City Commission - Regular Meeting

you so you

I call this Tuesday, August 25th, 2026 City Commission meeting to order. Will you join me in a flag salute? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Michael Nagle, would you please come forward and lead us in a prayer? Indeed. Please join me in an attitude of prayer.

Almighty and most merciful Father, as we gather in thy presence to conduct the business of our city, we humbly thank thee for thy many mercies and blessings. And we pray for thy continued favor for our community, giving our leaders a spirit of wisdom and of mercy, and thy people a renewed trust in thy grace and care. All this we ask through the mercy of thy beloved Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Thank you. All right, I'm going to open the The meeting to public input. If you have anything you would like to come forward and speak in public input, state your name and address.

All right, Roger, I'm checked 1147 South to 23 and I'll try to keep it keep it as quick as I can. I guess originally I just plan to speak about property taxes tonight, then saw the parking lot surveillance cameras on the agenda and wanted to say something about that. I appreciate everyone coming tonight. Who's who's in agreement with me on this issue on on both subjects most likely would be better if it wasn't just for political expedience. But if some big government socialists have suddenly decided they don't always like big government, I'll welcome their support. In a year where we're looking at every dollar, why is it suddenly important to spend more than $42,000 extra this year on parking enforcement, which has been free for years? Was this in the budget, or are we adding something onto it without having planned for it? It seems like something that isn't nice to have, definitely not a need to have. The Y site contract solicitation was kind of weird. It sounds like a ShamWow commercial for Navy SEALs. I don't know how many of you have read the whole thing, but it says we Y site was strategically engaged by the city for higher. I'm reading some of the verbatim stuff engaged by the city for high risk enforcement of a growing hazard caused by vehicles illegally stopping or parking and only Y site technology can address a large scale high stakes public safety and enforcement challenge. That's for parking. just seems a little little over the top what high stakes public safety and enforcement challenges currently being caused by all this illegal stopping and parking that that's going on downtown it seems seems like something that's maybe i don't do people not notice this that's happening is is it a high risk Is it a high risk enforcement situation? Maybe we do need to call the Navy seals for help further down the marketing hype. We get to the truth of the matter. Realization of a full revenue stream. Section 1.3 in the solicitation says the expected outcome is compliance and revenue capture. You can't have both. If your surveillance state cameras create compliance, you won't have any revenue, so it can't be compliance and revenue. That brings us back to a simple question. Why site claims they will bring about a sustained increase in compliance with the current parking regulations and restrictions. The city staff letter says that even though adequate parking has been created to accommodate the additional traffic, the city has had to consider how to better manage downtown parking. If there's enough parking, why is it caused a problem which requires tens of thousands of dollars and more surveillance to to solve on a more serious question? What parking rules are we putting into place or are currently in place that will have so many violations? We need a 24 7 surveillance camera network. just to capture all the violations. According to the contract, it will take 8484 parking violations per year to cover the $42,420 per year fee that Y site wants to charge. That's 24 tickets per day every day of the year just to give Y site their $5 per ticket fee. Um, they're also in their contract state that they have up to a 10% error rate. That would mean over 800 people a year are going to get. Get tickets that they don't deserve possibly 10% error rate seems kind of high when we're dealing with that. I would encourage you to vote no on this. The agreement seems a little over the top and self contradicting in a number of places. We don't need to pay some outside company 40,000 dollars a year to write high risk parking tickets. On the property tax, I've kind of been thinking about how best to explain things that make sense to a lot of people, and I think I've figured it out. If Netflix charges you an extra $100 one year, do they just have to not charge you $100 extra next year, or do they have to reduce your subscription by $100 and give you a $100 refund? The answer is it's both. You can't just promise not to overcharge again. If you're going to give a refund, you have to give that much again back to the customer. What is the proposed city property tax cut compared to what it should be? The City Commission last year was told they were voting on a property tax rate that would raise taxes by approximately 3%. That ended up being a massive understatement for an underestimate for a number of reasons. Using the two real sample houses that are on that chart that I've given you, we can see that the actual average 2025 tax increase was closer to triple that or about 9%. increase over 2024. To get an appropriate refund on last year's overcharge, we should see a minimum two-thirds reduction in dollars charged from the 2025 increase with that much again to act as an actual refund. Last year, the city increased property taxes by over $760,000. Two-thirds of that is just over $506,000, which is how much higher the city raised taxes than the commission was told they were going to be increasing taxes when they voted on the budget last year. For a proper correction of the overcharge, the city should cut the property tax collected next year by $1,013,548.80, if we're going to be precise. That would give people a mill reduction of just over 5.5 mills, using the city estimate of $182,000 per mill. That's less than half of the Eagle Pitcher money, which would leave the city reserves in good shape, while also sending a clear message to the taxpayers that the commission knows how much property tax increases have hurt residents. Let the taxpayers know that you're willing to make some hard decisions to reduce the tax burden. Reduce the ad valorem revenue by an even 1.1 million using a portion of the Eagle Pitcher money to make a real and significant reduction in property taxes this year. Rounding up to 1.1 million will account for the additional increase in valuations that put the actual dollar amount back to where it should be. If we're worried that will make it much harder to make the budget next year, then let's commit to doing an independent audit for efficiency to find waste or inefficient spending with $2500 treadmills in the recent past. There's probably still some some fluff that we could cut out of the budget next year. Thank you and appreciate your consideration. Thanks.

Would anyone else like to come up speaking puppy input?

state your name and address hi guys uh isaiah harris i'm at a 411 east adams um i also wanted to come before the city commission to speak a bit in opposition to the proposal for wise site parking there's a few reasons for my opposition i'll kind of separate them into a couple categories one kind of wise site themselves what we know about them and what they're offering and to just shell out some some alternate solutions that i think we could at least think about to to resolve the ongoing issue of parking downtown so first i think it's important that we all kind of have an understanding of what this company is um in in doing hours of research on it it was honestly pretty hard to find details on the background of this company and its founders and after doing some i've come up with this uh What it is, it is a surveillance startup founded by a team of engineers whose previous experience was working for the IAI, the Israeli Aerospace Industries, which is Israel's state-owned defense contractor, which develops missile systems and surveillance technology for drones for the Israeli Defense Forum, or the Israeli Army. Their technology and what they're proposing works quite similarly to flock cameras. The current proposal, as articulated by the contract, is to install several automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, downtown from 2nd Street to 6th Street. I'm sure most people in this room have looked over the contract. They'll monitor every vehicle that parks. and compile it into a database. So for reference, flock cameras in several of the studies that I've seen have average false positive rates of up to 37%. So as Roger articulated, in Wisite's own proposed contract to the city, they give a grace of about 10% error rate. And I would venture to say there's a good chance that it might on average be higher than that, just because AI data powered ALPRs are so far proven to be pretty inaccurate. Something that also concerns me is I couldn't find any guarantees, and I would love someone to correct me on this, that the kind of warrantless data that's being collected by WiseSight is stored on a on a private secure server wouldn't be sold to third-party data brokers this is a just kind of an offhand concern i would love for us to kind of work if if the city decides to pursue this contract work through some some stronger language for data protection for for the the people of pittsburgh and and for the the many out-of-towners that come downtown to to shop and visit right And so all this said, aside from the moral implications and the Fourth Amendment concerns, there's also very little evidence that this company in particular can deliver what it's promising. The only case study that's publicly available is their partnership that you can find on WiseSite's website with the parking authority of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And if you look on the website, you'll just see three low quality charts that have some kind of offhand data collections of average parking times, occupancies and durations of parking downtown. They don't have any before and after metrics of how their implemented system with the Pittsburgh Parking Authority actually helped directly improve their concerns of parking in the areas in which they implemented in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is of course massive. Their budget for the Pittsburgh Parking Authority is about $57 million, which gets pretty close to our total city budget. And so point being there, and looking on WiseSide's website, the solutions that they propose are very complicated integrated systems that are designed to be incorporated into a very sophisticated parking enforcement apparatus. which would include anything from paid parking and meters to entire branches of local law enforcement that are dedicated to just parking enforcement and standardized and easily understandable parking rules, restrictions, and regulations that the citizens understand downtown. And right now, I think the city doesn't necessarily fulfill these criteria, not because we're necessarily doing anything wrong, But this technology just seems designed for a much bigger and bolder city parking authority. I don't think it would quite integrate well with what we have. Ultimately, this would leave us being the guinea pigs for this company as they try to roll out and test their relatively new technology and how it might be compatible with a city like ours. For us to pursue a contract with this, I would see and want to see a lot more guarantees, a proven track record, or at least some more publicly available data that this can indeed solve the issues that it purports to solve. There are also monetary concerns with WiseSite and their parking solution. So $42,420 is the minimum cost of this agreement, and there doesn't seem to be a cap on the payments if they charge a $5 per parking violation caught in the system itself. So this leaves a, I would just like to see us negotiate some sort of ceiling that we're not just on the hook. the system seems to be something that just like dings parking violations like crazy we just don't have a lot of guarantees on that and this is this is a smaller note not to get too reactionary about it but per per section 2.4 of the terms of conditions of this agreement our city if we were to enter this contract would be completely on the hook for any loss and damages that would incur onto our Y sites technology outside of the language they use in the contract is regular wear and tear from proper use of the cameras. So things like hail or wind, vehicle collisions, vandalism, or any such act of God, that would incur a full replacement cost that would be liable to the city of Pittsburgh. And then for us to even have a conversation that might surround that of potentially insuring these cameras for those accidental incidences. That is just a red flag conversation in and of itself. Ultimately, these are just kind of the firsthand concerns that I just looked over after reading this contract. I mean, the first sentence of the contract, they spell the city of Pittsburgh wrong. And looking over it, there's about a dozen typos throughout this thing. And outside of that, I don't want to lean too much into just the reactionary sentiment. There's definitely a lot of valid concerns there. This would be another tool of AI-backed mass surveillance in our community, which a lot of citizens have voiced concerns against. And I think for very good reasons, I wouldn't want to see that for the same reason that many people in this city were pretty frustrated that the City Commission voted for flock cameras as well. But beyond that, the second category that I would want to get into is, is there alternate solutions that we can consider for the parking concerns? so i apologize and forgive my ignorance if some of this is is what you guys have already considered especially with the downtown advisory board but i would love us to have a a sort of like fully fleshed out parking inventory um which would be a sort of survey of all of the real parking concerns facing our downtown and our community sorry i you went on for a while and we appreciate your input but i'm sure there's other people who like to talk on this issue so could you maybe get to the finish oh yeah sure absolutely yeah I don't want to just suffocate the conversation but just to shell out a couple solutions I mean this $42,000 could be invested in improving some of the parking infrastructure that we have downtown you know we have a couple big public parking lots behind Opie's and behind BMO bake that we could better direct downtown parkers to improving signage and awareness and also investing better in our public transportation. So right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, the city invest about $10,000 for C caps pack buses. That $42,000 would be better spent for them as well. Updating our zoning policies to change some of these mandatory parking minimums. For example, the big parking lot behind Commerce Bake is very underutilized, and that's just an example of what that looks like. Enhancing lighting on side streets to encourage businesses and visitors to park, not just in front of Broadway. Yeah, so for all of these concerns and more, I would just urge the commissioners to vote against. Sorry for taking a bunch of time. Thank you, guys. Thanks.

i'm ryan posteric i'm the new owner of signet coffee roasters at 109 north broadway first time hopefully last time on the public speaking side of things i have not done a bunch of background however the city has changed so much in the last 15 years great the amount of traffic downtown has changed tremendously from when my parents first started it's great to see we're kind of struggling As we're changing from a small town feel downtown to a bigger city and I can appreciate the challenges that brings and I would hope I'm not for or against AI in particular, but anything that we do to encourage commerce on Broadway so we don't have long-term parking just on Broadway Street. So that way you can help me, help us increase our property tax and our sales taxes, which benefit the community. So that's all. Thanks. Thank you.

My name is Delaney Reynolds, and I live at 204 East Lindbergh Street on Pitt State's campus. I don't have much to say that wasn't already addressed. I mean, a lot of citizens have obviously done a lot of research on all of this. um i just wanted to ask if you commissioners believe that this will have a positive or negative impact on downtown businesses and really ruminate with that and make sure that this decision that you're making is a positive impact for the local economy not just getting money for parking violations, but changing whether or not people decide to stay downtown and go to just one business for lunch or a business for lunch and a bookstore and the thrift store and all of the different places that we have to shop. I believe potential customers will be deterred from shopping downtown. As somebody that likes to go to the local coffee shop and sit and do my homework, I can't do that for more than two hours at a time. And what if I wanted to go buy a book afterwards? I have to either find a new parking spot so I'm not violating the two-hour parking time limit or decide not to at all if there aren't any parking spots, which there usually aren't. i also believe more people will try to park in public lots like the library lot instead of places where these would be enacted and so then that causes problems for the people that want to go to the public library because all of the spots are taken up by people that don't want to be surveilled while they're shopping downtown that's all i have thank you so much

Hello, council. My name is Hadrian Zurich. I live on 704 Tanglewoods Drive. And I'm here to speak in opposition of these wide-sight cameras. And I want to first do that by introducing you to a friend of mine. His name is Benji. He works at the high school as a janitor. Because the school currently can't afford to hire a full-time janitor, so they have to take this burden onto a student to do that. A school that would go under if someone unbezeled too many colored pieces of paper is the kind of district that I want to defend. And these Y-site cameras present this scenario. They present to you, like Mr. Lomstead pointed out, that potentially there is this high risk tactical environment where we need to start arresting or issuing citations for hundreds of potential violators in this small section of road to give our business owners access to more revenue and more profits. If that's true, not having a cap on the amount of costs that they can afford to charge us, whether or not those violations make it all the way to the inside of a courtroom, just detected violations could lead to, if these increases in revenue are correct, assuming 50 violations an hour, which would be a magical number, or 50 violations even every three hours, could leave our city paying hundreds of thousands of dollars when the council has admitted that there's really no need for this issue. if the question is how can we resolve public parking to make sure that our businesses have more equitable solutions that our students can work in coffee shops for long periods of time parking lots would suffice or public transportation or modes of operation that don't require a subscription to this ai corporation that doesn't actually care about creating real solutions again their goal is profit not what's best for pittsburgh whether or not they know where that is on a map and how many h's it has in its name The real issue here is that, again, we are assuming that their highest goal, that their highest motive is what's best for Pittsburgh. But if that's true, assuming we could pay a contractor to fix all of our problems, to magically create more spots in Pittsburgh, and to create a downtown that works for every Kansan, business owners, students, employees, people trying to go to our newly built business college and just go to class if they want to. We have to ask, is a subscription company in a corporation that can take our data into some mystical black box to do with it whatever it pleases the best answer? Are we willing to really spend $58,000 a year instead of putting forward a chunk of change in the first place to resolve parking lot issues, or to resolve public transportation issues, or create changes that actually work for the city of Pittsburgh instead of just lining some corporations' pockets? It's no secret that this town isn't made of money, but we're trying our best. And so when we let the voices of corporations enter this town and do whatever they want because they think we're too dumb to know the difference, even if they don't know, again, which Pittsburgh we are, if they think that they can create a system that will ultimately need meters based on even their highest data, the data they present to you as an example of how effective they are that relies on parking data from parking meters, if they think that we are going to sit down and let that happen and not work on real solutions, then they've thought wrong. And I urge you to vote in the same way that your job demands you should. Thank you.

I'm Matt Williams. I live at 1184 East 640 Avenue, Mulberry, Kansas. I was born and raised here in Pittsburgh. I'm 64 years old. I have a five-year-old daughter. These flock cameras, to me, those are perv cameras. That's what they are. They allow people to look and see where my daughter's going, know when I'm not around. They know when our servicemen are coming back. They know where their kids live. This is a national security issue. And you guys can't act like you don't think about that. It's like, and if you do, you're not thinking. Not to mention, it's a Fourth Amendment violation. To me, it's a First Amendment violation. It's my religion. The flock that I get protected by, Jesus is over. And I don't have to worry about nothing. I don't. The thing I worry about is the out-of-control government that I'm supposed to be watchful of. I'm putting the city on notice. My tags are covered. It says clearly on the tag cover and protest to mass surveillance. It's flock, axon. There's several of them. Those city lights, them street lights uptown, Most people don't know it. There's a red one, there's a yellow one, and there's a clear one. Why is that one not green? You guys put cameras in there long ago. I've known about it since the 60s. It was before those lights even was installed. That's not such an issue when somebody has to look at the camera. If you get a call at 911, I wouldn't blame you guys for having a camera out there to be able to look at a busy intersection to determine what seriousness that is. Now, for somebody to just take everybody's information, including my cell phone information, just from driving by, that's a serious rights violation. I broke the city of Pittsburgh. I informed you that I have a contract with the city of Pittsburgh. It says $10 million for every rights violation. You have violated my rights every time I drove by one. I've told you about it. I don't want to sue the city. I don't want these people to pay for your things that you've done, not necessarily wrong, but mistakenly. We all live in the same country. We don't need watched. You want to be watched? You want us to put together a system that takes all of your phone, watches where your kids go, what your money went from your child, where they spent it. This is what you're doing to us. This is where it's going. It's getting worse fast. I'm in protest. It's clearly says it on the back of my truck. I've had the police threaten me on Facebook saying that they would stop me. You're not supposed to stop somebody for a peaceful protest. And the protest is about the tag being seen by them cameras. So I have every right to cover it. I've stood before the Supreme Court of Kansas I know the law. I didn't need an attorney, and I don't need one now. This is wrong. It's a Ninth Amendment violation to me. That's unwritten rights, and there's plenty of them. You guys are way overstepping your boundaries. The Declaration of Independence is clear. After a long train of abuses and usurpations, it is our duty to throw off those guards. Please, stop this. In Jesus' name, I do pray. Have a good evening.

Hi, my name is Sophia Stapleton. I live at 425 West 9th Street, and I'll keep it brief, but just kind of a painted picture of my usual Saturday. I dance ballet at a local business. I'm there for maybe two or three hours, and then After that, I maybe go and get a coffee. I go and get lunch somewhere. All told, I'm probably parked downtown for about four, maybe even five hours, and I'm going to multiple businesses. I'm paying a multiple businesses in that time. With this system that wouldn't really be possible for me. It would discourage me from maybe going to that second business or going and getting lunch. At the very least I'd have to move my car, which there's no guarantee on parking, of course. So it's kind of a one size fits all solution because sometimes people do have perfectly legitimate reasons for being parked somewhere for more than two hours. This wouldn't be a problem if we had meters because you can just pay the meter. This brings revenue to the city. It enforces things more effectively, in my opinion, and it doesn't involve a contract with a pretty shady seeming company like I'm sure everyone here has read the proposal. It's riddled with errors. It's just it doesn't seem like a proposal from a serious company. And I don't think that's something we should be spending a noticeable amount of money on. I just I think that there are better solutions, like, as I suggested, meters, further enforcement. I totally agree with the fact that You know, there probably needs to be something done about parking as more and more businesses open downtown. You know, it really does have a detrimental effect on businesses. So, like, I do support there being a solution, but. I don't think this is the correct solution for the town. I also have kind of some privacy concerns like. i personally don't want my data going to some unknown third-party company like you know i mean it's understandable that the government has it and i mean to a certain extent the city is going to have a good amount of that and i accept that as a society we live in but i don't want all of that personal information going to pretty unproven third parties So those are my primary concerns. Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is David Su.

I live at 1917 South Joplin.

Um, I have a couple of concerns, um, just to echo something. Excuse me just to echo something that, uh, Roger said earlier. Um, 1.3 of the proposal is titled the expected outcome compliance or revenue. Um, I would hope that the goal for installing a wide site system, or some sort of parking surveillance system. Would be compliance downtown, um, just kind of looking at how the parking. Um, is monitored there's going to be about 110 spots downtown between 7th and or sorry 2nd and 6th street. That would be monitored and the cost for that is a little over 35 dollars. 3500 dollars a month. Um, so. in my opinion there's better ways to spend that budget especially if the idea is to have people be in compliance with the two-hour parking limit ideally that would drop once the funds are in place so i don't see that as a sustainable revenue stream for the city um for And as multiple people have mentioned tonight, several people, a lot of people in this town visit downtown and spend multiple hours there. There's people who live downtown who regularly park on Broadway currently. Just kind of taking safety into consideration, like 505 is a downtown business. A lot of patrons to 505 park downtown. I would rather that they are able to park there and find an alternative Way to get home if they're drunk and not be fined for parking downtown. Rather than having to deal with the fine when. For being responsible and getting home safely. And then for the people who live downtown. I have friends who live downtown and they park right on Broadway. Um, I just have some concerns about how fines would be dished out for people. Who regularly park downtown, like, would they be if they park overnight? For example, would they be fine at 8 o'clock every morning? Like, would. The camera to start tracking at 8 a.m. and then. find people who are still parked there at 10 a.m. I just urge this council to come up with a equitable solution that works for businesses and residents that live downtown. On top of that, just some basic privacy concerns. I've read the proposal that Y site has sent to the city. It doesn't really specify the scope of what they do with the data once it's captured. Just Going by intuition, if a camera is high definition enough to pick up license plates, it's high definition enough to capture. Faces for people and customers downtown. Um, I know that there has been a lot of controversy with the floor cameras. Um, I will say currently it is. Difficult if not impossible to leave. or enter the city of Pittsburgh without being tracked by one of those cameras. So again, I think a lot of people have concerns about how that data would be used. I urge the City Commission to put in protections if a contract like this were to be approved to protect the rights of the people of Pittsburgh. Thank you.

Thanks.

Hello, I am Alexis McDonald. I live at 400 West Layton Street, but I'm a Pittsburgh State student. Let me look at my notes here. So I'm not in support of these cameras or really any of these surveillance cameras here in Pittsburgh, in Kansas, in the nation. Um, I know that many have said, quote, if you are not doing anything wrong, why does it matter? And that was from a commenter on a Facebook post relating to the meeting that we are having today. These cameras being helpful and even creating a safer environment for us and, or our children is an easy assumption to make, but do not be fooled. This is mass surveillance. This breaches our rights as Americans. The Fourth Amendment states that the government is not allowed to unreasonably search or seize individuals without a probable cause. In Carpenter v. United States, a case arguing if the government needs a search warrant to access location records from Google, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unlawful to access location records without a warrant. Justin Kagan said, Google users regularly employ location histories as personal journal. In that way, location history resembles other private materials like emails, documents, photographs, or calendars that even if stored on, hold on, even if stored on Google servers, a user reasonably views as his own and expects to be shielded from inquisitive eyes of the government. So our location history from our phones is protected by the Fourth Amendment, but where we drive and park isn't. Then we must think about those in the police force. In ABC News article, there was a North Carolina police officer that had been arrested for using these surveillance cameras to track her boyfriend's ex-wife. In Jefferson, Georgia, Marcy Bakley, I'm assuming, was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend, of which was a police chief. Now, don't think of this as me criticizing all cops. I'm not doing that. Cops are just like the average person. They slip up, they lie, and they can, at times, be criminals. Let us imagine a perfect world for a moment, though. Let us imagine that every cop is an outstanding, infallible citizen. What do these cameras do for genuine criminals? Described in the Los Angeles Times, there was a hack of the L.A. city attorney's office that occurred this year. That hack compromised 7.7 terabytes of LAPD records. To put that into perspective, if you took a one-minute video of your child every day of their life, your child would be over 5,000 years old before you reach 7.7 terabytes of information. Genuine burglars, stalkers, rapists, and murderers can potentially access every waking moment of your life, where you park, where you shop, and when you finally get home. Instead of risking being too close to your person to memorize your patterns and schedules, it can happen to police departments to get access to these cameras. We do not have nearly enough cybersecurity for these cameras to be safe. We do not and cannot know when a cop or someone else may snap if they are hiding their sinister behavior. These cameras are not safe. For a few final notes, these are not free. Nothing is. If this would raise our taxes at all, you are taking away the one thing that makes the Midwest decent to live in, the affordability. Multiple businesses have had to close or are in danger of closing because Pittsburgh, Kansas has become too expensive to live in. Roads still have potholes. Our infrastructure needs to be improved. There are so many other places to put our money into. Finally, I do not want Big Brother to be watching us. I do not want 1984 by George Orwell to become true. Thank you for your time.

Hello y'all, good evening. My name is Jack back. I live in an apartment downtown on the intersection of 6th and Broadway. I also work downtown. I am a lawyer. I handle felony criminal defense cases. I also while I was in law school did some work in a digital privacy firm handling technology and mass surveillance litigation. My understanding of what these wise say cameras do. They will detect parking violations and report any violations to Pittsburgh Police Department. So my first problem with that, they don't detect any type of moving violation. If someone is driving dangerously downtown, if they're speeding, if they're driving under the influence, if they have an outstanding felony warrant, these cameras don't detect anything. They are just for parking violations in Pittsburgh. That means from, I believe it's eight to five Monday to Friday. Anyone who parks their car for more than two hours should get registered by these cameras as violating our parking code. That doesn't mean that person gets a ticket. It just means a report of that violation is going to get sent to the Pittsburgh Police Department. That happens daily for dozens of vehicles. It's a tremendous amount of data that law enforcement is just going to be sent. I don't know if they have the capacity to process this. I don't know if they have the capacity to turn these suspected violations into traffic tickets. So I just feel like as a as a revenue raising way of as a resume, as a method for raising revenue and as a way of enforcing our parking laws, it's just missing a crucial part of the chain because it's going to require law enforcement to still sift through all this data. It's not just a matter of these cameras getting the whole job done. It's it's not making law enforcement more efficient. It is burdening. It's burdening them. I think a core problem here is that WiseSite is not designed for small towns like Pittsburgh, small cities like Pittsburgh. It's designed for major metropolises. It's in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It's in Columbus, Ohio is where the company's American headquarters are based. These are cities with metered parking. When you go through the proposal they sent us, they're talking about payment violations. They're talking about cities that have parking meters. I think it makes sense in a city with a parking meter. Because if I'm not paying, then I'm clearly in violation of the parking code and I'm clearly taking revenue away from the city. So I should get some type of reprimanding for that. But our parking code in downtown, it's really just sort of an honor system. I have never seen anyone get a ticket for violating that two hour limit. I don't like the idea of someone finding out because of these cameras that they're being ticketed. I do think people are right that it could risk discouraging business downtown. I understand these are different from flock cameras in that they don't have the same scope of surveillance, but I do think it's valid that people are concerned about, always feeling like there's an eye on them when they're just trying to support our businesses downtown. And again, I just encourage, you know, all you folks to consider this thoughtfully, to really think about the exorbitant amount of money that this company is asking for, especially considering they want $5 per detection. That number is going to skyrocket past the $3,500 per month that we've been quoted at. Thank you for your time. I just want the city to consider this carefully.

All right. Is there anyone else that would like

Good evening, commissioners and city staff. During the prior commission meeting on August 11, the commission directed the city staff to again go through the budget to make cuts to bring back another version of the 2027 budget, which would include a 3 and 1 half no levy reduction. Well, in looking at the submitted and revised 2027 budgets, I took notice that only the general fund was decreased by 242,618 dollars. As you can see on the on the paper here, the ad valorem dollars changed by 246,622. For the 2027 assessed valuation, the city chose to use 102,182,953,918. That is 80,390 dollars higher than the 2026 valuation. Of 182,873,528, which is the number given by the county clerk for this fiscal year. And this is a concern I have about the budget process of the city. In 2025, there were 2 different budget numbers used. You can see at the top there, and there was a difference of 308,284 dollars. And in 2025, there was a difference of 13,000,006,000,013,000,694,578 from what was posed in total expenditures versus the net expenditures. And so, in the transfer dollars, there was a difference of 1,000,005, so it has all this money being used by the city. The 2026 budget showed a difference in numbers with a 20,000,049,560 dollar balance. So now we have this year 2 budgets to look over the proposed and that expenditures and both budgets have a total of 4,000,219,000 dollars. Move on here it is. The 2 proposed expenditure dollars show a difference of 242,618 dollars as to the different net expenditures line items. And the added the Lauren taxes for 2025 through 2027, the numbers kept changing depending on the document. The 2025 assessed valuations have a range of 5,365,000 dollars. The 2026. Assess valuations have a range of 4,092,040 dollars. It seems like the 2027 submitted and revised budget have agreed on the same number. Although again, it does not agree with the number from the county clerk. There have been many changes to the schedule of positions in 25 and 262026. the adopted budgets were approved with 307.8 positions. How is that possible without coming to the commission for approval of that kind of increase? It poses so many facets of the budget that need to be made aware of to the commission and taxpayers. So, where's the money and if 2.1M dollars has been removed from the budget as the city manager said at the last meeting, why is the budget still at 76M dollars? Which numbers are we to believe that are correct numbers in reference to the 2027 revised budget? How do we get these numbers? I see increases, money not completely used in its entirety, new line items, and changes not made that were stated otherwise. As far as the personnel category, there is a $312,280.12 increase from the submitted budget. to the revised budgets, how and why. After that category, I decided it was time for commissioners to take some action. One, there's two things that need to happen as quickly as possible. One, a special session to go line item by line item to compare these two budget proposals. There are very different things between these two budgets. Two, and I call for an independent audit before voting takes place on the 2027 budget. Thank you.

Are there anyone else who would like to come up?

Mayor, I have a wonder. Go ahead.

Hey there. My name is Peter Weichel. I live in 511 South Cherokee and Girard. And one issue I have with this is that we haven't seen the city uptipped like it should be. with the amount of money that you're spending on it. Plus, the other problem I have is that not too long ago, we were told by our governments and our city officials to trust the science and to lock ourselves into our homes. And with these cameras, you're basically telling us to do the same thing. And you forget that we are not the governed. You are. We put you here to make our lives better and not to insult us with these communist acts That's how I see it. Because today, it's parking cameras and plot cameras. And tomorrow, it's social credit scores. And we can't be out of our house without fear of recopations just from making a simple two-minute mistake from parking too long. That's ridiculous. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

My name is Steve Garner. I live at 1603 West 20th Street, Pittsburgh. I'll try to be brief because some of what I'm going to tell you is redundant, but it's about the flock cameras. It's been hard not to notice that the city has partnered with flock safety in an effort to skirt the tenants of the Fourth Amendment. The architecture of flocks scheme where flocks as a proxy to collect and store data in a manner that would ordinarily require probable cause subpoena or a warrant. It seems imprudent, to say the least. The LPR data collection method across as many as 32 cameras is no less than a dragnet, creating a stamped vehicle-specific mosaic of motorist travel, and essentially a pattern of life analysis. It works like this. Analysis aggregate time-based and relational data from diverse sources. then map routines and detect outliers. I submit that criminals have already won this. Um, and law abiding citizens have already lost if we continue with this pattern. Um, is this a Pittsburgh we really want to live in? Thank you.

All right. Mayor, I have a letter to read. Okay. Uh, citizens submitted this to our office. Dear City of Pittsburgh officials, I am writing to respectfully request additional pedestrian safety measures at the new stoplight located at 3rd Street and Broadway near the new Kells College of Business. With the increased activity in the area, particularly with students, faculty, staff, visitors traveling to and from the Kells College of Business, I believe it is important to make sure the intersection is safe and accessible for pedestrians as well as motorists. At this time, I believe the intersection would benefit from a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk and appropriate pedestrian signal lights. A crosswalk with pedestrian signals would provide pedestrians with a designated and visible place to cross the street while giving drivers a clear indication of pedestrians may be crossing. This would be especially valuable for students who may need to cross Broadway to access campus buildings, parking areas, sidewalks, and other Nearby destination I respectfully asked the city to evaluate the intersection and consider installing a clearly a clearly marked pedestrian crosswalk across The appropriate portion of the intersection pedestrian cross signals or other appropriate pedestrian lighting additional signage or lighting if the city officials determine it would further improve visibility and safety and other any other pedestrian safety improvements recommended by traffic or engineering evaluation i understand that traffic engineering and safety improvements require careful consideration and i appreciate the city's efforts to improve infrastructure in our community however addressing pedestrian safety now could help prevent an accident in the future and ensure the new intersection serves everyone safely thank you for taking time to consider this request i hope the city will evaluate the intersection at third and broadway and consider appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities sincerely bobby rogers thank you all right anyone else

My name is Andrew Klusener. I live at 708 West 2nd Street. I would just like to advise you all of the hidden costs associated with license plate readers like these. I know KDOT has started using them on the turnpike and I have received three bills and had to call in three times to get those taken care of because I was not driving at that time. That's just me. So that's one person. And I know how long it took to make those calls. And somebody had to sit on the other end and listen to me talk. And I was kind, but not everybody's going to be. And It's going to take time. It's going to take more personnel to handle all of these. It's not just. Collecting the data and sending the bill, you're going to have misreads. They're going to billion for every 1 of those. And I'm sure you're probably not going to get refunded. So they're going to pile up and it's going to cost more and more and more. It's not going to help anybody.

Hello, my name is David. I live at 1926 Oak Ridge circle, Pittsburgh, Kansas, and I wanted to. Essentially address the overall surveillance state that you guys are putting in. I do not appreciate the flock cameras. I don't remember ever being consulted about those as a community. But back to the actual point of the cameras that you guys are putting in. I am anti surveillance. I can see some of the potential in the cameras that you guys actually are vouching for. But at the same time, I'm still anti surveillance, period. I think that is an overstep of our bounds. And if you want meter maids, get meter maids.

All right, anyone else?

Hello, my name is Dylan Michael Tierney. I live at 412 East Washington Street. I was not planning on speaking today. I was only coming here to show my support against flock cameras. Something that I feel like has not been said. You can trust good men and women to do the job. You can't trust computers. Good men will hold themselves accountable. They will take action when needed. Flock cameras will give opportunity for everybody, not just good men or women. They can do wrong, they can do right with this information. That is all. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I got something to add. That property, that's public property. I'm going to send a clock and eviction notice. I mean, they got to go. There's no question about it. And I got news for you. This ticket and everybody needs to stop. Build a parking lot with that money. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. I know you're probably sick of hearing from us. My name is Justina Schultz and I live at 201 South Elm Street and I am a lifelong Pittsburgh resident. I've lived here my whole life and never once did I think that Pittsburgh was missing a Panopticon. I walk home from work frequently. I dilly, I dally. I enjoy walking along the Pittsburgh streets and going into businesses, getting a coffee, many of the other things that other people have mentioned. And I don't think it's necessary for me to be on camera while I'm doing that. Those cameras will catch me on my walk home, though I'm not parked there and though I'm not part of what they're looking for. I'm going to get sucked up into this even though I have nothing to do with the parking in that situation. And regardless, even if I did, I have a right to not be surveilled. I don't want to live in a surveillance state as most other people don't. And I think that Pittsburgh can do better things with that money. I think that corporation has ill intent. And I think the chances that it's going to cost only 42,000 dollars are slim to none. Those 5 dollars per detection, they have a vested interest in making sure they detect as many as possible. And our police force is going to have to be the ones that sorts through that. And sees if any of those are worth picking up. That's going to waste a lot of time and it's going to waste a lot of money while watching all of us. And I don't want to be watched. Thank you.

There's anyone else.

Sorry, I'm sure you're tired of hearing people at this point. Uh, my name is Arden Smith for a two or two Elma drive here in Pittsburgh. Um, these block and, uh, Y site cameras, particularly the Y site cameras, sorry, have only thus far been tested in cities with meters. And if we look at other Kansas cities that have meters, like say Lawrence, which is another university town. Instead of going for this method of mass surveillance, they just hired a couple of cops to go up and down city streets and ticket them. They have a digital system that they use with digital meters. It tells you how long you are. You can pay with your phone instead of having to run and put a quarter in the machine like you did with the old-style ones. And it keeps track, and they have people doing it. It puts people through a job. Not putting people through a job in an office, sifting through surveillance data for $43,000 cameras that they don't even need. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else like to speak in public input? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the portion of public input and move it to the consent agenda. Are there any items to be removed from the consent agenda?

Mayor, I'd like to remove item B and C for discussion. B and C, all right.

Is there a motion to approve Item A and Item B. So moved. Second. Moved and second. Roll call vote.

Brooks. Yes. Aye. Yes. Munsell. Yes. Perry. Yes. Siegley. Yes.

Motion carries. Motion passes. Item B. Approval of staff request to purchase 793 polycars from Elliott Equipment Company in the amount of $51,107.50.

Good evening, your commissioners. They have to answer any questions. Yes.

Good evening, Dexter. The reason why I pulled this item, uh, just cause I had some questions about the amount of courts that are on this request, uh, as well as an update on the status of how many services we're providing for the city of Pittsburgh. So if you could briefly explain why that number is relevant in the process of why we're, why there's 793, uh, that's what fits on the truck.

That's the same that's been every time we've ordered through this commission for the past year.

793 is what fits on the track on the shipment truck to bring to the city of Pittsburgh. Okay. And as far as the amount of services we're providing for residential use for those, are we. Projecting. that number are we close we're getting closer you guys remember kyle davis i'll i'll introduce kyle again kyle is our sanitation coordinator and he keeps track of all those things we're within 20 customers of producing that many since the first year so we've almost stripped out a truck this year okay i said i had some questions that brought up about it and if the need matched this time frame and it obviously does i just want to make sure that it was clear that's where we're at with it okay that's the only questions i have

Motion to approve item B. So moved. Second. Moved and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carried. Item C, approval of the appointment of Ron Sigley, Darren Hall, Jay Byers, Tammy Nagel to serve as voting delegates to represent the city of Pittsburgh at the Kansas League of Municipalities annual meeting scheduled for October 8th through the 10th, 2026 in Wichita, Kansas.

And the reason why I pulled this one for the record is I would like the city manager to explain this process before this week for the delegates and the process at the league. So he's going to give a description on the purpose.

Sure. So the league meeting is the it's for the governing body members across the states. It's for elected officials. I am a member of that board and we have an annual conference every year where they go down and share ideas like most organizations. The attorneys do it. The city managers do it. At the end of that meeting, there's a there's a vote that's taken by the governing body members. And so each city that participates in the conference is asked to appoint a few um electors to represent that city as they vote on the adoption of the final policy that they're going to approach the legislature with for the upcoming legislative session and try to lobby on behalf of cities to get things that people want and also to elect the president and the vice president and the board members for that year so this is an opportunity usually what happens is the elected officials step up i think most of you are going but if you don't want to vote it usually falls back on staff so in this case tammy has has assigned me and her and jay to do it but

It's a conference, and it's the way they adopt their policies for the year Thank you, you bet motion to approve Second second all in favor say aye aye all opposed same sign motion carries Consider the following. Ordinance number S-119, consider ordinance number... You're missing the special program.

I'll track it down.

All right, special presentation. Special reading program summary. Pittsburgh Public Library Director Bev Clarkson will provide a summary of the summer reading program.

That was last summer reading program summary, right? It is my last time. Sorry to see you leave. Congratulations, though.

Thank you. Well, Mayor, City Commissioners, thank you for your time this evening. I am Bev Clarkson, Director of the Pittsburgh Public Library, at least for a little while longer. As I do each year, I'd like to present a recap of the library's summer reading program. Summer is our favorite time of year at the library. And it's also our busiest time of year. We had over 15,000 in-person visits to the library in June and July. And during that time, we offered a variety of programs for people of all ages. The goal of our summer reader reading program is to promote literacy and to offer programs that are both entertaining and educational. The summer reading programs national theme this year was unearth a story. And as you will see, it featured a lot of dinosaurs. So we had over 660 kids sign up for the reading program. There were 277 entries. And altogether, the kids and teens earned 1,750 prizes for reading books. And they read a total of 16,083 books in June and July, which I think is pretty good. The library offered 95 free programs this summer with 6,490 community members participating in the library program. These programs included our story times, which are offered three times a week. And these are early literacy programs geared towards kids six and under, but really everybody likes story times. And story times include books and puppet shows and skits and songs and scavenger hunts and activities like bubble parties and digging for dinosaur bones and our annual homemade ice cream party. In June, we offered elementary explorer programs for older kids each Thursday, and they featured dinosaur trivia, a visit from the Sedgwick County Zoo, the Nutty Professor Science Program, and a dinosaur detective program from Greenbush. And then in July, we brought back our Lego programs. Teen programs were held on Wednesday each week, and we had really great attendance from teens this year. So our teen programs included mean bingo, trivia, a book cafe, crafts and movies. And we also offered a new young adult book club this year, and it proved to be very popular. We had 78 teen volunteers this summer. We called them volunteers, and they met twice a month and donated 156 hours of service to the library, and they helped prepare and assemble storytime crafts. They sorted books, and they literally did all the heavy lifting around the library, which we were grateful for. We had Maker Monday programs for ages 10 to 17 that offered a STEM-based craft project each week, including my favorite thing, how to use a chomp saw, which you'll see. They're pretty cool. Adults also had their own reading program with 109 adult reading sheets turned in. The library presented three special family events this summer, including a return from the Stone Lion Puppet Theater from Kansas City, which we held at Memorial Auditorium. And additionally, we had Marty the Magician and Dino Odell, who presented a music program, and both of these were held at St. John Activity Center. Each child and teen who participated in our summer reading program received a free book of their choice. So I want to offer a huge thank you to our community partners who enrich our summer programs. Thank you to the city of Pittsburgh, especially the Parks and Recreation Department for donating swim passes as reading incentives and for sharing Lincoln Park and Memorial Auditorium with us. Thank you to USD 250 for busing in the summer school kids to the library. and to St. John for allowing us to use their activity center for some of our bigger programs. We are grateful for our community partnerships. As always, we give a tremendous thank you to our Friends of the Library volunteers. The Friends group pay for most of our summer programs through proceeds of their book sales, and they make a tremendous difference to our library and what we can offer the community. And let me also take this opportunity to remind everyone the Friends will host their annual Labor Day book sale Saturday, September 5th from 8 a.m. till noon. It'll be held in the library courtyard, and we have a ton of books for sale, and most are just 50 cents or a dollar, so you can come and shop for a good... I want to also say my most heartfelt thanks goes out to the Pittsburgh community. Thank you for supporting the library, not just with your hard-earned tax dollars, and that's important, but thank you also for bringing your kids to the library. for checking out the books, attending the programs, and utilizing library services. We're truly appreciative. But back to why we're here. As we do each year, we put together a little video showcasing some of our summer programs. So we have our eight-week summer reading program in just under four minutes. Thank you. If I can use this computer.

Beth, thank you for everything you and your team have done for our community's youth. I don't know if anybody will ever know how many lives you've touched over the years, and I know you could share that with your team, but thank you personally for what you've done.

Thank you so much.

All right, now. Consider the following, ordinance number S-119. Consider ordinance number S-119, authorizing the city of Pittsburgh, Kansas, to issue its taxable industrial revenue bonds series 2026 progressive products project for the purpose of constructing an addition to an existing manufacturing facility and authorize other related documents and actions.

Thank you. That's a tough act to follow, but that was a great video. I'm Sarah Steele. I'm with Gilmore and Bell out of Wichita. We're bond counsel to the city of Pittsburgh. And we are here this evening for the final action that needs to be taken on a project that started back in May of 2025. The commission held a public hearing and then adopted a resolution of intent to issue up to $1.7 million of industrial revenue bonds for an addition and expansion of progressive products. Does that go by another name? Good. Progressive Products did expand. That construction is now complete. And we are here with an ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds. These bonds are being issued for both a sales tax exemption and a six-year property tax exemption. The bonds, I will remind you, are in no way a debt or obligation of the city. They are purely a mechanism that is allowed by Kansas law to provide the economic benefits of sales tax exemption on the materials that went into construction and then the property tax exemption on the expansion portion of the project for six years. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I have one.

Yes. I read through this. Page 121 and 122, it doesn't show a payment schedule or a lease agreement. Is that unusual to not be in there?

There is a lease agreement. There's actually two leases. The obligation is being purchased directly by Progressive Products. So they're obligated. to make payment to themselves as the owner of the bond. We're going to let interest accrue and no principal payments to be made until final maturity at the end of 2032. And at that point, the bonds will be retired.

Can we introduce Todd Allison, the owner of Progressive Products, and Kevin Mitchelson, his attorney behind him? You guys want to step up and say anything?

I'm Kevin Mitchelson with the Wheeler and Mitchelson Law Firm, and it's our privilege to represent our Allison and Todd and his family and Progressive Products. I'm reminded of standing before the Commission decades ago asking the City Commission to support one of the first products, Cliff Hicks Engineering, that went into the airport industrial park. And we're here to ask again for an industrial revenue bond to be approved by the city. Todd and his family have built their business in the Pittsburgh airport industrial park. They've continued to grow it. And we appreciate the support of the city and the city commission for the local families who choose to build their businesses here, to grow their businesses here, to do their expansions here in Pittsburgh. And this is another example of this. Uh, as Sarah says, there's, there's no indebtedness, there's no tax liability to the city. It's a funding mechanism that benefits the employee employer. It's based on the city's formula of how much did you invest? And most importantly, how many new employees did you add? And so that's how we get to the number of years that the tax exemption applies. And so we think it's a win-win. It helps a company expand its facilities in our community in the airport industrial park. And we would appreciate your approval of this final step of a project that's been going on over a year. to help us make this happen.

Todd, do you want to add anything? Thank you for your support.

Todd, could you tell us how many employees you have, or how many you expect to add, or have added?

So, to give you sort of an over... I mean, it's a moving target, you know, in manufacturing, because you have people coming on and going off all the time. When we began this project, we started adding people before we started building buildings.

Which is why you built the building.

Right. So we were, say, between 45 and 50 and now we're, let's say, between 65 and 70.

Todd, could you explain what your product is to the people up there? Oh, yeah.

So we actually manufacture a couple different product lines. Under progressive products, we manufacture industrial equipment, but this particular plant expansion is for our Apex Stages line, which is mobile concert stages for the entertainment industry. We're the number one producer of mobile concert stages in the United States.

Thank you. So that's something that brought up questions for us, too, is how much square footage you adapted with this expansion, the ratio to the amount of people that you're hiring and infusing into future projects. And you'll see your stage creation stuff's been utilized all over the country so far. Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

So it's benefiting not just our community, but communities around the country. Have you done anything overseas yet with these?

We do, but not. We really have always been sort of behind on production, hence the expansion. So when you have a hard time getting domestic, you have a hard time getting overseas. We do have some in Canada, we do have some in South America. Hawaii is not really overseas until you have to ship something there, but we do have some like 2 or 3 years in Hawaii. I think Europe and Australia are probably where we go next.

So business is good. Yeah, that's pretty good. This is purposeful.

I just wanted to say, I'm reading here that under this series 2026 bond. is eligible for exemption of a viral property tax for 10 years. But you're only going to get it for six years. So that's good for the city. And it's good that we work with local businesses every chance we get to offer them to expand and hire more people. So you're doing a good job.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to say, in response to Commissioner Perry's question, When Fran and I travel, I'm always taking pictures of, hey, did you know your stage is in Louisiana? Did you know it's in Jackson Hole, Wyoming? I'm always sending them pictures of where they are. They're everywhere. It's amazing coming out of Pittsburgh, Kansas. We're so fortunate to have these Pittsburgh families who have built their businesses and retain their businesses and expand their businesses in Pittsburgh. And that's why we need you to help on that, please.

Move to approve Ordinance S-119, if there's no more discussion. Second.

Motion to approve. Second. Then move and second. To approve, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same time. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys.

Good luck. Thanks, sir. All right.

Moving on to Y-Site Parking Technology Agreement. before I read this off, I just want to thank everyone that came and came up to the mic and let us know how you feel. Uh, we work for you and it's important to hear what our local residents have to say. So thank you all for coming. All right. Consider staff recommendation to approve an agreement with Y site, the parking control and enforcement support services. with the funding for the agreement to be the greater of $42,420 annually or a $5 per detection to come from public safety sales tax. Aye.

Mayor and commissioners, in 2024, we did a downtown strategy session. One of the main pieces of that was parking. Not surprisingly, that's a problem in every community. And they had some very strong recommendations about parking. We actually increased the effort for that strategy session to do an actual parking analysis in Pittsburgh. And they made some formal recommendations that the city should look into planning coming up with methodologies that allow them to control the parking in Pittsburgh better. We explored those options with the police department. We looked at technologies that are available to help it. We found this particular solution, which is the most effective and least cost solution that we came across. I think the police department was happy with the approach that this group took, and so we have negotiated a contract with them and proposing it to you today.

For the past several years, law enforcement across the nation has mostly been hindered in parking enforcement efforts that are for ours regarding like to our parking because we can't chalk tires anymore. We've not been able to do that for a number of years now. So with the current infrastructure and stuff that we have. We're left with trying to find a camera AI driven solution that can see and count the parking stalls and say, this vehicle, this vehicle to parked here in violation of your set ordinance parameters Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 and 2 hour blocks. And then it can send a notification to our dispatch center. Hey, this vehicle license plate ABC 1 to 3 has been parked here 2 hours and 15 minutes. send an officer down there to either like issue a warning or citation make contact with the driver get the vehicle moved something so we've been searching for this solution for a number of years because we've been without a parking enforcement officer for our downtown area so we believe this solution is going to help us at least start that that process of trying to be more proactive in our enforcement efforts downtown so that's how

under this solution that's how the police department would receive notification from from the system just like you described so you would physically have to send an officer or parking enforcement person to take action so this isn't a mail this isn't a a situation where the The Y side is sending the ticket from another place.

There's no automated, unfortunately, through this.

How many tickets of, let's say, in the past six months would you estimate you've given to people for a lengthy parking downtime?

Very few. Our officers tend to default towards warning if at all possible. They have a green warning placard they can leave on the vehicle kind of outlining what the violation is. The actual number of citations for the two-hour parking, I couldn't have topped my head without researching it, Commissioner.

More more importantly, how, how often would you estimate you hear complaints from business owners about long term parking in front of their.

Several times there have been several instances 1, the downtown coffee houses on North Broadway street complain earlier this year about a vehicle been parked there for days, if not weeks at a time. So. We go down issue citation, the tickets are 10 dollars, no court costs or anything. So sometimes people, especially live out town opt. It's cheaper to park here for 10 dollars a day than back home for 40 dollars a day where I used to live. So.

then would you say that the the primary issue would be residents whether they're living in lofts or wherever downtown is that the issue is that it's long term it's people that are living downtown that are that are utilizing street side parking instead of maybe utilizing a city parking lot

In that one instance, it was, I believe, a downtown resident. I can't speak for, like, Daley if that is a concern for the long-term residents living downtown.

You heard the examples. It's not necessarily the people that are, and certainly they would fall under that parameter, but it's not necessarily the people that are coming down and spending four hours at a coffee shop. I mean, obviously they would be caught up in that, but it's, I think, personally, I believe it's probably somewhat residential

downtown residential folks that are abusing long-term parking.

And I don't know that there's really anything maybe unclear on whether or not they should be doing that or not.

I mean, I know the time limits are there, but... Was your data analysis done for a full year's time throughout the college session being in and being out and showing the variations of parking issues downtown?

In terms of in terms of the analysis that was performed, it was done during different times of the day. It was done at 1 time of time period in the year, but it was done at different times of the day and it looked at what available spots and usage of parking downtown throughout throughout a day and through days of the week. So when was that?

It was in October of 24. The school of business was not downtown. Block 22 was just getting started maybe and then. Or yes. Okay. And then the girl arising wasn't there either. And just based on my, I just received, we received this on Wednesday. It was the first time we ever laid eyes on this. And I have to admit, when I read it, I was floored only because, you know, you think about all the businesses downtown, everybody assumes that parking spaces in front of businesses are designated for that business. They're not parking spaces everywhere. People have to be courteous of time and but most of the time you're like oh i got a good parking spot i'm not moving my car for nothing but since school started if you drive around there's cars everywhere not just the kel school of business they're over at the fun zone they're by the bar they're on every street every nook and cranny i've gotten several calls from business owners asking about it but I have an issue, one, about the public safety sales tax proceeds. All the lighting that we were going to do downtown for the down lighting, that didn't fall under public safety sales tax. and I didn't understand that at the time, and I think we said general fund, but this does. It's not for the public. It's only five blocks. It's not for the whole town. So do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? That's the way it looks to me. And then adequate parking, we have talked about parking problems for years. As long as I've been on the commission and everybody would be like, oh, it's fine. But, you know, you think about Guadalajara, drop the H, places where a lot of people congregate, especially on trivia night at drop the H. There's cars everywhere or Guadalajara. They're parked on other people's properties. That is not according to the parking. I don't understand how that would be a parking plan. And I'm just using that as an example because they're always busy. So you take the students downtown, they know where they need to park, but they're not always gonna park there or else all of a sudden the businesses, they think that the spaces outside of their businesses are for them only, but it doesn't designate that either. So it just seems like that, adequate parking i don't understand that because we have one more lot so to speak and we have all these city parking lots but people don't like to walk they want to make you believe that they do because when you park at walmart you walk all the way to back the store where the milk is you've walked x amount of feet and everything but if it's raining or you're carrying stuff or it's cold People don't like to walk. And what happened to all the handicapped parking that used to be around? And you really have to look for it. And, you know, the city's determined to be cost-effective. For who? I don't get that. You keep it simple and, you know, the meters went away a long time ago that you put the coins in. And chalk and tires is... Ben, what is the deal about chalk and tires anymore?

Why? A district court in another jurisdiction said it amounted to an unlawful search without a search warrant.

Really? See, back in the day, I don't know if any of you guys remember Billie Peak? She walked miles and miles a day. And I don't remember there being parking issues like this, but the downtown wasn't like this. And the campus came to the downtown. Why is it a city problem and not a PSU problem? That's one of the questions I have. So why do we need to pay for it instead of the college? Or why can't, and Stu, I'm not, hope I'm not putting you on the spot, but why, you enforce parking out on campus, because I remember when I went to college, if you parked in the wrong color zone, you got a ticket right off. And they had the help of students going around, did they still do that? no they don't so you can't get students is that under your jurisdiction or the psu anything psu property would be under universal police okay so the personal business is nothing else nothing else is so grill horizon isn't block 22 isn't even though students live there so the parking spaces that were designated brown zones before when the students moved into block 22 there was designated brown spots downtown on parking lots weren't there not I thought there was, there were, they're gone. So I guess there's just so many questions, but I just don't think that $42,420 Annually for three years with $5 per detection. I just don't think that that is something we need to do I think we need to ask the people to be vigilant about Be mindful of businesses if you're there for the specific business Be mindful if you're there to go to school park in the designated parking zones be mindful of others walking across, you know, like they were talking he read the letter and walking across the street, be mindful, be courteous, and keep Pittsburgh the way it's been, and keep it simple. We do not need to, you know, we don't need to convolute everything here with this. I just think this is wrong, and I'm a no on this.

Jay or Chief Nargis, did you guys explore one individual talked about the QR code or, you know, somehow parking, you know, the parking, self-parking, whether it be meters or whatever?

The other options that we're looking at involve some kind of physical presence meters or something that, and it also still requires a body, a physical presence of someone to patrol it on a regular basis. This particular option is less expensive than that.

Before we, I have to agree with Cheryl down there. I don't want any more intrusion on my privacy than anybody else does. And I'm opposed to it also, simply because every time you pick up your phone, there's somebody ready to take your information. You can be sure of that. That's more than enough for us as citizens of this country. The flock thing, I can understand. I understand that, but this I'm absolutely opposed to.

Well, I was going to say, you know, when the original block 22 came in, uh, and they designated parking spots for college kids, you know, uh, I always asked once that started other restaurants, stores, everything else wanted to come downtown Broadway. And every time they came to the commission, I asked what's your parking plan because they were supposed to have a parking plan. And I was told there's plenty of parking, you know, People don't mind walking here and there, and maybe that's so, but when it's raining, pouring down rain, somebody's not going to park five blocks away and go shop in the store. If there's no parking in the store downtown, they're going to go to Walmart and plenty of parking there. So, you know, another thing on parking, it's an issue all over town. I've had numerous residential neighborhoods. People call me with parking complaints and they're in violation. Uh, I don't know. It was last year, year before we didn't want to write parking tickets. We wanted to give them a warning notice. I think you had that dog, you brought a commission meeting. So we supposed to put a notice on your, on your window of your car somewhere. Guess what? You're, I don't know why a person that's driving a car doesn't know if they're legally parked without a notice. I think the ticket lets them know that I parked wrong and I probably not going to park like that away again. So the next issue I have with this is funding coming from public safety sales tax. I disagree with that. What is a parking violation have to do with any public safety issue? Uh, and this is just concerning five blocks. So we're going to spend 42,120. What I added up, I think $127,260 for three year contract for five blocks. Are we not concerned with residential parking issues or other businesses? That's not in the five blocks. I'm against that using public safety sales tax for. funding these cameras. I think the focus on this on these five blocks is, you know, it's not right to the other businesses that need parking. Also, I think the cameras on the five blocks are just going to make people park six blocks away and create a problem in those areas. Uh, I think parking ought to be monitored by Pittsburgh police. And like you said, Cheryl, uh, campus security. I think, does the college still issue parking passes or whatever?

It's not campus security, but yeah. So if somebody on campus is,

going around and seeing seeing if you're parked in the wrong spot and when i went to school and maybe it still is brown parking where i had to park was out by the football stadium and i had a class at russ hall so you know uh i think hopefully they're still issuing these permits and average 7 500 for them so yep so If, you know, the question I have, it says in this right off the start, there's plenty of parking with the parking lot that's been created for the School of Business. But there's other issues with people parking. But I went by there, and if you have a parking permit, that means you park in that parking lot. Until 3.30, and then it's public. If you go by there, And the parking spaces in front of the school business have cars in them. They shouldn't be parked there if they have a parking permit. And that parking is for students, staff, and faculty, I take it, that parking lot. The law is, yeah. So who's parking in front of the school of business?

I think the timing is one of the hiccups. Cheryl pulled out the study, I don't know, to the mayor's point. Every time somebody's moved downtown, depending on where you are in Pittsburgh, you have to Accommodate, you know for parking for your business, but in the central business district, that's not a rule That was one of the things you adopted when you adopted that and that's what the mayor is referring to as he's always like They're always like well, let us park wherever We have heard from downtown businesses for years that I don't know if it's a student. I don't want to blame the students I don't know if it's just somebody but hey, there's a park. There's a car parked in front of my building for three days It's two-hour parking. Why don't you enforce it? Why don't you enforce it? Well, the main reason we don't enforce it is because we don't have, whether it's an officer or the camera, there's no tool without a meter or chalking tires. There's no tool to enforce it, which is quite frankly why we haven't been enforcing it. I talked to Commissioner Perry this week. Maybe And the cameras, hey, I don't like the cameras either. There's a reason we've been looking at it for three years and we finally come up with a camera because that's all we could come up with. It could be a tool to enforce it. But if that's not the tool, completely understand. But the question really comes down to do we enforce it? And if so, Do we need to extend it to four hour parking? I like the woman came up and I've heard that over and over about, look, if I'm shopping and I'm doing this and I'm doing that, I don't want to have to be running around. And if you don't have a meter that you can digitally just add time to. And so that was the cost of the cost effectiveness is there's no way putting meters downtown and staffing somebody to go around is going to be less than $41,000. That's why we ended up here. But by all means, I think it's clear tonight that Cameras aren't going to be the solution, so the question I want to leave with is, Do we want to enforce downtown parking and all parking? And what's the ability if we don't, we need a tool for the police to do that. And we just, you know, that's why we ended up where we are tonight. But I think it's clear tonight's probably not going to be cameras.

I know there's been time spent on this subject. And to be clear, I don't support this type of technology. I don't think that anybody other than a law enforcement officer needs to be edition citations or through a process. You need that actual human element there. That makes sense to me. I'm old soul. You take that away, then it's corruption. It leads into corruption or has the possibility for that. This camera system specifically, I wasn't happy with this. This packet and the way this was pitched and I know a lot of people spent time on it. And I appreciate everybody's time that was spent towards this, but this is not the answer for what the issue is. It's not the answer for Pittsburgh, Kansas. I don't have a good replacement answer and we talked about that this week how to solve this. i don't believe that the the issues govern and and show the need for this type of technology to be used in our community the side of it is that you know we have businesses we've been spending millions of dollars downtown to support and encourage people to come downtown and spend their money and i this actually it absolutely is a way to deter them from coming downtown so my suggestion this week was to increase the time. Say you have, one of the examples I use, you have a single mother of three. She needs to stop at Jock's Nails to get a pair of shoes for one child. She needs to go across the street for a dress for another child and then she needs to go to the bank and handle some business as well. That two hour window is not gonna work. Is she required to move and find another spot if there is one available? We've created a vacuum in the downtown district. We've added businesses, we've added elements that have increased the ability for the city to function, but it also has created more issues with this specifically. So we do need to find a good solution that not only benefits the business owners downtown, but it also encourages the use of the downtown district because we've been dedicating money to it for decades now. We have a non-agenda item to discuss part of one of those factors. We need to spend more time on this. I'm absolutely a no for this. I will not support any additional cameras in the city of Pittsburgh while I'm sitting here.

I think the business owners need to know that we're still working on this. I think the downtown advisory board, we need to continue to work with them to try to find a solution. But I think it's pretty clear that I don't think this solution is probably going to be moving forward tonight.

You know, one thing, too, I just want to add in the past, we can light up every alley around a certain area, but it's not on the radar when you go down through where businesses are. I know a year or more we talked about homeless downtown and in the alleys and going through trash cans and it fell on deaf ears. It was like, that's your problem to any business owner there. And like I said again, It should be where everyone's important. So I just, I'd like to make a motion to decline, or let's see.

Approve or disapprove?

Disapprove. Is there a seconder?

Second. Can we have a roll call vote on this? Brooks. Yes.

Hi. Wait, are we saying yes to disapprove? Yes to disapprove. Okay. Yes to disapprove. Yes, I disapprove. Monselle.

Yes.

Perry.

Yes. Sickley. Yes.

Do we want to give any instruction on enforcement because we currently I mean somebody asked it we're not enforcing the two-hour parking and we said we're gonna care about everybody I got an idea yeah make a

a pledge to each and every one of you that does business, goes to school, lives in the town. Live your life and be courteous to everyone, the businesses, the students, the property owners, the people who live downtown. Be courteous about where you park, how long you park, and maybe everything will work out. Be kind, be humble, be mindful of the ordinances. be courteous to the businesses we need to make a pledge to each and every one of us that we do that and then i i think maybe it'll keep it simple it'll work itself out you mentioned stew about residential housing downtown and i agree with you i don't think you're talking about parking on broadway for 24 hours at a time so how do you solve that problem Well, but 2, you got street sweepers that says on signs that come through at certain times. So these people that own lofts or apartments downtown, you need to be mindful of your tenants where they're going to park. So they're not violating, say, like, the street sweeper coming through or anything like that.

Like, many issues that we have in the city of Pittsburgh. This is going to take everybody's effort. To assist with, I do believe we need to change to your question. They're moving forward. We need to adjust the time and expand it to give people more time to be downtown. Um, secondly, timeframes and, you know, being polite as Cheryl saying to everybody, maybe we open up a lot of communication with all the downtown businesses. Not just in this sector that was being focused on with the entire downtown as well as with the college, the student body. and start working together as a team to eliminate some of these issues. If some of them are just overnight stays or people left a vehicle, one of the gentlemen was talking about not punishing somebody because they made the right decision to not drive home intoxicated. We don't want to deter those kind of concepts. but we do want to make sure that the businesses have places to park so people can visit them. So again, we need to relook this and focus on it.

The downtown is not a problem. I mean, at night, the downtown is not a problem. There's plenty of parking spaces. All you got to do is go up and down. I think knowing the ordinances, too, because... It's during the day, midday and afternoon when you have the problem. That's what you got to solve, right?

If you have a truck that's big... For goodness sakes, please don't put your tires up on the curb because you're going to get a ticket. And I know that they pull up enough to not be in traffic or that bumper hitch to hit somebody that's going by. But be mindful of the ordinances.

Mayor, commissioners, just really quick. In representation of the Downtown Advisory Board, I just want to the strategic plan gave us some options. And in recognizing in downtown with the two-hour parking signage the recommendation was either remove the signage or enforce it because it's confusing to people and So that kind of led into this almost two-year planning of what can we do, bring meters back. Lawrence is fun to visit. They do have meters. I don't know what the cost would be to bring those back, but I'm sure it's more than this. So the DAB and, of course, community development and city staff, and I know you guys are open to looking at other options. There is suggestions, you know, obviously metered parking, but also residential parking, commercial parking. So there are things we can look at. The DAB would be happy to discuss that within our group as well. And those are public meetings, so people can come to that. But we're also working with Pitt State. We have 10 public lots. We provided them a map last week. so that they can give the students a map to recognize where those lots are. A lot of them, this is their first time in Pittsburgh, so they don't know where those lots are. A lot of them are very close. If you live in Kansas City or Tulsa or Springfield, walking five or six blocks is not a big deal. So I do think we can alleviate that. With the first week or two of school, I think there's a pretty heavy influx of cars. and students down here because they might have missed the bus. There is a Gus bus running back and forth. So I think we'll work the kinks out. We'll get there. But there are willy nilly parking. There's things going on right now because students are new to downtown and they're off campus sometimes for the first time. So Dab's aware of that. You guys are aware of that. We all want to work together and make sure the university helps us and they are. They contacted me for the parking map.

There is an effort so that's where the more communication is going to come into play and we know that Pittsburgh State's half the heartbeat of this community So we just need to work better together every year. This is gonna happen You have new students come to town that don't know where they're going.

They have no idea Lots that you're talking about, you know channel six again. I'm talking about channel six. You can put it on there Okay, we have a map and you could put it on the city's website, you know social media Facebook

Yeah, because a lot of people don't know in 6208. And 10 parking lots.

How many parking spaces are you talking?

There's a lot. Yeah. I think there's 1,800 parking spaces within 800 feet of a two-block radius. I mean, there's a lot of parking. I think it's just recognizing. And coming from businesses for several years, we have had the complaint that, gosh, there's cars out front of my business all day long, and there's no up-front parking. And so that really is what spurred the downtown strategic plan with new development coming. We do have to have a plan. There is no parking requirements in the downtown overlay. So that's something we have to consider when new development comes, whether it's required or not. And we try to, especially for housing, there will be more housing in downtown. That's the goal, save these buildings and get more housing. So we think about parking every day. The P word comes up all the time. So we are aware and we're working on it. So thank you.

I think a big part of this too is time. People need to give themselves more time to get to where they're going. I know the rush from class to class. I have two students at Pitt State this semester. One doesn't drive and one does. One freaks out when she's running late, one does not. So letting the students know to give themselves more time to get to their parking spaces and not have to park right up front, that's gonna help as well.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Cam. I don't wanna drag this on, but the police are on the hook for enforcing something or not enforcing it. So do we wanna make a decision today about I mean, because there's plenty of other stuff for them to do, as you know, Find it solutions that we don't want to use for camera. I mean, do we want to. Is there any action you as a group want to I don't want them to just leave today and go well, there's how is it different from.

Before, when doc was talking about the stickers, they didn't really enforce it before. And other places, so so can we, I mean, can we look at it? You remember, like, parking over sidewalks parking in yards. Oh, our ordinances are there, but the police have.

Better things to do, in my opinion. We're talking about time and effort and man hours. Can we do some type of a program for the time being until we recess this? I think it's too early to jump in.

The college has only been in session like two weeks.

A week and two days.

Let them get settled. It's like getting acclimated and finding out

and to some of these businesses if you're having problems with people parking on there just call and see if we can help alleviate some of the problems so if we're tying just to the two-hour marker i would i would request that we work on getting that adjusted as soon as possible and to the collective what that looks like i would suggest a four-hour window i would do like what kim said though i mean work with downtown advisory board pass them you know let's

Let's come up with something, you know, other possibilities.

What works best for them, too?

We want to be there for, you know, for what's best for them and for residents and shoppers.

I was going to say, are we in agreement that the two-hour window really doesn't facilitate the process of being downtown, one for the students or the consumers?

This wasn't even on the radar before the School of Business came downtown. No.

Even though I think it's we've been we've been talking it was in the report and Kim just said it was in the report two years ago. I mean, it's it hasn't been like the fever pitch, but but you know, for like you said, the first two weeks of this is going to be well, but this is also I don't like driving up on South Rouse right now because the school's open because the kids are just at the college.

Do you have a window where you give warnings like the first three weeks, five weeks of school, one week, one week? Oh, my.

Well, I mean, honestly, people, human nature is they'll keep doing it as long as you let them keep doing it.

And give them warnings, not... We've really just done complaint-driven. If there's a business and they're like, this car's been out here for three days... you know we don't have to chalk the tire to reconcile that so that's just the direction i'm looking for is we're going to leave it at two hour for now we're going to leave the signs up but we're still not probably going to be enforcing much unless it's on complaint and we'll try to go with the dab or whoever and and circle it back up and say okay camera's not an option now what are options and those are probably going to be meters and manpower but But that's okay.

It's the cost of what it is. The students have a sticker in their wind trail just like they used to, right? Even the student downtown students.

Do you think? If they want to park in the Kells lot, they would have to. But if they're all the, for instance, if all their classes are downtown, or if they live downtown, they wouldn't necessarily have to have one, but if they want to park on any university property, they have to have it. It's included in their fees. Most of them will go ahead and get it anyway, so.

Well, wouldn't you think that if you had those and the police could go by and see where they are, they should be in a kelp slot or in a public parking lot, right? But the police...

On a KELS lot, that's PSU people.

But their argument is they can park on a city street just like anybody else.

So Brent, can I ask you a question? When you red tag a car, is that because it's inoperable? But if this business that Darren's talking about, if somebody's been parked in front of a business for an extended period of time, One, maybe the car doesn't run and the business owner doesn't know it, or what is a red tag?

Typically a red tag is something inoperable. Inoperable. A flat tire that's not able to run. That's typically a red tag. Commissioner Sigley, his direction back when he was mayor a ways back, we created a, what color is that, green? Neon green. Neon green. uh parking warning violation just a courtesy uh reminder please move your car if it's there the next day you're going to get a ticket basically so we we try not to um cite folks right off the bat it depends if you know it's the discretion of the officer but we'd like to give them an opportunity to get it moved on. Sure.

So would the green tag apply to the person he's talking, like the business that is concerned about the car being parked in front of their business for days and days and days? Would that green sticker?

That would be a standalone. We would log that document and have it towed probably the next day.

that's an anomaly i think we need to give them time to get acclimated to the downtown and just putting it out on social media designated parking spots and make sure you're parking and doing what you're supposed to i just uh what i mean just because the signs are there doesn't mean that they've been enforced in the past

I'm trying to acknowledge the work that you guys are doing.

Oh, yeah. Meters, they're very expensive. It's going to be well in the six figures, I think. I just did a quick search online for that for 200 spots. It's going to be considerable. I mean, how many spots do we have downtown?

I thought it was a hundred per block is what the study said, but didn't the meters say 1800? I was going to say that's a lot.

Okay.

Side street.

We didn't even look at going east and west. I mean, so back in the nineties, when I started building people still here, she was, she would chalk the tires. She'd write the citations. Everybody knew Billy and. they would move on they would respect her and they they take care of business and they typically have two hours if not they got a ticket but it was only like a $10 ticket so this day and age the Ninth Circuit is the one that created this dilemma that we're in back in 2019 so here we are today we can't shock tires any longer so what technology can we use is it going back to meters and that was Probably in the 80s they got rid of the meters, somewhere in there maybe. Early 90s, I'm not entirely sure. So is it meters? Is that the solution? I don't know.

Nobody liked the meters when they were here before. There's a reason why we got rid of them at some point.

Can you have just a sign with the QR code? I swear I've seen other... municipalities that have had that where you just scan the code.

It's a self-policing sort of thing. We'll get with Jay on that to use the technology side of things.

In the pouring rain, is somebody going to scan the code? No, they're going to go inside and get a ticket.

I know that a lot of municipalities use that program. It might melt within the state of Kansas, so it is viable. Again, I'd be cautious to generate or to put something down to be a revenue-generating program to penalize somebody.

From the police department perspective, our work isn't to generate revenue. That's not what we focus on. It's education and safety is basically what we focus on. City leaders may not want to hear that, but we don't focus on any revenue. We don't care about that.

I don't think anybody I mean, I don't think this commission's looking at this as a revenue generator. Sure. It's not. I mean, it's not it's not it's it's there's no way it could be. Feasible to, you know, even if even if the desire was there, it's it's. There's not that much money and I mean, I suppose it could be there's other things that are more important.

10 dollars over time.

Parking isn't worth all the money does is sir for a. A reason to get you to follow the rule. It's about enforcement.

It's consequences for parking where you're not supposed to.

There has to be something. We wouldn't have enough parking tickets to justify a full-time person. So just throw that out. That's not what's going on. It's just trying to literally enforce a rule we have, and maybe we need to re-look at the rule, and then definitely we need to look at our enforcement options again and see how important it is, because it may not be that important.

But overall, the same ordinances that are in effect, like, Trash cans being pulled back off the curb. That's not enforced. People leave them out there all the time. There's a lot of different ordinances that are not being enforced. But speeders, things like that, I get that.

Well, I mean, if your neighbor called and said that they leave their trash can out all week, we probably would enforce it. if the people downtown businesses are saying people are parked in front of my business for three and four or five days, that's why we're having this conversation because it's- Is there an ordinance that states that each business has so many parking spaces in front of their business?

No.

No, that's the thing, see? The downtown district doesn't have that. That's right.

And so the business owners got to understand that that is not their spots and it belongs to everybody.

I think most of them do. I think they understand that. But things are going to happen. Some bum is going to park there for four to six hours. If it becomes chronic, then call the police at the sixth hour.

Say the business owners count on those parking spots. They do. For the customers.

In a way, on the side, if somebody's spending an extra dollar because they spent five more minutes in your shop, it's worth their time.

And we want them to linger longer downtown, but not...

not days we appreciate the job of you sorry brian i don't think i don't think you still have an answer i don't think there is one right at this time we're going to leave the parking at two hours we're going to leave the signs up and we're going to continue to look at it and probably come back to you hopefully with some options but we have we've been all the way through it that's what this process is about so thanks for everybody's time today for coming in and

We are. Can we take a five-minute break? Yeah. Before we go on to the next one? We'll take a five-minute break. We'll be back. Thank you. Or do we have to vote on that? We do.

Well, I don't know. Okay. All right. You've got to stand up.

Do I have to wait for the red?

It's red. Go ahead and thank the gavel if you want to. It's red.

Okay. Item C, 2027 budget review and discuss the proposed 2027 budget.

Mayor, commissioners, last meeting we... made some recommendations, or you did, so I think we sent out working papers that changed the, basically all we really did was change the mill rate down to the recommended three and a half mills below the current mill and then reflected that in the fund balance which changed by roughly 246 000 and then the state has a the state has a box that they give us that says one point six six five percent delinquency rate so that number chases the other number but instead of trying to change The two numbers, so they equal exactly the amount. We just changed the bill rate and took what the other one was. So I think the difference was about $4,004 between the revenue that was coming off. But that's the changes that were made. That's where we sit today.

Is this the comparison sheet, adopted budget compared? Is this the sheet you were operating with in the last meeting, or is this a revised version? What sheet? The one that's got the revenue and expenses and the increases. Is that the same document I asked you for out of the last meeting, or is this a revised version?

No, this is, I think I added totals, maybe, and I sorted it by biggest to smallest. But this should be the exact same sheet.

What number page is that? This is the, it was just another paper sheet. Interesting.

What's it in this?

Yeah, the new. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, we included it with the advert one page.

Well, I've been going through this and then changes that have been made. And again, the mill levy dropped. You got it, doc? This isn't a budget, it's separate. It's a separate packet. I didn't get it on the packet.

Oh, this packet.

Yeah, it had the new working pages from the state. Okay.

I think I just saw it. Yeah, same thing.

and looking at the changes in the drop the value of the drop you know the intent was for this commission was to reduce spending to lower the mill levy and we did this in conjunction with utilizing some funds that were from intercourse and what is the amount of time I've spent in this second version I think we need to do this a set specific meeting just for the budget and definitely go section by section line by line not only for clarity but to evaluate the choices and the things that have been changed and make sure we're optimizing our abilities here I know this budget has been painstaking with the new system and I know that the printout that we're utilizing right now is For the average person to look at this, it's very convoluted. It's very confusing. And I want to alleviate... Are you talking about the detail? The detailed report.

That comes right out of this new system.

Right. So I think we need some level of a summarized version of the actual amounts, the solid state ending numbers by category, as well as the personnel information. But as far as the Commission digesting 80 plus pages of this budget. We need to spend more time in it. Getting to 3.5 was my suggestion at the last meeting to get us to a happy place where we can have real discussions about are we doing the right thing for our taxpayers and our property tax reduction initiative. Or are there more things that we can work on? Speaking with various people on this and these directions, hearing from Chrissy Bittner as well as Roger Lomchak, I think there's real value in doing more than where we're at right now. What would you suggest we do then? What I was just talking about, do a full meeting on this budget and look at There's many options that there are in spending reduction by department, not just an overlay of the entire city. Again, I think there's real value in going line by line.

We have to adopt it by September 8th.

What can we do the day, like the 7th?

The 7th is a federal holiday.

The 7th is a holiday. So the system doesn't have a summary report at this time. We have not went through the report writing, which eventually I'll be able to develop some reports, but right now we don't have a summary report. So what I would be doing is be doing some manual work, which I'm not afraid of, but that's what we got into trouble with last year was, um, making sure that this number tied to this number to tie to this number doing that again. And, um, what I wanted to go back to, I wanted to address, um, some of Christie's questions because it sounds like there's things wrong in this budget. And a budget is very much an estimate. So what we're doing is an estimate. So there's no perfect number. But what I want to make sure that you understand is the numbers we have, where she mentioned that we don't match the county's number, I want to make sure that you know that we do match the county's number. And when I say the bottom number, but I want to show you Let me grab the worksheet so you can see how we get to the evaluation. I'm going to go there first. Let me see if I can show this on here. So I have numbered these. I've got A, B, C, D. A, B, C, D, G, E, F. That bottom number, the 182.953 is the number that we're using for assessed valuation. So all those numbers factor into there. So the only thing that's not a county number is the manual adjustments to the tax base for CHIP. and for in process, and we set with the county, and we identify specifically what properties make that up, and I have the detail for that, that 104,000, okay, right here. Everything else comes straight out of the county sheet, and that's the calculation that we get to, okay? 182,953, which makes the bill 182,953. Then, when you get to the hearing notice, which is in the paper on Saturday. 2, 953. And I'm not going to go back and hash out last year's budget because we've been down that road several times before. But that number right there is exactly what the assessed valuation is and the calculation we made. Okay. So I just wanted to talk about that. Everything I wanted to talk about.

Did you say the final assessed valuation from November 1st of 25? No. No, I'm not talking about 25.

I'm talking about 27 under the proposed budget for 27. Okay. Right here. That's on the page. It'll be the last page of the state documents. Okay.

And this was from June of this year? From Lisa in June?

Yes. Yeah. Go back to that so you can see her sheet. This is her sheet right here. June 24th and 26th.

Okay. So you said 182.9 something? Yeah.

You're not going to see it on here because we have to use those numbers.

I got you.

These numbers, let me just kind of slide off here. The number here in A is 175-044-679. That's that number. The next number, B, is the personal property, 2386-393. Yes. The next one is C, which is estate assessed utilities. 9,571,598 severed minerals. 1796. Okay, then you come down to G, which is the neighborhood. Finalization 506, 506, 291. Then the tip and the red is don't lose Cheryl.

No, no, I'm following her because I'm looking at the 1 from Lisa. So that's okay. So.

E and F is there. So when you net all those out to each other, that's 182, 953, and 918. Because you have to total those, then you have to subtract out the NRV, and then you have to net out the second grid.

Okay, so the 182, 873. 528 on number 4. Uh, yeah, right there. That was last year. Okay. Okay.

We don't have access to do a summer sheet. Can we do a comparison within this actual packet? So. Drop the line item from what was in the previous version. And then what has been changed and just add a line. Do you have the ability to do that in the system?

Let me just I'll tell you what was changed. How do we anything?

And you're talking about the 1 we submitted originally to the 1 you just have. You want me to go through it? Let's see.

I've got I'm going to set this next to each other here.

Yes, I'm asking is, is the system available to do those types of changes? Can you add a line capture?

I would have to take it out and try to line it up with the other.

Our financial system won't capture verse. Like, we can't have a.

Budget version 1 and budget version 2, but I think there's a way to do it, but not after the fact. I mean, I think next year we can do it at different levels. But that's not what we were ready for that.

It changed 2 numbers.

Because I think there's like a level one that's like the, sorry about that, there's level one that can be like at the budget, at the budgeting, at the department level, then you can move it to the finance level, and then the next one would be at the commission level. But we didn't use it that way because we weren't quite ready to get the real training on that, and so, You're looking at the ad valorem tax, that's the number, that's the new number. It was 6-5, now it's 6-2. You see that there? Okay, that's it. Were there any other changes?

Do you think the difference was because the submitted was online and the revised is what we're looking at? Do you think that's the difference?

Or what?

The submitted is online on our website.

It's been updated.

Oh, it's been updated. What? When was it updated?

Didn't Stephanie what's different in it?

The submitted is online. But what's current, but they're revised page revised. It's what you're I mean, I'm looking at it.

I'm thinking this hasn't been posted online.

This 1 that was in our packet revised hasn't I didn't know.

So that might be 1 of the confusion ways.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's watermark web page. We're not going to update the website with what it goes on in here between the submitted budget and the adoption. Nobody would ever. Yeah, but she did print submitted revised. So you can keep the difference between pages and the only numbers that change where they add the long. I think that's the only well, that in the 1.65 takes off another 4004. Yeah. Yeah, so yeah, so when when, uh. The budget authority was reduced by 242,618, but the actual property tax levy was reduced by 246,622 because it takes an extra 1.65% off for delinquent taxes. Let me show you which was like 4,004 dollars. Yeah, let me show you that 1 is in the general fund military was reduced from 35.637 to 34.289. And the general fund cash reserves, which is what we used to offset it was reduced by 242,618 from 3,650,242 to 3,407,624. That's the only change that were made in the budget unless so.

If we haven't been the 1 before, it was like 4,000 and that little line, either the 1.7, it's like 4,004 dollars, but that's a state.

I mean, we'd be changing the numbers forever trying to get that to come out to the reduction.

Going from 2, 1, 2.15 to 3.5 holding. Only changed the overall reduction. Overall spending 248,000 dollars, but we're each meal is 183,000.

But you got evaluation. I mean, I got my bill last my estimate. It was 3.3%.

So the more I dig into the evaluation formula and the more communication I get on it, the mill levy was essentially designed to offset the valuation process not to increase and fall along with. It was constructed and believed to be the process of the mill levy could be lowered once there was appropriate amount of valuations and that funding was there. But what I'm seeing is a trend of spending that has been stair-stepping with the valuation process.

And so... Well, another way to look at that is, The mill levy in our situation in Pittsburgh, we've been very lucky that the valuation almost every year. Has covered the cost of living increases. I don't think. Traditional America sees a 4.5 to 6% cost of living increase every year. So. That's supposed to be reflected in the value of your home and so those 2 go, you keep the mill levy low, but no, your point. You know, that's that's why traditionally we haven't increased the middle of it. Now it gets tweaked a little bit and then last year we obviously. You saw what Missy had to go through to calculate what the valuation is. That's where the thing got crossed up last year.

That's where my concern is at now, is if Roger's calculations are correct, and I've looked at these things a thousand times, and I believe them to be very close, if not exact, that over last year's budget chaos, we did go almost three times what the taxpayers were told. their taxes would increase. So we went almost to nine from a projected three. So the 3.15 that we've now gotten to, you know, we've kind of pulled from the reserves essentially to accommodate, which I think that's a viable source for some of this. But we're still not replacing.

So last year it goes back to the fact that the assessed valuation was incorrect to start with. Isn't that right?

Yeah, you're confusing mills with percents. I'm not we did not increase them the mill by nine mills last year no I'm not saying that I'm saying that the it went up nine percent it went up nine percent and remember the budget that the commission adopts this is the tricky part that nobody gets the budget that you would that we adopt that we put before you talks about a dollar amount that we need to do the budget that number never changed The misnomer was that the mills that it took to get to that dollar is what changed, but the idea that, and that was where the two Oh seven came from, but the dollar, the budget was submitted and accepted. the dollar amount that we planned on having we just didn't understand that um the change was going to happen when you did the uh when you took that i don't know if it was in our view or what it was we missed last year but the steps you've taken this year to alleviate that or meeting with leaks and meeting with the county meeting with the school district meeting with you we've added new new motion to the process and it's been helpful but like i said we're still we're still not at the place where

we're making it right with the community for what they were over tax last year, essentially not over tax, but projected the increase that they weren't expecting.

And how's that?

Well, I mean, we're not, we're not reducing spending to cover the amount of money that was projected. I mean, there was extra money in the accounts. To be spent, and it was spent in the county do this as well. I've sat down with the county.

Our money was spent.

Was it? Yeah, we were 207,000 dollars more. Um, that money is in was in reserves. It was never spent. Um, and that and the tax, I think the sheet I gave you showed. The 3 and a half mills is considerably more than 207,000 dollars.

It's even more than twice of the county DJ, because the county did spend theirs. They committed to it with their. with their budget increases. We didn't.

In a sense, if we didn't plan to reduce spending to accommodate that overall change, then we did in a way. I mean, it's not apples to apples, but yes, we...

But aren't we supposed to be finding ways or finding money in the budget? I mean, we talked about Eagle Pitcher, $2.5 million. We talked about the gig of franchise money, which looks to be around $120,000. Or like the 39 properties that are... have in the city of Pittsburgh that are delinquent or need county tax sales, that's about $132,000. Right there, if you add those three together, that's quite a bit of money that could possibly offset some of this stuff that we're talking about. So we're trying to find ways to offset it. And that would not have to cut into employees or services or, you know, but The long-term thing is what happens when the money is gone, we're taking that into account. Pay me now, then you're going to pay later, but it is going to solve the problem because I don't think anybody's ever looked at things like we are right now. And yeah, and it's, we're not delaying it because next year we'll still be doing the same stuff and looking for. Ways to cut the fat, so to speak. And at best, it's, it's going to be a long term solution for a long term issue. Because as long as we're elected, we're in it for the duration. And no disrespect to you, but I mean, whenever people say for things, whenever you look for things, And why? I mean, just like the two and a half million. What did he say? A million one is what he was asking or, um, you know, employees are only going to get a 3% cost of living raise, but inflation is 4%. So they're in the hole and we're going to take away their, make their deductible on the health insurance higher and, and make their, um, Uh, copays higher and the taxpayers are paying 15% more on their side. If everything is continue to be in the whole. So. I think it's our duty to find money where we can.

Well, we gave you a line item budget.

Yeah, now have it, but we have that in front of us, but I think that the next step in this is that we need to. Go line by line, like I suggested, we need to go through with each department and look at. Options departments need to come up with options at the ground level of ways to reduce spending I don't want this to be a one-year thing I want this to be a process that lasts for several years and gives our taxpayers some relief for several years Pulling money out of the reserves isn't an answer. You know, you've said that yourself in your article It's an option for now. It's not long-term so It is something we can do now to assist with this, but we need to start looking at property taxes as a focus. Like, you know, I spoke about this week. Make it a focus and start looking at viable options for the long term. This is a national issue. It's not just a Pittsburgh issue, but.

Again, this room, I think to you mentioned some of the things that we've done different this year in our budget process. And 1 thing was. We did sit down with all of the department managers and we went through their. budget line item by line item and talk through What they thought they could do with or without.

So so did you get because the commission hasn't seen suggestions towards reduction? These these categorical pitches here are are here, but we didn't see anything from each department where they suggested we could reduce doing this so many times or put this off for a year or a rotational window. We haven't seen anything like I haven't.

It's lumped together the 895620 utility communication, operating supplies, professional services, travel and training, facilities maintenance, contract services, uniforms, and equipment maintenance. There's no breakdown from there, and I don't want employees thinking. Well, you can't have boots this year. You can't have pants this year, but you need it to do your job or you. I just, but that's what you're at, but that's what we're at. Here's what we're down further. We need to be able to see what it is because. The commissioners are the ones that are taken away from. I do not like that.

I've talked to DJ. I've talked. I mean, you're the 1 Cheryl to last minute. So we want to all have a meeting together. We had every, we had almost every department head in here last meeting with our books, with, with you having a line item budget in front of you. And w all we did was say, let's tweak the revenue. If you, if you want to go through the budget, they're prepared to go through the budget. We're prepared to go through the budget line item. Um, that's what you keep saying, but we're running out of time to do it. That the thing that you're going to need to learn is this isn't McDonald's we cannot cut the number of people in the service line at the fryer station and save money We have a bunch of people, and we tried to do it earlier this year, and we put in a new system. It was like, what if we could literally just list every service that we do, whatever it is, whether it's one that's budgeted or whether it's one that somebody calls and says, look, I need you to go cut this tree down right now, whatever it is, and say, wouldn't it be nice to have a menu of all the city services all costed out perfectly, and you commissioners and the city's executive team and whoever could go through it and just say, we don't want to do that this year. we don't want to do that this year that is not how the city works the city has 300 people that have as much money as we give them and they do everything that they're asked that's planned or unplanned for the whole year so every time you say we want to hear from the departments about what they would cut They look at me like, when am I getting the 3 more people I need to do what I'm supposed to be doing? Because I'm not even doing that. And that's why you see a budget in front of you that went through and did everything that we could with a new system and a new finance director to make sure that it was accurate. And then went back and said, we need another 900,000 dollars and it has to come out of the general fund. And unless you say, we're going to close a fire station, or we're going to quit doing parks maintenance, which there's 6 parks maintenance people, or we're going to stop doing finance, or we're going to stop doing 1. It's not, it doesn't, it doesn't specify down like that. It's not a program and an activity tied to a cost. It's. Fred and Sarah getting up every day, coming to the city, getting in their vehicle with whatever tools we've given them and going out and trying to maintain the parks and trying to maintain if it was as easy as just coming up with a menu, we would have given you that. That's not how the city is set up. The city is a ton of services. That aren't we don't have 1. I always come back. We don't have 1 crack ceiling crew. We have. 8 street people, which is down to 4 or 5 right now, and they do every single thing that needs to be done with streets that year that they can do. And there's a 1Million things they don't do. So we completely understand you want to cut the budget. You want to cut the revenues on the property tax side and reduce it. But we don't. We can't just hand you here's 182,000 dollars of the services take those. Let's don't do those next year. We did that where we could with the trees with all the pit 150 celebrations that we're in this year aren't going to do. But that's why we just gave the line item budget and said, here, if you take the budget and you go down to what the property tax funds. That's going to be in the general fund, and it's going to be outside of police and economic development and fire. And it's going to be mainly administration and parks. and it's not a very big list there's 9.1 million and now there's eight point how much property taxes in this revised one 8.6 or 8.7 after the last cuts i mean it's just it's hard to do what you want done we know you want it and maybe we can get there but it's going to take some time literally trying to do a cost accounting of What did Matt's third employee do last month? And those seven things being rolled up to some cost center and trying to tell you, well, that's how much that program is. We don't budget like that.

First of all, we need to make clear that this commission is not trying to punish anybody or make anybody feel like that they're doing the wrong thing. We're just trying to work together with the staff to get to some common ground.

I'm just telling you, I can't give you I can't give you that. I can't I can't tell you. Stop doing X and it saves you this. I can retreat from removal, but I can't do it with what an employee does.

I have a hard time with the. The, I can't when property tax is the biggest concern to our community right now. I mean, I. We just gotta we have to find a way to make this work. There's gotta be some type of balance between what's being spent how it's being spent when it's being spent. And it's relation to the property tax level that we're at. We're very high people are leaving the city of Pittsburgh because it's so high. How does that help us generate more taxes?

You have property tax and you have sales tax and then you have the miscellaneous fees that are municipal court and parks fees and things like that in the general fund. And I've said it again. unless you want unless you can find a way to replace that revenue the property taxes supports the services uh... it's it's basically people the stuff they do uh... it there's i realized why do i need to keep saying that i and we do listen to you but we've been through the budget and you know a lot of the stuff doesn't help because we talked about last time vehicles there's no vehicles being paid for the property tax uh... so i'm just telling you we We gave you a line item budget for that reason. It gives you history of the last three years. We've tried to reduce it as much as we can, but without a new revenue source, the city of Pittsburgh doesn't have a lot. I know it feels like the city of Pittsburgh has a lot of money because there's a lot of stuff going on, um we do a lot because our people just crank it out for nine hours a day and and sometimes 10 and on the weekends but it's i i don't i don't i mean you can keep cutting the mill and taking it out of reserves but we're at a mercy of the revenue streams we have and we have property tax and sales tax in the general fund well we use what would you say the uh eagle pitcher and the data center

to help this year absolutely get down to three and a half so and maybe we can do it again next year i mean you didn't deplete the eagle pitcher money but okay that's what i'm saying we need to concentrate on trying i don't know the answer you think it's this day of that three and a half that we reduced i don't want within a year or two years that we have to go raise the mill levy once we lowered it so like dj and cheryl was talking somehow we have to work with staff and and come up with a way where we can stay where we've reduced because we haven't reduced the mill levy for how long and people are needing property tax relief i understand everything costs the city more but everything costs everybody more unfortunately and uh So we as commission, we have to balance that with what the people want and what they can afford. And I think we're on the right path. You know, this is something that we need to continue on. And I don't know about the special meeting, if you still want that.

I think there's value to it, just sitting down and have everybody that's involved in this budget sit down and go over this.

So is September the 8th The deadline, or is it October 1st? You're you have to have a hearing of public hearing. I'm not looking right at it, but what we have 2 meetings 8th and what the 22nd in September and October 1st is the deadline for the state or the county.

I've got that on document, but I don't know if I had it with I just wondered because it'd be nice to hear from the county what the county's deadline is because I know we don't want to misspeak.

Because as long as we have the public hearing before the deadline, whether it be at the county or the state.

As long as we can publish the hearing date, the notice before. How many days is it?

That's the thing. Does it have to be 30?

We have to do the hearing date. 10 working days? 10 days. 10 working days.

So once you finalize the budget. 10 working days from the 1st of October backwards?

Before the hearing, we have to do 10-day notice in the paper.

think it's september 8th i mean we adopt the budget september 8th and then it's sent on september 9th to the county clerk but the 22nd of september could be the public hearing and you back how many 10 days off of that we could go one meeting after that couldn't we we'd still be in compliance man i'm not that is a county And it's worth communication with the county to verify, I guess. A lot of times, there's money out there you don't think about every day. And all of a sudden, like I said, Eagle Pitcher, the Giga franchise. We find money for other things. And no disrespect to Pitt State, but we found money for the Gorilla Rising project, for the Plaster Center, the track. We find money when It's this is that's money that I think was used out of reserves because you can, you know, when we, oh, no, because we did the casino money revenues, which was in the reserve. I know, but I mean, it's still casino money and never do the call. And so, like I said. I just think we need to.

To see what we can come up with. Well, everything you're talking about is on the revenue side. And there's, yeah, I mean, that's the beauty of like the Eagle Pitcher deal. I mean, for many year, we don't know, you know, maybe we'll get some one-time revenue, who knows. But I think what you're talking about overall is a structural balance on the expense side. And that's why I'm like, yeah, we have, we purposely gave you a line item budget and are here to answer your questions if you want to go through it. I mean, that's, staff's ready to do that.

And you're like, the data center, we knew back in the fall what was happening with it. And then the last meeting, it's like nobody knew anything about how much revenue was coming in. But then it appears in the packet here, 120,000. But nobody knew anything two weeks ago about that.

So it was there, so I said, yeah, we told you it was 120,000. we said, we don't know what it's going to be, but there's 120,000 of the budget for it.

Okay. I specifically asked the last meeting on. I didn't think I didn't take it that way.

We can't specifically say that the increase is due to that, but. There is an increase that looks like it equivalates to that.

Yeah, we went through every revenue and every expense by line and have notes on why we put the number that we put in there. If we need to go through that with you, we were prepared to do it last week. We are here to do that. Just, I mean, it would be nice to have some reports where it rolled up, but to Missy's point, it's kind of irrelevant because what we need to do is get into the minutia. We need to get into the line items and say, well, I don't think, I mean, you take 2,400 line items and cut...

$500 out of the ones you want and you can get some real numbers and that's what we ended up doing on our side was Well, like we didn't decrease the food pantry of the code blue security cause we just the opioid things offset it So, you know when you're looking down through there, you know tree removal was a hundred thousand, but that was wrong so it's not that and I just It's not a hundred thousand. Well, I thought you said it wasn't I

it's in two different no that's the damn no you're talking about and then you ended up adding signs in with the the tree the letter said 150 but it was tree removal and signs right but yes tree removal is was a hundred thousand and it's not in for next year but that's once again that's a i mean we don't ever have to do tree removal but we have to clean the streets and we have to rebuild the broken curb and we have to fix the trees when they fall over in the park

I think the overall process and the concept of what we're looking at right now is we need to focus on property tax reform at our level. We need to make it a focus just as much as we make streets a focus, just as much as we make public safety a focus. If we start doing that moving forward, we're going to be able to come up together with options and ways to support this community and not out-tax them. We're not going to accomplish that in this meeting. So I think the special meeting, focusing just on the budget, brainstorming to make sure that there are other options, there are other things. I mean, I'm not even against dipping into the reserves for a few years to give relief to the taxpayers. It's not unheard of and it's not ugly, but it's not long term. It doesn't solve the problem. The spending is how we solve the problem at our level.

Getting back on that data center we have now, the 10 megawatts, it was projected we'd get $20,000 a month franchise fee from the data center and rebate 50% of that so they'd get $20,000 also back, the data center for the year. And then there's $26,000 a month in sales tax revenue projected. in about a about five hundred fifty two thousand in one year in the two identified revenue streams or roughly two point seven six million over five years assuming if the projections materialize so we do have a revenue stream if it works out yeah absolutely I mean we put a hundred and twenty

And I think that what you just said, I mean, you've got, but I mean, I said at last meeting, when we could write in, we just don't know. It's still the first year. I hope it comes in at 400,000, you know, and, but within that, and it's not programmed. So that really helps us, but I don't know. But we're keeping track monthly, right?

Yeah, even though you're projecting I have an analysis. Yeah. Yeah.

Some of it's in the franchise. Some of it's in the sales tax, but yes, we're, we're tracking what we can. So we just don't know.

So, moving forward, I would submit that we. Again, focus on this, so new revenue streams that become available to the city. We channel them as long as they're stabilized. Towards this initiative towards this effort and. Maybe not 100% of them, but portions of and make it a priority. So the budget calendar that we got earlier in the year is showing September 9th as the adopted budget date to be sent to the county clerk.

Yeah, you adopt them on the 8th and it gets sent to them on the 9th. And they publish it.

But what is October 1st? I know I've read October 1st somewhere. I don't know.

It's not in our calendar. That may be the date the state returns.

Every year I've been here, we've wrapped up the budget the first month of September.

That's why I wondered if that September... If we don't submit our budget by October 1st to the county... They revert back to whatever we did this year. Yeah, but will you say that one more time? If we don't submit a budget formally to this county, it submits back to what the previous year or the current year was.

Right, but you said by the 1st of October. 1st of October. So the September 9th is what's listed here to the county clerk, but she said 10 days notification in the paper for a public hearing.

So we'd have to... That's that's the 22nd for the hearing. We have to back it up 10 days.

So, the 22nd of September is the 2nd meeting we have.

In September, which doesn't give you the 10 days.

No, but I met if you, which is why we set it for the, but if you backed it up and you had the notification in the paper for the 22nd as being the meeting is.

No, I'm just saying the reason that date was set was because we set it in January. And we were like, here's when the commission meetings are going to be. This one's too late to get it to the county, so we must adopt it. So as long as we hit the finish line in compliance, what, I mean, couldn't we make... Can we just ask the county, what is the, just give us the, if we had a special meeting, what's the last special meeting? Assuming we had a special meeting and it ended with us saying, we are going to finalize the budget and send it to the county tonight. What would that day be and have them tell us instead of trying to figure it out?

I know when I was at college, they, they built in just a little bit extra time in case the budget didn't pass. We could still go back and. And go take it back the next time she needs it to 1st. I mean, theoretically, that's the time for it to get to 21st.

I mean, we'll find out. I mean, we'll let you know tomorrow.

The whole thing is, we're not looking for a short term. compliance savings against the long term impact. We don't want to have this problem at the end of the year where we're asking you for money. we need to continuously be thinking about. I mean, that's usually what every business does. So they're looking at those options. I just, so when would we have, I mean, would we have to determine a meeting tonight?

And that everyone could be present? But I mean, if we look at moving the September 22nd meeting.

To the hearing?

As the hearing? Yeah, we still have.

Or would you want to check with Lisa Lusker tomorrow and see? And then we could go from there. And as long as we stay in compliance and we're doing everything that needs to be by that October 1st date that Jay talked about.

In order to make this make sense other than dipping deeper into the reserves, the hearing itself would be driven towards, the special media would be driven towards trying to find additional things outside of the scope of what we're looking at right now. as possibilities not definites but possibilities from each department other ways to reduce additional spending so what is that uh this has been asked a couple times what does that number look like now we're at 3.5 on the mill itself we're at 248 uh in reduction of additional spending what numbers do we want to look at to give back to the staff as we would like to see

To get back to the step now, we, when we got to the fuel line, because fuels went up so much. We had when we worked with the department heads, we up that by, do you remember what the percentage was? We upped it originally we have to buy 50%, but then we dropped it back and took it back away from them. So we, I mean, we already may be short on things like that that we already took away from them. So.

I guess that's why we were talking about the take-home, I know for me it was, take-home cars and the fuel usage and, you know, you try to figure out ways to cut expenses, so.

Well, what mill rate are you looking at?

Because I asked you that last meeting. You said, what's your number? And you said 3.5.

3.5 is where I was comfortable not being below. But I think, like I said, but now you're saying you want it down lower than that. Yes. I just don't know. They've got to have a projection. You've got to be fair to staff.

I think the process is we submit a budget, and we submitted a budget, and we took some serious... hacks out of it going forward the process as it's supposed to work is now it's your budget we will sit here with you and we will answer all your questions and we will try to give you all the information but the staff isn't comfortable coming back and saying well here's two more mills because we didn't get we we're already two mills above where we said we were comfortable cutting because the last two meals came off with the revenue change so

If you're looking for a recommendation on revenues, we can go back.

I mean, like I said, we can write up revenues, whatever you want. But if you want to go through, I mean, I think what I hear you saying is you want to sit down with staff and have a conversation about what business they're doing and where they think they can get rid of, you know, stop doing stuff. But that's a lot different than just saying, well, come back in a special meeting and tell us where you cut another million out. Because you can see the last million we cut out was across the board, and it doesn't sound like you were very happy with it.

If you took those three revenues, the Giga, the Eagle Pitcher, and say the property tax thing, I got this number from Tammy. That's a lot.

Yeah, that's a lot of money. It is so eagle pitcher. We recognize the revenue in 2026. So it is not a revenue line for 2027. It would be reserves at that point. So you've got revenue and expenses and then you got reserved. Okay, so because we're going to receive the money in 2026 that it becomes revenue in 2026, but we don't spend it in 2026. Now it's in reserves. So that's what we were talking about using. for 2027 was the reserves attributed to that.

Okay, but we can't earmark it as such? We can't.

No, we didn't. We have to treat it as a scheduled. Dedicated revenue that we were projecting, but now it's not in that form. It's now in the reserves because it was paid out early.

But when you're talking about the, the others, yes, because we'll also be receiving those revenues. In 27, so we can't use 26 revenues.

So, are those other revenues going to be in the general fund? Like, you're talking.

Are they going into the general the giga and say, like, if if we became general fund or revenues come and we can use they're in the general fund.

So I guess I'm just saying those three together look like an awful lot of money. Why can't we use them to lower the tax that

they're talking about, and not cut some of these services that are like... We just need to keep, again, that's the argument between revenue-based or reserve-based. The giga revenue is consistent and unprogrammed. We're going to keep receiving that. And it could go up. Eagle Pitcher's money has a cap on it. It has a date on it, a time stamp. So it would be smart to program that out and stretch it out for property tax reduction and reform. on the schedule that it was supposed to come in. It's not the full amount and it was 500K short. But we could still ideally go almost six years using that revenue just dedicated towards keeping our property tax low.

What would be wrong with leaving the 3.5 now and then next year re-evaluating and perhaps we'll have another two or three points we can drop it next year?

Then you would have some kind of a historical part on what the data center really is earning, too, because we don't have that yet. We don't have the historical. I mean, we can look at what the first six months has been increased, but because we earned, I mean, when I looked at it, it looked like we had more income in the last half of the year than the first half of the year. Sorry, I'm not making very clear. And so it's hard to project until you have some kind of historical relevance to look at.

So that revenue source aside, to answer what Commissioner's talking about, I think the, I hate the phrase, the bang for the buck is the taxpayers. What are they seeing in a reduction in their taxes if we push this budget as it sits today? What real relief are they getting?

None.

Not very much. So how much more would they get with another two?

Well, you've got to remember, though, we're one of three. We're one of three entities, sir. So the school and the county.

So does that mean if the county and the school cancels us out, if we're going to this extent to try to make it for the... But at least we're trying. That's the thing. Are they trying, or are they just looking at it as they have less students? Or the county... They don't have the the reserve that we do so they're looking at is they can't go any further.

I mean, I have a separate entity and they're going to do with.

So, it takes all 3 doing the same thing in order to make an impact.

I don't want to throw shade at the other 2 entities. They have their own budget process and they have their wants and needs and have to. But yeah, every time people talk about property tax, it's like the evil city of Pittsburgh is the only person responsible for high property taxes. We're one-third, basically, of that equation. But yet, we always seem to be, in any conversation, the city's taxes are too high. In all reality, it's all three of us that are contributing to that. We're doing our part. That's all we can do. I don't know that we can move the needle enough by just being a third of that equation by what we reduced. We have reduced our mill levy for 3.5 mills on this submitted budget right now. I know it doesn't seem substantial to each individual taxpayer, but it's a start. I don't know what else to do.

Let's be trailblazers and let's lead by example.

But let's use the tools that we have in an intelligent way because the property tax, as you guys all know, isn't paid evenly. You pay it on how much property you have. You're trying to give a benefit to people that in reality is taking a bigger benefit to people that aren't necessarily in need of the cut. And they are funding a lot of the services that we are reducing that help everybody equally. So the more you try to cut for property tax relief, the more you're creating an imbalance. The one true beauty of the property tax system is that if I have a million dollar piece of property, I'm paying 10 times into the pot than somebody that has 100, and I'm not getting 10 times the service. The person that's getting 100 is getting more. The whole concept, I don't want to sit here and preach about property taxes. I don't like it either, but I'm telling you, taking three and a half mils out of a 50 mil property tax is a lot to do in one year knowing that it's currently august and this budget isn't going to be done being spent on until a year from december so we're already taking some huge steps on we want to give we want to help we want to help yeah we want to help but we are one third of the problem and and we're we're helping you know we're helping we're helping the people with a million dollar piece of property save 10 times the money that somebody that we're trying to help that may not even own any property. And those, those all are turned in to services. And the reason I think you all understand that is because we keep coming back to what can we do on the revenue side? Because we start cutting services that are already propped up with sales taxes. Cause we don't do enough of that. And people are going to start looking at us like, what are you doing? I didn't ask for property tax relief. And all of a sudden the money I have is watering down a service that we need. So, You've got to understand the balance of the two. We've done a healthy cut.

There is a need for this, and that's the argument. We don't want to cut services. We don't want to reduce the quality of life in the city of Pittsburgh. We want to reduce spending as most efficiently as we can. and still continue to provide the services and the quality of life within the city of pittsburgh i don't know how many times i've heard more than 50 that the other entities wait for us to make decisions it was that way you know years ago so let's make good decisions here and again like i previously stated let's let's lead by example let's show them it can be done and that we're spending enough time and doing it accurately that it's effective and then hopefully the county and the school board, they can do something very similar.

A 7% reduction in the mill rate will be a pretty heavy message to the other entities. I don't know that any of them are going to be I think the school district's probably going up, and the county, what they thought they cut out is going to have to get drilled right into their benefits. So let's, I mean, let's lead, but let's not run ourselves off a cliff.

I agree that too much too fast is not a good program. It's not functional. But I don't know. I don't think.

We can run lean and mean.

We could.

So again, I'll say. There's will there's a way.

let's do this now the way it is and then next year we'll have a little bit more knowledge a little bit more experience and we'll work on it again i i would suggest if we're going to play with is it revenue is it reserve that we move we do stew's recommendation too that we move the needle and tap reserves to let's go to 4.5 with the assistance of the reserves to balance it for this year. And then we'll have more data for the following year to look at, have the ability to scrutinize what's been done this year. Cause this is the first year this has been done like this. This is a new process for all of us.

Um, so when you say move the needle from 3.5 to 4.5, how much money are you talking about?

So it's one mill. So it'd be 184,000 additional from the reserves for this year. I don't like that idea at all. That's not,

That's not much. That's an $819,000 cut to the general fund if you go to four and a half mils. But that's by using reserves.

Essentially, it's half reserves and half projected money.

We cut $2.1 million out of expenses this year. On this budget, on this, the budget isn't funny. I mean, I know we keep talking, we keep talking about revenues. We need to cut, we need to be lean and mean let's increase our revenues. The way you stay lean and mean is to cut expenses, and that's what we did. We cut expenses by over $2 million, unless I'm misspoken.

Last year, we increased property taxes for everyone. And this year, we need to make that right. That's the other side of this. The benefit of it happened last year, and people were affected by it. But again, I don't think we're doing enough to make it right, as we promised the people of this community.

But you just said we cut $2 million and we benefited $207,000.

You had a $207,000 revenue problem and your four and a half mills will be $819,000 of property tax relief. That's four times.

It's needed property tax relief.

I'd like to get the property tax to zero, DJ, but there's a lot of services in this community that a lot of people are counting on that we give. And I think we're the... in general not the school district has their role we know what they spend their money on the county's doing the whole county the lion's share of services that are provided in this community come from this body and taking another i mean that's mean you guys are the commissioners i'm just telling you i think it's i think three and a half mils is a gigantic step i think it was nice that we had us have some one-time revenue to take the the fear out of what that's really going to mean and we don't really have to risk that much but i think it's i think too that you got a pretty deep cut what next year's going to bring i mean if you took

you reduce the mills this year and if things aren't looking the way we want them to look the next year you got to bump it back up not you're not going to want to do that if you go down no that's not that's not going to happen what if what if appraised values go down for some reason all of a sudden and then you're you know i mean we don't know what the economy is going to do we can what if this to death but if you don't you don't look for that's part of it dj you have to what if the future to to know what

What if both sides I mean you can't just what if one last year when we made a mistake I kept hearing we got to capture the growth and I guess we did But now we're just asking to let's help reduce Cost of taxpayers well last year the message was we over we have two hundred and seven thousand more a problem that we've got to fix and

Four and a half mills is $819,000. So my question is, and on top of that, we cut well over a million, I don't know if it's two million, whatever, out of the budget. So I'm just trying to tell you, we're trying. We are definitely trying, but I don't think... I mean, last week it was whatever we can do to get the last meeting was whatever we can do to get three and a half mils. Now this meeting, it's four and a half mils. And then is it going to be, I mean, we want to help you get there, but the staffs, you know, they're not all in here because they don't have anything to do. They're kind of freaking out because they're the ones that have to live with the budget we're giving them. So they're very interested in it, as I know the taxpayers are too. But I've heard a couple of things today. I heard we're going to be leaders to the other two entities that tax property taxes. So I think a 3.5 mill reduction off of a 50 mills is about 6%, 7% mill reduction. That's a pretty strong statement as a leader to say, well, we're willing to reduce it in a city that has never reduced the mill. that I know of.

And that's the point. It hasn't been reduced or anything substantial to give some relief to our taxpayers.

The cost of services have gone up, too.

I mean, incredibly. This is one of those years. This isn't last year. The services are going up still today. I mean, gas is $4. And so we don't want to start telling people no, either, and saying, well, we didn't do it. And I do think we need to give some consideration to who pays what lion's share of the property tax. there's a lot of property tax that comes in from a lot of people that don't mind paying it. And it helps a lot of people that don't have any property or can't afford it. So given some relief is great, but, Just saying we're gonna use reserves and that's when I got here there were no reserves Chuck reminded me that all the time. It's like You know you can say we can what if it's a death, but if you're watching the markets and things everybody's screaming housing's not strong You know it doesn't take much to drop valuations and we drop 10 million in one year from 127 million to 117 million the year before I got here and And it was real, and it happened. And it took us six years to catch up. I don't know, Chuck. We were in here every year, it seemed like, trying to wonder how much we could do. But we've had new revenues. We've got some great opportunities this year. But I think that Eagle Pitcher money should serve as a beacon and a way to do something with some safety behind it that it's not going to just put us in a position where service delivery is at risk.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSON I remember one year, we needed to raise the mill five mills. Remember that year? But we didn't. No, we didn't. But we did the other commissioners at the time. We reduced the mill not to five, to three. And I talked to people, said, hey, we got to raise the mill, not five. We're going to raise it three. And you know what we told them was we're going to do that one year, and then we're going to go back where we were. That three mils never came on. And I feel bad because I told people that's going to happen. But we still had the same issue. Well, you know, you're going to have to cut services if we raised it, you know, lowered it back three mils. But we promised people it was only going to be on for a year, and it stayed on. I don't remember that coming off, but that's okay.

No, it didn't come off. I don't remember it was for one year.

Yeah.

I remember that we raised it.

That's what it was sold to us as. You reduce it for one year, and then it would go back, because I still remember that.

Why didn't it go back?

I don't remember it that way. I had a commissioner at the time tell him, saying that we can't. We can't let it go back because service will suffer. And I worked on the fire department when minimum staffing was nine men. And, you know, they because we had people on vacation or sick or holidays, we had to pay overtime for nine men. So the thoughts were that to get away from the overtime, minimum staffing would be eight men. And eight men put everyone in the city at risk, as well as the firefighters. So when the commissioner told me that services would suffer, I asked the fire chief at the time, operating with eight men instead of nine men, has services suffered? No, it hasn't because those eight men did the job of nine men because they're not going to let their fellow firefighter be in danger or the citizens. So, you know, when you throw out services going to suffer, that's just, you know. Well, it will or not, it didn't on fire department because I worked there with eight men and that was below the minimum staffing just because we had to try to cut overtime. So we went to eight instead of nine. I don't know what staffing is now, but services doesn't suffer when you work on the fire department or police department or any department. People will pick up. We've got a lot of good employees. They're out there working their butts off every day that most of the time, people are going to complain about something that they're not doing and they're all working hard, but services don't suffer. Uh, you, you do what you have to do and thank God we got good employees that pick up slack.

So then on, where do we go from here?

I don't know. We talked about a meeting. Is that meeting? It's still something we need to do. Well, I don't know when we can do it because I'm leaving tomorrow for Florida and I won't be back until the 6th. So I can't be at a meeting.

Let's let Missy contact county and validate the no doubt date that's got to be submitted to them and then we can backwards plan around that. I don't want you to not be here for that type of meeting. It's important the mayor's here for that. and it sounds like we have time we can if we need to move the September 22nd meeting we can do that so we can move adjust that one around it and do the special meeting we just to make sure we have time like I said I this the impact of changing People's concept of whether or not we're doing enough we're doing the right things to help them with their property taxes I don't want there to be any Confusion I want them to know that we're doing every possible thing we can to help them with this and I understand then your argument about the high side of property and who owns what they get a bigger Change than the you know the people that are close to poverty or in smaller homes, but This commission told the community we were going to do everything we possibly could and I think we're 3-5 is very close, but I think we're not there yet. So, I don't know. I'd like to see, you know, I did this in the military for a lot of years and we got budgets, we spent six months on them. And things change. Things cost more, things cost less. Things got shut down. We didn't do them because of the changes in the funding that came from the federal side. The state of Kansas, we didn't drill, we didn't muster for months at a time because there was no funding for personnel. I don't want any of our personnel affected by us trying to do better by the people, but we also have to look at We've got to find a common ground here that makes sense. It needs to be impactful to where they see relief and they know we're doing it and doing everything we possibly can. So that's what we're all here. So, um, I guess time is, is now a larger factor than it was before entering the end of August. So let's get the information from the county on the, the no doubt date. that we have to have this submitted, and then we'll back-road plan a special meeting just for the budget with department heads. And with that meeting, I'd like to hear from the department heads on any possible additional anything beyond the meetings that you guys had already from here forward to look at something. There's got to be more than what we're looking at. don't know i know it's a big jump for one year but the people deserve this and we've got to try hard so i know everybody's been trying hard but we've just got to keep pushing and again this is not this is not attack on any department any any single person any we just it's time to do this you know property taxes have been too high we have the ability to affect that we can't affect the valuation side of it but we can affect this side of it we need to continue to work towards that and again additional revenue sources that come into the city and become viable let's let's look at those as a way to use the mill levy as it was designed to help lower property taxes for people as you know as things happen so we're going to find out from the county about a meeting hopefully sometime we'll find out from the county what this absolute last day we can

Take action as a governing body and and approve a budget that we want to submit to meet their deadline We have a couple of

Good evening. So later this week, I'll kick out some press releases, but two things. One, beginning on Thursday morning, we will be reducing the traffic lanes to two lanes on Broadway between 6th and 7th. as the contractor is ready to start on replacing the trusses at 616 North Broadway. So it will reduce down, we'll shift the northbound lane into the southbound to two-way traffic and we'll lose a lot of the parking stalls until we can get that done. Hopefully that will be done in approximately two weeks, weather dependent on how that goes and wind and all that kind of good stuff. So that's one. Number two, beginning on Sunday at 7 p.m., the Emory SAP will begin the mill and overlay project on our part of the C-clip, which would be from the city limits back to the concrete section of atkinson um and then they will jump down to uh 20th going back to fourth between that section and so that should take um again weather dependent um that should be in and out in about two weeks so um and we'll kick out some press releases but it's a good time to kind of that that All kind of transparent transpired in the last 24 hours, 20th back to 4th on Broadway on US 69. that's our city connecting link with K dot.

So are we redirecting traffic off of that area?

We're going to 1 lane or I'm sorry the job that. Us 69, they will be working at night. They will be working through through the evening hours pilot cars. Yep. Yep. They'll have flaggers and all the good stuff. So that's my two.

Thanks, Matt. I think that's one more. I thought you had something about a crane.

That was the 616 North Broadway to go into two lanes on Broadway. So that crane can sit in that third lane and reach over.

Move to adjourn.

Second. Moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same.