don't have good data on, like, you know, from the city side, but I know this was really to get. Yeah, the parking originally was like the parking authority could be doing this. And, you know, being on the parking authority board, it was like, let's let's do this. And then the parking authority could implement ticket ticketing in the bike lane. And that's that's been accomplished. And this would further accomplish that.

Okay. I just was thinking about this long-standing debate around enforcement around parking on sidewalks where there probably needs to be a different approach, maybe a... a smaller approach and then sort of a expanded approach for enforcement of parking on sidewalks, because it's just a different, it's very dependent on, I mean, we can be black and white about it, but the reality in the world is that it's very dependent on sort of like narrowness of the street and alternatives to parking and alternatives to, you know, honestly, like non-vehicle transportation throughout the city. But certainly don't have to get into that conversation today. But I've heard a lot of ideas for starting around certain areas like hospitals and rec centers and other areas and then sort of expanding out to the rest of the city from there, from our disability rights community and Walk Pittsburgh.

It would strengthen any one of the several railroad tracks. I mean, there's a lot of different on a crosswalk. It would strengthen all of that. And on a sidewalk, except that a pedicycle may be parked as provided in the vehicle. So on a sidewalk is in there. So it would strengthen all. All of that. The whole list. It would strengthen the whole list. yeah yeah so councilmember warwick oh okay um so we can proceed to the vote sorry can i just say that yes i thought about i thought about like what's okay like i guess there could be some instances where you're i don't know could be a car crash could be something where you're like okay my vehicle was not a safe area i think if you are in that unfortunate moment then you would take it to court, and then say literally the emergency that happened, I think there will be a good discussion around why it wouldn't be appropriate for this to be enforced upon that person. So I think, overall, this is the direction we need to go. So that's why I thought this was the right thing to do. Thank you.

Councilman Cockham.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Interrogatory, please, with Councilman Wilson. Yes. So let me ask you this, Councilman. What's this do for me? For instance, I got a phone call yesterday. person lives on the street in Beachview and they're continually always you know it's one thing when you put one tire up on the sidewalk but they're you know people are abusing it, they're blocking the sidewalk. If you're in a wheelchair, you can't get by a baby stroller, you have to go out in the street. Even kids walking by just to go to school, they have to walk out in the street. I've always been told, like, you know, if you call one in to cite, I guess, they cite the whole street, basically, you know, and then you kind of, you know, everybody's, like, all up in arms because they've been doing this for years. So will this help enforce that for me, or... And again, sometimes I hesitate to enforce it because I don't want to ticket the whole street. I'd like to put out a warning, actually, and say, look, we're going to be citing this in the near future. Kind of just so we don't burden them all with a fine right away, but we let them know, moving forward, we want you off the curb.

Yeah, I do think that I do not, let me say, I do not like... Parking on the sidewalks. I like to literally don't park on the sidewalk anywhere I go.

Right. Just to... Yeah, by example. You're setting a good example.

I just, you know, worry about someone taking a picture of that, you know. Hey, you worked on a sidewalk. You don't like that. You say you don't like that. Yeah, I do not like that. There's a street in my... I drive down every day and... I mean, I've, that they do that and we never used to do that. And so it's like, you know, I'm like that Yenzer person saying like, we always waited for each other. Like we never parked on the sidewalk. And I was like, two-way traffic is just so fast. I mean, we've tried to implement, like I've worked with Domi where we put in eight inch curbs so people can't, like they feel totally uncomfortable parking on a sidewalk. I've done, you know, tried to do enforcement as well. And, you know, for any, for like basically, you know, did like kind of like a preliminary citation, like just to kind of scare people from not doing it, you know. But I have seen several tickets being given out just because... Yeah. They can't discriminate. I've seen the whole bill. Right. You can't just call on one car. So I think it's a very – it's a large issue in the city of Pittsburgh, especially for streets that are not developed in a way to – You know, I don't know whether it's all traffic, buses. On top of that. Fire. Well, there you go. We can turn a street one way in the fire. I think it's very comprehensive. If I had to put this in one thing, like moving forward. But, I mean, I think there's some pretty blatant, you know, situations. And I would love to work. with Domi, with anyone on a very comprehensive, like, okay, like, you know, if one car can't get past, I don't know. I don't even try and pontificate right now. I just want to say I'm willing to work with anyone that wants to work on something very comprehensive and to actually get enforcement appropriately throughout the whole city of Pittsburgh. Because I think it's my big pet peeve.

I can't stand it. On top of me not wanting to cite everybody on the street and upsetting everyone, And I do agree. I want them off the sidewalk. I want to be able to get around, you know, if you're whether it's a baby carriage or a wheelchair or just a kid walking to school. But on top of that, now, I have a lot of streets and, you know, my district, I think, has the most motor vehicles in any other district per two per household. On average.

But you don't allow bike lanes in your district.

Well, there's no room for them. So now if we start ticketing them and they start moving onto the street and abiding the law, here's the problem I have now. Ambulances and fire engines, as you mentioned, can't get by now. So, you know, you either have to make the street one way, you know, so it's a problem, I will tell you. I want to enforce them to be off the sidewalk, and I just want to put a warning out and let them know, hey, this is what's going to happen. And, again, you risk, are they all now parking in the street conforming to our laws? And does that mean a fire engine can't get through and cost them their life? So it's difficult. So any enforcement, I'd like to see. Obviously, we have to be... you know thoughtful as to you know what's that mean if we narrow the street where you can barely get by now because i have a lot of streets that are so tight you can barely get by just on one one on one side of the street let alone both yeah i mean if you're parking on a sidewalk and a wheelchair can get past right and there's houses on that street you're doing the wrong thing absolutely you're doing the wrong thing but you're you need to park somewhere else yep yep okay well we're on the same page how to solve it i'm not quite sure but yeah yeah

For my part, I'll just say I agree. It has to be its own separate conversation, probably over the period of a year, working with the smart people of some of the advocacy organizations that think about this all the time, that have the ideas and could demonstrate different ways that we could go about starting this. But that's all I'll say. I think it's a really, really big problem, and the solution is not going to be easy. Okay, all those in favor of, let's see, all those in favor of Bill 771, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. We've already covered Bill 773, so we'll move on to Innovation, Performance, Asset Management, and Technology Committee.

Bill 745, resolution providing for the issuance of a warrant in favor of Musco Sports Lighting in the amount of $73,050 for the purpose of the software package for the digital control of lighting in all ball fields and parks and providing for the payment of the cost thereof.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of bill, actually let me just say, I will say that not related to city ball fields and parks, but this digital controlling of software, or the software for digital controlling of lighting. If it allows us to dim, turn off, all of that, that is welcome from my point of view. I know that with regard to sort of the lighting at some private property or, you know, in universities where people live above and there's just glare and there's, you know, it shines into people's windows at night. The ability to control it from afar and the technology that allows us to do that is a difference maker in people's quality of life and their ability to, you know, put their kids to bed or just enjoy being in, you know, in their living rooms, especially in the wintertime when there's no leaf cover and the and the snow is reflecting the lights off of it, so if this allows us to do that, then I'm doubly in favor of this, but upgrading it seems like a good use of our funds.

Sorry, I don't believe what I mean, but I do have a question. Yeah, are you able to answer the question? Or the question about the bill? Okay. Right on. Good. Thanks for being here. My question is, is this a new contract?

No.

Okay, because I was familiar with, you know, it can be controlled from somewhere else. Yeah. And this is always the company?

We actually have had this capability for quite some time. So there's two separate, just to be clear for the public, right, there's two separate systems. There's the push button. where if it's just a basketball court or it's not rented, that push button will turn them on, right? It's timed and then they turn off after a certain time and they push the button again. What this is, is when a field is permitted, or like you were saying, when a field is permitted or anything, it could be pre-programmed to turn on and off during the time of the permit. Also, the... People like Keith and Joe Rush, the superintendents of parks, can go on their phone and turn lights on and off.

Is there a time when the lights absolutely should not be on, like after 11 or something?

Uh, you know, off the top of my head, my answer is there is a night sky ordinance throughout the city. So I do know that, uh, Moscow does work with that. Like when we put in new systems, that's a consideration. So if it's a newer system, it's going to, yes, take those things in. Yeah.

I just want to make sure it's a general rule that they're implementing because I've actually, I've actually had the, in the past I've, You called Director Hornstein and was like, hey, ball field lights were still on at midnight.

Yeah, well, there's times, you know.

Dragon State comes into the house.

It depends, right? Because the reason I say it depends is because I haven't been this involved in the operations for a while, you know. But I don't know if every actual park in the system has Moscow vaults and lighting, right? So if there still are old...

But Moscow is the only company that we have this contract? Yes. That can do it remotely? They do. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Because we get our, they are our preferred, the standardized equipment. They're our preferred provider. They're great. Thanks.

Yeah. That's all. Great. Councilman Cockhill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi, Donnie.

Hi.

Is this related in any way to, I have a person who sent an email and has been complaining about bright lights on Shelton here from Brookline, Shelton Avenue, and I'm thinking that's new LED lighting, I guess. Yeah. Finally, you know, she got, through 311, she got them to just kind of dim it down. There's a little switch. Is this all related?

No, this is kind of the same, but same church, different pews. Because what you're talking about is controlled by Domi. The great work that they've been doing was setting up the live traffic division and stuff like that. um because it's on the street right so the street lights though me and then the park stuff is is joe and she was close to the business district but that wasn't it it was just the lights or it wasn't it wasn't just because it was that right down the street towards you know the residential more quiet yeah still very bright well i'm old enough to be around long enough in this place that we were talking about that you know that was the goal of the traffic division right was to have that capability and And I think they're there, if not on their way there. I don't know. Different department. But, you know, if there was police activity, we could raise the lights, you know. And there was all, you know, all of those things happening.

I was very pleased. You know, again, I was like, we're going to get trucks out there and change the bulbs and do can light and whatever.

Kudos to Donnie.

Right, right. No, no, it's very good. Yeah, it worked beautifully. It just toned it down. Everything's good.

Okay, unrelated, but still operated by the city.

Yep, for sure. Interesting. I used to have to be home when the streetlights came on. I know. All right.

Thank you. All right. All those in favor of Bill 745, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thanks. Thank you.

Thanks for coming for all my questioning.

That moves us to our final committee of the day, Intergovernmental and Educational Affairs Committee, chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Bill 746, resolution providing for a professional services agreement and or contract with Buchanan, Ingersoll, and Rooney PC for professional consulting services for federal government affairs and legislative services and providing for the payment thereof costs not to exceed $302,400 over four years.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 746, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 747.

Resolution authorizing the mayor, director of the Office of Management and Budget, on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh, to enter into a cooperation agreement with Allegheny County Economic Development, Allegheny County Department of Human Services, and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to collaboratively manage coordinated entry services related to the home ARP program at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second. Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 747, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 748.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant payable in favor of Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission for the first of two installments for the 2026 annual membership dues in an amount not to exceed $64,373.50. Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 748, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 749.

Resolution adopting plan revision to the City of Pittsburgh's official sewage facilities plan for 2039 Broadhead-Fording Road at no cost to the City.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 749, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Final bill of the day, Bill 751.

We didn't read 750.

I'm sorry. Bill 750.

Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with Pittsburgh Water for costs associated with the raised grant project where Pittsburgh Water will be responsible for paying 100% of the actual expenses involved in certain work to be described in the agreement at an amount not to exceed $100,000, an increase of $50,000 from the previously authorized agreement.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 750, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Bill 751.

Resolution approving execution of a contract for disposition by sale of land between the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh and MK Liberty Partners LLC or related entity for the sale of Block 1D, Lot 183 in the second ward of the City of Pittsburgh, 604 Liberty Avenue, District 1, at no cost to the City.

Motion to approve.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 751, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That exhausts our meeting agenda. There are meeting announcements. Let's see here. While we're looking for that, is there anything from members? So our meeting announcements. Next week, council will meet Monday, August 3rd at 10 a.m. for their last regular meeting before recess. Speaker registration will close at 9 a.m. Monday morning. To register to speak at any of these meetings, please complete the sign-up form on the council meeting webpage or contact the clerk's office at 412-255-2138 by the applicable registration deadline. Also on Monday... With sessions at 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m., council will hold a briefing on the city's comprehensive plan. With that, I will take a motion to excuse the absent member, approve the minutes, and adjourn the meeting.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.