City Commission - Regular Meeting

you you you

I call this September 8, 2026, City of Pittsburgh 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, Dr. Sigley, who will be joining the meeting tonight by phone. Moving on to a prayer. Could I have Pete Mayo come lead us in a prayer? And before you get started, Pete, I just want to recognize Pete has recently celebrated his 30th anniversary at the hospital as chaplain. Pete's 30 years of dedication to the people and God's calling for him all these years needs to be recognized. Thank you, Pete. Well, thank you, Chuck.

Yeah, 30 years, 1996. One of the main reasons I came down here is because I saw cows across the street from the hospital. I came from Chicago, and I thought, this place is for me. It's been a beautiful place too, and I'm so glad we made this move. Let us pray. Lord, hear our prayer. May your blessing be upon our city commission and all gathered here this evening. Help us to tend to the practical matters of our Pittsburgh community. Assist us to listen well so as to better hear and understand our common concerns. Watch over our city. Protect it from threatening weather. Include some gentle rains for us, please. We thank you for the gift of our community and the caring people who call it home. May your grace, light, and peace be with us. Amen. Thank you again very much.

I have a couple of proclamations. The first one is... The first one is... The first one is a proclamation where it says, September 17, 2026, marks the 239th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America and by Constitutional Convention. And whereas it's fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document in its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion. And whereas public law 915 Guarantees the issues of a proclamation each year by the president of the United States of America. Designating September 17th through. 23rd is constitutional. Now, therefore, I check myself mayor of the city for Kansas. Do you hear. The week of September 17th, there's a 23rd. 2026 is constitutional week in Pittsburgh. And ask our citizens to read from the ideas. The framers of the Constitution had in 1787. by visually protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through the discarding of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be regained.

Is there somebody?

Yes.

Is that the AR? Yes. OK. Thank you so much.

Do you want to say a few words?

Our Oceanus Hopkins chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution celebrate The Constitution Week with the public schools in our area. And we go into the public schools, do different activities just to make sure that they're aware that there is a Constitution. And if it wasn't for the Constitution, we wouldn't be celebrating the 250th.

The next one is a proclamation, and it probably leads right into the Constitution. Could I have Dorique Flores Barita come forward? All right. I'm the mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, Kansas proclamation. Whereas civic education plays a vital role in preparing young people to become informed, engage in responsible citizens. And whereas the presidential 1776 civic award contest encouraged students across the nation to deepen their understanding of American history, constitutional principles, civic responsibility, and enduring values upon which the United States this national contest reflects a commitment to academic excellence, critical thinking, and a meaningful appreciation of our nation's heritage. Whereas Derrick Flores-Barita, a student dedication and innovating by participating in the 2026 Presidential 1776 Civics Award Contest in Washington, D.C. and represented the community with distinction. And whereas his accomplishments of a young scholar such as Mr. Flores Barita disbarred others to value civic knowledge, community involvement, and public service, strengthening the future of our nation and our community. Now, therefore, I, Chuck Munsell, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, Kansas, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, September 8, 2026, as Derek Flores Farida Day in Pittsburgh and extend sincere congratulations for this notable achievement and for serving such an astounding example of citizenship and scholarship patriotism. And I want to thank Commissioner Perry for spearheading this proclamation. It's very, very worthy. Thank you.

I just want to say it was a really cool opportunity and a privilege to represent a small town who would go to Washington, D.C. and represent just a small bunch of people. And I just want to thank the community for all their support. And it was just a really great experience. So thank you.

All right, moving on to public input. I just want to say at the last commission meeting, we had several people that wanted to speak in public input, and we welcome people to come forward and speak. Everyone got their opportunity to speak. We made sure of that. But I just want to remind people that with a large group of people that want to speak, and be able to speak, be mindful of the others in the public input section also. Having said that, if anybody would like to come speak in public input, state your name and address.

I get evening Roger on check 1147 South to 23rd. I just wanted to talk about the budget and the property tax decisions that will be made through that. And I very much appreciate the way the way that the public input was handled last week. I think that went as as well as it could be in the commission and everyone's patients going through. That was great to see. um on the on the budget i just wanted to ask you and and remind you that we we have kind of a unique opportunity with eagle pitcher money which i'm kind of unfortunately is coming but um in making the best possible use out of it using it to reduce the mill and bring property taxes down as much as you can and hopefully maybe begin to steer the city budget decisions towards Or future future revenue sources, whether they be a data center. Or the casino or the things towards reducing the burden on on the people. Rather than than just boosting revenue and bringing the budget up higher and higher. It's I think it's definitely possible to do both by diverting a certain amount of some of these anticipated revenues towards them. Obviously, we've got to make sure that the revenues are actually what they're claimed to be. but whatever they end up being, I think it's extremely reasonable to expect some portion of those to go towards tax relief rather than just more money to spend. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak in public input?

Community commission staff, I'm Christy Bittner, 15 to 8 Bittner court. I speak to you tonight about the order of the agenda for this meeting. It seems there's 2 items that need to be changed before making any decisions. With the proposed 2027 budget hearing tonight, I would like to see item F, which is a special hearing date to be selected. For commissioners moving before the hearing before the hearing. Citizens need to know where the commissioners stand on this budget issue that might change your ad what the public might say during the public hearing. how do you expect to take a vote on the budget before the commission's questions are answered concerning the budget? The other issue is to remove item E regarding the CDBG project ahead of item C regarding change order number one for manless sports construction and point forward guaranteeing the total cost. There's more information needed about this recommendation and issues concerning point forward as to how they're planning to pay for it. Thank you.

So let me get this straight, Christy, you wanted us to move item F at the person before the public hearing.

So you all can decide what you need to do, uh, regarding of the budget.

And you wanted item E moved in place of item C. Yeah.

Just change those, switch those. And yes, I mean, before I can see.

So the, uh, regarding item F, I think Ms. Bittner's probably referring to the, usually after, traditionally after we hold the budget hearing, we adopt a budget based on the county's advice The budget hearing was already scheduled. It has to be like 10 days out. So they recommended keep the budget hearing tonight so people don't get confused. The budget doesn't have to be adopted until it could be as late as the last day of September. I'm assuming we weren't adopting it tonight, but that's, of course, up to you. But moving the agenda item isn't really necessary unless you plan on adopting the budget tonight. Otherwise, you've got until the last day of September, the county clerk said they just need it by October 1st. So that's why it's in the order it's in. But and usually the public hearing has so much discussion. That's why it's the last item. So somebody else doesn't have to sit if they don't want to listen to all the budget discussion. But obviously, you can do whatever you like.

As it stands, it kind of it does look like putting the cart in front of the horse, not having the hearing.

after the actual discussion day for the budget itself so so what is september the 20th then if we have till the end of the month to do the adopt the budget what is the date september 20th now cheryl that was originally the date that lisa luster told us that it had to be done by this is the 20th but we spoke with her this morning and she said after she got word back to the state we actually had to the end of

Oh, okay, because that was 1 of the questions I had, we were remaining below revenue neutral and I didn't think that applied to us. So that she said it before. So then it changed as of today. Okay. Interesting. Did not know that.

So, for for clarity, the fact that this commission is. Going to be under the revenue neutral rate, took away the 10 day requirement for report or that was just part of the every year.

We have a budget hearing, but lately we've had a revenue neutral rate hearing as well, because that was the legislation that they passed. But, of course, we're not under any restrictions on the revenue neutral rate. So that hearing won't be held at all. The budget hearing is still required, but it requires a 10 day. So when we put the budget calendar together at the beginning of the year, we assumed that it would go the way it was going to. But since it's not going to be passed tonight, they were like, well, go ahead and have your budget hearing. And as long as you don't go over the recommended rate that's in the budget today, which I don't think there's any way we would go up, then we can just go ahead and have the hearing. And then we can have as much discussion as you want up until the end of September.

That is, that's not official to, by just having it, they have to approve it, right? They have to vote on it officially to make it.

Oh yeah. They'll have to vote on the budget before we send it to the county.

I wasn't aware that we didn't have to do the seven, the September 20th. Yeah, I knew that was what we normally do, but, um, that's good. So they have the end of the month. So great. Thank you.

And what was follow up with the, uh, what, what was the reasoning again to move item E in place of item C just changed?

I just think we probably need to talk about what's going on there, about item E before item C. We're going to talk about them when we talk about them.

Well, one goes before the other.

One needs to go before the other. There may be questions that need to be answered before you do the item C.

I'd like to remind everybody that it's the mayor's prerogative to change these things around. He sets the agenda.

So if he chooses not to do this or to do it, it's totally his prerogative, not someone else's.

The mayor doesn't set the agenda.

I can't, yeah. I mean, I can't see any. I'm not going to say anything. You guys can do it too.

But that's a misconception. The mayor does not set the agenda. Not that it's going to be changed or anything, but.

I think what he's saying is he has a priority.

Oh yeah, yeah, definitely.

During the meeting. Absolutely. You want to change the order? So is it, what's everybody's thoughts on change?

I'm saying leave it to it. Yeah. Well, just avoid confusion.

We don't have to vote on that. Well, they're, they're both consider not consent. So, I mean, we're going to go through them both. Um, I don't know.

I don't think if they, if they were remotely related, but they're,

Since we have people in here that are intending to go through it in order, why don't you just go through them in order but not take any action on C until you've had whatever discussion you want on E and see if that would change your vote on C. All right.

I think we'll leave it like it is. And just not take action. All right. Anybody else with public input would like to come forward at this time? Seeing none, I'm going to close public input.

Move to approve the consent agenda. I want to remove item B. I'm going to recuse myself. Move to approve item A.

So there's been a motion. Second. To approve item A, the consent agenda. Roll call vote.

Brooks. Yes. Haight. Yes. Lutsal. Yes. Perry. Yes. Sigley. Yes.

Okay. Item B, approval of appropriation ordinance for the period ending September 8th, 2026, subject to the release of HUD expenditures when funds are received.

And you're recusing yourself? Yes. I move to approve with Commissioner Brooks abstaining from the vote and recusing herself.

I don't have any issues with it, so I'm second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. to approve item B. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Public hearing. Item A, proposed 2027 budget. The City of Pittsburgh, Kansas advertised for a public hearing to be held on September 8th, 2026. The city commission meeting can missing at 530 PM. The city commission room located in the law enforcement center to 1 North pine. For the purpose of hearing and answering questions related to the proposed 2027 budget.

Miss you before you get started, I just want to an outline and identify the efforts towards the. The public hearing notification to the public. So what are we doing exactly to put this information out to the public? What are what are our steps and requirements for putting the budget out for this for this specific hearing for this hearing?

It was in the morning sun and I look back, but it was it was well before the 10 days and then it's also on the website, but it was the original submitted budget. It's on the website.

So the. changes that we've made to the second version, I'm going to call it tonight, of the budget are not published on the city's page currently. It's the original one that's still there. And so the steps that are required are to put it in the newspaper, that window of time prior to, and then we're advertising on our city pages an additional, but that one's not required.

Not as far as I know.

Some cities have their website as the official paper, but we don't have that since we have a paper.

Is there any discussion about improving the communication with the public about this hearing to get more information out? So we can have a better response and people are more aware of it. It sounds the, the paper seems to be the minimal thing, the legal thing that we have to comply with, but. I feel like we can do better getting more information up. Ahead of time, so is this something where we can do. media coverage schedule something ahead of time and and do some short interviews about the budget itself and how it functions and then then push it out and get make sure that that airs prior to the actual hearing has that been done before is that

Once upon a time, we used to have actual budget hearings in the communities on 3 or 4 evenings, but nobody ever showed up to those. So the commission kind of quit doing that. The budget's been published. Dustin's written in the paper about it. I seem to talk about it a lot, but I mean, we could do anything you want. I don't know. I mean, we can't shove it down their throat, but we definitely don't want anybody to miss it. But we've been talking about it since March, so I thought people literally were all wanting to pay attention. But, I mean, we could go back to having public hearings, you know, in the evenings when people aren't working and have a couple of those. I mean, we can do whatever you want. We just kind of do what we do.

So, July, July, 28th is when we 1st presented it and then we also had discussion then on the 11th, the 11th of August, the 25th of August and then now again today.

So, what did you have?

Do you have anything specific watching the media coverage on the other issues? The city handles and tackles by monthly. There's a lot of media coverage for different things, but there hasn't been a lot of coverage specifically towards the budget and the process of the budget. In light of last year's budget, and us having a new financial system and doing it a different way this year. I think there's there's good value in maybe covering that and having. Just a little more public involvement, so they understand what we're doing.

To be fair, we don't control what the media puts out there. I mean, you can make a news release on it, but. Still up to local media outlets to cover it. I mean. To be clear, I mean, the legal obligation of publishing the public hearing date. Has been met, though, I mean, that's that's done through the morning sun.

Correct is the official official newspaper local newspaper timeframe. I agree. That's been accomplished, but I think to get actual. Real and valued public input. I think we need to give more effort towards. Involving the public in the process and how this is working.

I don't know if I'm the only 1, but we have public input.

I mean, well, I mean, those are generally specific towards the agenda for that evening. But if we're, we're covering all these other things with media sources, I think maybe there's some value to this as well.

We did to your point, this is the 1st year that we actually listed the budget as an item at every commission meeting up until today from when we 1st submitted it. So. That's usually how we communicate what we're business we're going to do in here. I. Obviously, if anybody ever called from the news and want to talk about the budget, we'd run them through the process, but we don't do media releases on it or anything like that. But I mean, I mean, we could do. We have our own we theoretically could do whatever we want and we could go back to having a couple of hearings during the year about the budget before it's adopted and let people come in if that's easier than coming in. This is a 530. so it's still in the evening. So we've always just aired on the side of. Staff and and, you know, after having 3 hearings and.

20 people sit in the audience and nobody showed up we kind of were like well i guess if people want to talk about the budgets they'll come find us but that's a good point i think that might be an idea we pursue by just publishing in the morning sun i don't know how many people subscribe to the morning sun so if that's the only avenue that we have uh to let people know about the budget process through the morning sun i like the idea even though it's 20 people show up public hearing or whatever he suggested. We could try that. At least we're making an effort to people get involved and be able to hear and ask questions. I'll show everybody else's thoughts.

I think we've come leaps and bounds this year over the amount of information that was available last year and through my experience as part of this is just asking questions and being available to it. The way we've had the budget meetings prior to the commission meetings this year, I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from them. People really wanted to hear from the departments on what they were doing and how they made it happen. And it's nice to have those department heads come out and discuss those things as well. I just think we can do more to connect the community to this process. So I think if we do some type of, I'm not saying a full media blitz on this, but maybe prior to this hearing specifically, circling back to it, We do something to promote it that way we get a good quality amount of people in here to have discussion and ask questions.

Go ahead to be fair. I mean. I think. And in Pittsburgh, 150 years, this may be this commission may have scrutinized this budget more than any other commission in 150 years. I mean, I say that somewhat jokingly, but in all seriousness, I feel like since January, we have, you know, had an hour budget hearing or not hearing, but meeting with department heads. And, you know, I think not only the commission, but certainly the public, the the. department heads and the city staff deserve a lot of recognition for putting together what they put together bearing with us in our in our questions and listening um of of all this since January so I I don't I just I feel like if somebody wanted to talk about the budget There's been ample opportunities to talk about it since January and the public hearing. I mean, I am a little surprised probably like you are DJ that there's not more people here, but I mean, I don't know how we can. You know, force people to come in and talk. So, I mean, I think I think you put it out there. I think it's on the website. I just don't know what else you can do short of going to the expense of billboards and well, there's no signage and I mean, there's.

So, in other communities, there's a lot of ways to do the budget. You can you can literally engage the community. You can literally send out. Hey, what are your budget priorities? I mean, that stuff is extensive. It takes it usually happens in a much larger community because it's expensive to do and then you're only getting. 8 to 12% of the people that are going to respond anyway, so the feedback is very limited. But I mean, there's always another step on On gaining feedback, but there's no, there's no guarantee on what that will be. And and quite frankly, it's going to be a lot different now that we have a financial management system that we can actually present some information away that somebody might actually understand what's in the budget versus. Here's your mill, whatever this test evaluation is and away we go. Um, that's what I'm leaning towards social media.

So we can announce ahead of time, maybe the calendar and show that, you know, for the hearings for the, for the. The budget sessions in the. Meeting, maybe they could put it on the social media or something.

Yeah, I thought listen on the agenda would have helped, but I mean. Well, and there's I'm finding and we'll see this there are groups and times. This is a very busy time for a lot of families right now, schools and sports and. I've got kids in 2 different directions tonight myself, so it's 1 of those things. I think it's not a gigantic step to add a little bit more to the process and the efforts and to comment. Taking away nothing our staff has done leaps and bounds this year to make their abilities available to us and then let us know what's going on. So. They absolutely are to be commended for that. I think there's again, there's just more we can do to get the public. To understand what we're doing and communicate closer with them on this process. So, again, to Chuck's comment, I don't know how many people subscribe to the morning sign if that's the primary outlet that people are receiving it from. I think we're missing. A large group of people that may want to be here this evening, or have some input. Throughout the process, so if we could entertain the idea of creating some type of a short media coverage prior to this hearing. For next year, that would be my suggestion to get a little more visibility of it. The meetings we do before the commission meetings are very specific and. Not really geared towards the public coming up and having input on them and we do have the. Public input every meeting, it's just not focused towards that. This hearing is so that's my, my concern.

I just want to respond to what you said a while ago is, I don't know about. Uh, out of 150 years, I thought I was a little older than you. I don't remember. Like you said, we ever scrutinize a budget as we have this year. But the reason we did that is because we made a mistake last year. Let's remind people that we're scrutinizing to correct those mistakes and we're on the right path. To correct those mistakes.

So, you know, I think I think this, I mean, we made significant achievement. I mean, the proposed 3.5 mil reduction. I think is should be an example and a. A statement to the taxpayers that, hey, we are committed. This commission is committed to that. So I just yeah, I'm not trying to take away anything. I legitimately believe. We probably discussed this more than any other commission, but not to take away from any prior commissions, but. I don't know how we could have spent a whole lot more time on it and still conduct business as usual. On city business, so, but yeah, and again at 3 and a half mills is a significant achievement.

It doesn't matter whether you're under the microscope for the good or the bad. I don't think anybody can say that we haven't tried our hardest to make sure that it doesn't matter whether you have a home budget or a business budget or a city budget. You do what you have to with what you got and hope that it's enough. I'm sorry that the staff has felt along the way that they were beat up, but we were just trying to understand. And the only way we can understand is by talking to the people that are behind the scenes. And we do appreciate you very much. And I don't take the budget as a joke, no pun intended. But it's not a joke. It's not a joke for anybody, regardless of whether it's yourself, your business, or the city. I'm proud of what we're doing so far because if we did something wrong, we know what it's like to be under the microscope the other way.

I do want to share something that I looked at today to kind of see what the deal was for our taxpayers and what kind of impact it would have on them. What I've got here is I'm showing a few examples of appraised values on homes. And the first two lines here shows the appraised value and then what the assessed valuation would be. And then the 48.506 is what our currently revised submitted budget is set at. So the city of Pittsburgh taxes for that would be about 557.82 a year. That's not counting the county or USD or anything like that. So that's what is currently proposed, okay? If you said, well, can we reduce it another two mills? That's the second line. It would go down to $46,506. I'm just using this as an example. Taxes would be $534.82, which is only a reduction of $23 a year. If you had a $100,000 home appraised, $100,000 home, it's $23 a year. The next two lines is pretty similar, other than I changed its name. The same calculation, I changed it to a $250,000 home. This is residential, I want you to keep that in mind. $250,000, and we currently have it at 48,506, so your taxes for the city is 1394.55 per year. That's currently what's being proposed. If we changed it down to two mills, it would save a taxpayer 57.50 a year, per year. Okay, the next one is if you've got a 500,000 dollar house. Same thing taxes would be at the currently proposed budget. 278910, but if you bumped it down by 2 meals, it'd be. 267410, which is 115 dollars a year. You had a 1Million dollar. You would have 557819 per year costing your taxes. If you bumped it down by 2 additional meals, it would be a savings to the taxpayer 230 dollars. Per year, so it's not a substantial amount, but I just wanted to bring that so you could see what kind of impact it is. Now, there's 2 sides to this. That's the taxpayer side. What how does it affect the city? 1st, I'm going to show the already cost the already cost of the 3 and a half production. That is in the proposed budget today is costing the city 630, 643. 836, so the savings they already have in the proposed currently proposed budget. Is costing the city 643,000 dollars. Okay, that's where we're not getting that generated income. Okay, but if we take it an additional. You take an additional 2 meals and you give this additional savings to the taxpayers. You're looking at about 300 additional 367,000 dollars. 367 906. All together, that's a, if that would be a 1Million dollars and cost to the city, if we reduced it. By that additional 2 meals, so I think you just need to see. I just mainly wanted to see this because I was curious. I was curious about. How would it affect me if I have a 100,000 dollar home? How, how would it affect me? Am I willing to give up some services throughout the city to save myself 23 dollars a year? That's the question that. Your citizens have to ask. I don't care which way we go. I just wanted to show this as an impact on the bottom.

The 2 would you put it back?

Yep. Sorry.

On the 367 906, that's just with the 2 mil reduction.

The other ones with the 3.5. yeah, that would be together. So the 1st step was what we've already done. We've reduced it by 3.5. okay. So it's already reduced our money. Our income from taxes. 643, so if we did an additional 2 to bring it down. It's going to lose the city's going to lose 367,000 dollars. In available money for taxes to use for.

Services are personnel and that sort of thing.

So I just, you know, it's a small cost to the citizen, the average citizen, which has got 100, 250,000 dollars home. It's a very small cost to have the services that the city.

Where's my thoughts on your 100,000 comparison. Say, if a couple has a 100,000 dollar home and they're senior citizens and. The husband dies that leaves a wife. And she's living off social security. I know that 23. dollars doesn't seem like a lot, but it is to that person that's having to live on a fixed income.

It's approximately $2 a month.

Okay. So that's $2 is $2 that person should have, in my opinion.

One thing I, I see as we're never looking for ways to save the people money. This is my opinion because the services will suffer narrative is over overkill. Because there is money setting in places that it's kind of like, when your kids go to college, you look for grant money, or you look for, you know, things like that. I just, I think that there's money in our coffers. We have a huge reserve. There's money sitting here and it's always been in my opinion that I feel like capture the growth, capture the growth. That's all you ever heard and. The reserve went from being when he came at nothing to where it's It's very large right now at what expense. So, it's not that well, which it's more than it was whenever you came, but I'm saying, what is the rule of thumb on? So, 2, 16% over what?

16% is 2 months of expenditures. That's the way. So, for the general fund, I'm putting this on the spot, but. She loves being on the spot. What's the 2 months?

Those are what our budget shows after after we've done everything 2027. those are approximately what our. Funds will be our cash balances, ending cash balances and so I thought, okay, well, I was curious about this. So, what is our monthly average monthly expenditures? And this is what I penciled in down here at the bottom is our total is for total. The entire organization, so this might be every fund, even like a few grant funds. So we're spending about 3.3Million dollars in expenditures. Um. For each month, and so if you take that times 2, because that'll be your 60% reserves, you need anywhere from 6.7Million in reserves. And then I, because of our reporting in our old system, they converted everything in together. So I just did a calculation, which was January through July. Was about 59Million and I divided that out anyway ended up being about 4Million. I was just trying to say, am I close with the 3.3 or is this just an anomaly? And so it looks like it showed up about 4Million dollars. And spending a month, so a 2 month is 8Million. So I'm saying anywhere from 6Million to 8Million needs to be about what we need. Across the city now, that's not just that's not just general fund. So our general fund is sitting right about where it needs to be probably because at least half of that, at least half of that is is general fund expenditures.

How much is sitting in our reserves right now?

If you know, just go a line at a time, because I can't read it from here. Can you just go through?

I mean, there's only she's asking, like, actuals.

Are you just I'm not going to hold you to it because. I'm just off the top of your head here.

I think there's about probably about 3030Million dollars. In reserves, but but that's appropriated to keep.

If we're going to have this discussion, you have to have a bigger discussion. I can't read the sheet from here.

I'm sorry.

There are at least 5 funds that are earmarked. You cannot spend the street fund on anything but streets. So that 30Million, so that 30Million, the only numbers that really matter up there see the general fund number.

Okay. Service is 1.3. we can't spend that on anything. Library is 1,000,021. that's not our money. That's not our money. The special highway, most of that is the sales tax street sales tax has to be used for streets. 4Million special drug and alcohol is set aside for special things. Special parts of rack is set aside.

Those both come from state money and then they have to be spent on specific items.

Waste water and waste water is 5,000,002.

Obviously, you can't spend that on anything, but utilities 1.5.

Sanitation is not much of anything section 8. It shows here 345, but it usually ends up. Over, I mean, so I'd be surprised economic development. 5.2, so that's the, and they already have.

And keep in mind, every 1 of those is already committed like the special highway has 4 point something, but we've already committed. I don't know, 800,000 to do the road through the ball field. So, but that's to your point, there's probably 30 or 35Million in the bank. But as you're checking account, it is, you've got caught, you've already written checks that haven't hit against that. So we've got payroll.

It's how much every couple of 12 it's about 1200 a month, but that doesn't include the benefit cost to that's just $100, 1200, 1.2Million. I'm sorry. Okay. 600,000. So you're asking the great question. So what's left?

Yeah. So that is your buffer that you were talking when we give you the 5 year forecast. This is dated August 11th. I don't think a lot of people knew that.

So that's why we give you that 5 year forecast. That's 1 time in the year. It's just 1 time and we say. Here's the 16% reserved line that we're being told we should have as a minimum and we always show you where we're either over or below that. Right? The utility funds have traditionally lately been over because we were bankroll the money for the new plant. The general fund, once you check out gaming is really, really back at the minimum reserves. I mean, that's where we're supposed to, which is fine. We don't need to have, I mean, we always. That's the important part of the property tax is you, you don't want to tax. I'm not, you don't want to tax it to build up your reserve. You want to tax enough to pay for your costs and then you build up your reserve over time. But.

I think, and I'm sorry, you're saying that the 23Million146 plus. The emergency 2 months equals what is setting in the reserves now.

No, of that 23 of that 23, that's the money that's the money that is as of the we're estimating for the end of the year.

Okay. Not not for into 26, but the worst case 2 months scenario, is it included in that total or not?

Is it included?

Yes, it is. Okay. So.

And for the general fund, that's probably about. That's probably about the right amount.

That's right. 3.7 is about what we need to hold for the general.

Yeah. If payroll is 1.2Million every month or every point to 600,000, it's about half of that.

Okay.

And so you said 31. 30Million ish 30. okay. So. You're not looking at maybe 7Million there that's and I mean, is that where I'm looking at 7Million there?

That's already spoken. Oh, okay.

I was going to say. No, that's the problem with cash is everybody the pool cash is a report. Um. But you're you're on spoken for reserves is another number. It's this. And out of that, there's only a portion of it, which is unrestricted. We have we have the law permits us. To collect the tax to spend on streets on economic development on equipment. And some of those are pass throughs from the state for parks, the money up there that's free and clear. Is is probably, I mean, even the debt service is spoken for. It's the general fund, which is about 3 and a half million bucks. Which is pretty much what we want to keep in the bank at all times and your funds sitting there, they could be.

Unappropriated they could be appropriated or they could be completely restricted. And I think if we look at the audit, I think the audit will kind of have that broke out. Um, I right now don't have it in the accounting system like that for me to be able to pull that out for you. That easily, but we know which funds and I know which funds are set aside for purposes.

I guess for this document specifically, if it may be beneficial to show actuals. To date, and then reference what's been earmarked out of that account towards. Future or, you know, what's been, you know, where it's directed towards. Yeah. That would be that would be an easy way to explain this as opposed to 3035Million, but this is 23Million.

So that just well, the reason it's so hard commissioners, because we just brought in. 6, I mean, walk through what you were talking about brought in.

What 7Million from the eagle picture we paid out 5Million. We also have property taxes that will come in in September. Sometime in September, so it's ebb and flows.

It's hard to just say on any given day what the best way to have a reserve is to budget it is for you guys in the budget next year to say, look, we're going to put 3Million in the general fund reserve. And we're taking it out of the budget process. We're not that evolved. I'd be happy to walk you through that next year and we can do that for each fund, but you can't just to pick any day and go. How much cash do we have? I mean, Jay's run around on saying. How many CDs I mean, we try to invest the cash we do have very aggressively. So we get more interest income.

And give us even more opportunity to spend 3.7 that's on this document here. What how much of it's currently in rotational investment?

Um, we have all of our funds that are invested now. Let me it wasn't before, but we have all of our funds either invested in CDs, which are probably average about 4% ish, maybe a little less about 4%. But then we also, when we recently done the bank change, they do what they call, which is an overnight suite. So they're overnight sweeping. Our funds out for for insurance purposes, because, you know, most institution only goes up to 250,000, or they have to pledge securities. So what they do is this is through the bank. They have a program. Many banks use it. And they basically every night sweep those funds into investment funds at different at different banks. And then they sweep back what we need. So we keep a peg balance of 10,000 dollars in our checking and last month. I think in August. We, if I'm not mistaken, we made over 20,000 dollars just an interest income because of that sweep.

So currently, so everything, but 10,000 dollars is all the 10,000 comes back in a.

Daily rotation every day, so if we write checks. And we might, it might show during the day that we have a negative balance. At the end of the day, it rolls back over and gives us everything we need plus 10,000 dollars. Part of the process is automated process.

And how do we make sure that we have a, because we do our CDs in 6 months. Um, that's probably make sure to to to question. Just like at home, you can't take all the money out of your checking account and throw it into a CD and then payroll comes and groceries and you're like, well, I put it all on investments. How do we know how much to put into a CD versus we, we try to keep about what?

3Million or so in the, in the checking.

We have, through the course of the year, we have large payments that are due primarily for some of the loans we've taken out. So what we do, this really CD thing is structured as a cash flow issue. We invest the CD, and we set the maturity date when we know we're going to need money to make certain payments. So we make sure that at least every month that one of the CDs is maturing, and then we make the decision at that point, do we need to make a payment using that money, or can we reinvest it?

Is that in the 1.3Million debt service line?

Is that the debt service? That is correct. That is correct.

But that the debt that we are part of the general, the investments for. Things that we're going to use that we know we're obligated to in debt service are going back into that until we have to make the payment.

We invest it. Right.

Yeah, and some payments, if they're the bond payments, yes, they go through the debt service. But the KDHE don't go through the debt service, do they?

No, no.

The KDHE loan payments that we make, the interest and the principal that we make on those payments, they come out of the fund that we borrowed on. And those are the big ones. Most of those are.

Have all of these returned net positive results from the rotation? Are they all correct?

Yes, and what happens to the interest is, based on the pooled balance, In the cash balance, we allocate out the interest. So not all the interest income gets gets to go to the general fund. It depends on who's got the most money in their bank account. That's who gets. We break it out based on a ratio to put that money into where the most the fund that has the most money gets the most utility money.

We don't take the interest off that and put it in the general fund. We put it back into the water utility. So, whatever is the source of that allocation. It's complicated, but it allows us to, I guess the long answer to get all the way around the back is. We do have reserve funds technically that are that are allocated at the time. Most of those are restricted. We have to spend them on the things that we said we have to spend them on and the rest of it is in the general fund and we try to live by that 16% or 2 months.

Interest rates are about little around 4 and I think the enterprise is about 2.3. Is what we get for overnight suites and we weren't getting that.

Before, so that's a significant improvement in our overall interest earnings.

That's 1 of the reason I changed banks, but. That's probably confusing as much as it was helpful.

Well, again, the intent of this is to make sure the public understands what we're doing with that money and how it works. That's not been a thing, and we need to make sure they're understanding. Again, as complicated or convoluted as this process is, there are issues in here that need focused time.

And we want to be good stewards of the public money.

Absolutely. The most important thing we can do is that. Okay. So one of the documents, the first one you had was showing the comparison of a change in an additional reduction of two mills as opposed to the 3.5. Did you do the adjustments from the initial proposal for the mill that started this budget process? And then... Put that together as well. Is there have you done that?

I added it on here. I was afraid to be too confusing. So I took it off because, but I, but you want, I can do it.

I just, if I mean, you're looking at, uh, when you're showing, we started out at what?

5, what was it?

5, 50. 52.006.

So, and now now we've taken it down 3 and a half.

We took it down. 1.152, we took it down 2.152 and then you took it down another 1.34. so right now we're sitting at 3.5. And I think the point Missy was trying to make real early on just because it is complicated for every bill that we're talking about. There's 182,000 dollars of service that it's tied to 11 dollars for a residential. That's all that's all we're trying to get out is is it does now it's a little different when you go to commercial because commercials 25%. Yeah, and I didn't tackle that, but we didn't that's then it's just getting into a whole nother level.

I just wanted to keep it simple.

No, I appreciate the work you put into this. I just thought it was odd that you didn't put the initial amount starting from the process to where we are now. Um, just to the, the voice of the additional change if we get to that point. So, but no, that's I don't need you to go go through and do that now. I just.

You have any other questions?

We do need to, have we started the hearing? We haven't yet. We still need to at least start the hearing. I mean, we've been talking under the hearing, but we haven't really. Oh, the public. We have to open and close it before we can.

It's really for the public, if anybody's here from the public.

Open the proposed 2027 budget. The City of Pittsburgh advertised for a public hearing to be held September 8, 2026 at the City Commission meeting commencing at 5.30 p.m. in the City Commission Room located in the Law Enforcement Center, 201 North Pine for the purpose of hearing and answering questions related to the proposed 2027 budget. Do you have questions?

Are you taking public input now on that? Or is that a separate thing? I don't want to be hearing that. I just want to make sure that's what the protocol was. Roger long check 1147 South to 20th street. Um, on the subject of what cuts how impactful cuts are to people. I just want to remind everybody that. What we have seen is property tax increases of 8 and 9%. Some of these years, including last year. The yeah, in some cases for a given house, we can cherry pick some and say, they're not going to be a huge dollar amount, but but mayor, what you said is very correct. Some people that really is. The difference, and if they can have enough money to buy groceries this year, this week, or this month, there are people every, every month that run out of money before they run out of money before they run out a month. And it's something that has to be considered. The other thing that was mentioned, it's been a meeting or 2 ago about how the people that will benefit the most are the people with with the most property. Well, that's true. Some of those people are the landlords. Some of them are business owners as was just discussed that make a huge amount of contribution to our local economy, because they're actually paying taxes. They're not some of the places that are getting massive sweetheart deals on tax abatements. Or reductions were, because of their status, they're not having to pay taxes. The people that are actually are paying the taxes are the ones that benefit and that money if it's not going into the city to build up reserves, or to find yet another thing to spend it on. It's going into the economy. It's being used by people. That that 300,600,000,000 dollars that you're going to return to the citizens to actually worked hard to earn it. is going to be used in the economy and truly help our economy instead of just going to pick winners and losers by giving them additional tax cuts in other places. So just please consider that. This is not money that's being taken away from the city. It's money that belongs to the people. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak in public hearing?

Mr. Bittner, 15th and White Bittner Court. First, I'd like to stand corrected regarding the comments I made at the last meeting about the assessed valuations. My remarks were from documents I had, and I did not have information on that second page that you all were using from the county clerk. This point that no submitted revised budget document was uploaded on the city website for the public to look at. I think there could have been a little section. Put on there, so people could see what's really going on. There was no other way to see it and no reasons not to put it for on the record on the finance department's page. So they could see what's going to be used and how it's going to be used. The ad valorem tax page that was presented at the last meeting showed a 1.7Million dollar difference between the ad valorem page and the county clerk's second page for 2026. And it was due to the numbers for the exemptions not being the same. And there's actual 2025 numbers that differ from the notice of budget hearing 2027 and the ad valorem tax page. So there are pages in this budget to be looked at very carefully. And so I, I even wonder, you know, are there any encumbered balances is going to be done have at the end of the year? And so now we're not going to possibly voting on this tonight, but I do believe. That's a good thing to wait and let's, let's get the answers and all of our questions out there. So we know what we're doing and spending money on. And I still say there needs to be an independent audit on these years and be authorized and completed by the commission. Be a good thing. So thank you very much.

Christie, would you agree real quick question? Would you agree that the decision not to publish the amended budget? Wouldn't wouldn't it make sense that. Even though we submitted the 1 to avoid confusion, like we had last year with different. Different budget books wouldn't we I mean, ultimately it appears that we're leaning towards and probably going to approve a 3, 3 and a half mil reduction. So, I mean, it's less than it's not like, it's not like we published a document and we're so we're going to, we're going to spend more than that. We're actually spending less. So, I mean, wouldn't it be fair in the interest of keeping things simple.

To do it just the way that I think I think it can be simple because you put the submitted budget 2027 on the website and just put these revised. Make that in big caps, you know, revised budget. So people can't if they want to, they can look at the differences and see. Oh, yeah, we are spending less. And so they will say that's great. Otherwise, how do they know?

Well, and I'm hopeful that I'm glad you brought that up, but that was 1 of the questions that I asked Missy in the previous meetings is. Can we have a document or some type of generation from the new system that shows line changes? Specifically to each other, not a whole separate page or 10 pages later, and we're talking 80 plus pages on each 1 of these budgets. A lot of people, unless they're very invested in this don't want to go through 80 pages and I understand that completely. But if we can have a. A summer page of changes location of page within the documents, and then a line item right below it. This is where it was removed it to whether it goes north or south and that way people can have that for reference. And I know we're, we're hopefully going to get to some, some type of a product that'll work that way. Unless I understand if to the to the argument of to be able to verify what the start of the budget looks like at the at the end of the budget. I mean, I think there's, uh, there's a need for people to understand and be able to see it. And it not be, um, 84 pages to to go find it.

And I thought we talked about we're going to see, um.

So, we submitted our budget to the, uh. You know, we, we. having people come forward constantly and going over the budget going over the budget. We spent hours and hours doing it. Don't you think it's time to fish or cut bait and bring this forward and let's say do something with it. The city has a lot other issues to take care of rather than just continue every week to do this over and over. Frankly I don't want to spend any more time going over this. We've got a budget. The budget is. a good budget for the year. And it's a budget. Let's not forget that it's a budget. That doesn't mean that you're going to get every cent right every time. So let's do something or do it, you know, or leave. The public has elected us to do this for them. And you can have all the meetings in the world and continue to talk, and it'll come down to the same thing. If you want to go into the minutia, go ahead. I invite you to do that. But sooner or later, you'll have to do something.

Well, Doc, I think I think also I think our question isn't whether we can do more with less today. I mean, I think we all made that commitment to do that for the proposed budget. But what about next year and the year after? I just I feel like we're if we can't, we can't sustain that. We can't go down that path to continue. I know everybody I've heard it and I agree people are hurting. We need we need to help, but I don't think it's realistic to say we can continue to cut the mill rate of the mill levy every year. Um, so I think we have to find something more sustainable as far as another revenue stream or or something to to help offset that. Because I think we've demonstrated as much as we've. Spent on this much time and to miss his chart. You know, yes, it's important to a lot of people, but. No, it doesn't really as I've said before, it doesn't really move the needle. To the overall taxpayer, but it certainly moves the needle on the city's budget. I mean, we're, we're talking about doing a lot less than a lot of departments with the proposal. So, I hear I hear what Doc's saying and I don't think it's. I don't think he's wrong on the fact that I do think it's it's time to. move on and approve this budget or not approve it. But we're buttoned up against, I know we still have a couple weeks left, but I mean, I don't know why we use those weeks to really scrutinize this thing any more than what we already have. I mean, I feel like we have more than, I think our responsibility is more than just about cutting. I think we also have a responsibility to our citizenry to What are we doing to build the community? What are we doing to bolster activities for the youth? We all celebrated. The soccer project, you know, and approving that. I would like to see us, you know, commit some of that money from legal picture towards that. I mean, so we could have at least 1 playable field. I know that's not a popular thing. We're talking about cutting people's taxes. But we also have to look at how much money that generates for our city and for our citizens, which in turn. From sales tax and just them spending money in our town and the benefit of the retailers that those kind of things that we're missing out on. We heard that argument from the, from the coaches and the players and the parents, you know, they all are going out of town for these things. I would like to see this, you know, I talked to blaze Bauer who's with mammoth and he's here today. I asked him, hey, you're here doing the ballparks. What, you know, what's a, what's a rough estimate on what it would do to give us a playable field for soccer and. I don't know if you want to come up, but basically $967,000. So it's never going to be any cheaper than what it would be for them to be here, mobilized in Pittsburgh now. So that's just something to think about. But I just want to stress that, you know, We also, it shows our dedication to going back to that project and how everybody felt after that meeting. We felt good about things and felt good about moving on and helping the future youth. But what have we done to help bolster future donations and to help move that along? I mean, I just feel like... You know, as dry as it was, it is now. I feel like we're going to be this time next year and that those fields are not going to be playable. And then here we here we've got another year. Go ahead, Doc.

We promised those kids that they have a soccer field. We bought the land and we said we have a soccer field. They were very, very glad that we did that. The city did that. Now let's stop Mickey Mouse and around and get something done about it.

So I'd like to respond to your initial comment, Doc, and it's maybe abrasive, but. Every single doorstep I've been on and every community member I've spoken to, property taxes are at the top of their list that they want property tax relief. Now, soccer field aside, I see where you're going with the soccer fields and I appreciate plugging that. DJ speaking right now. There are legitimately people out there that want to see and want to see the trust of the city in this commission and doing something towards property tax. So we're focusing on that. Do I currently feel like we've done absolutely everything we can as a commission to ensure that? No, absolutely not.

We are making strides. What else?

I think a special hearing just to go over the budget and do it line by line is appropriate. And we've talked about that and it's on here as a I consider, you know, we build a date and we do it. That's another step. It's no different than what I was saying earlier. We have little things and big things we can do to help people understand what we're doing and how we're doing it. The trust in this community is very important that we spend each of these tax dollars appropriately. Our staff is doing a very good job of controlling that. But now we're looking at the commission being involved in it. So we're not kicking the can. We're not delaying time. We're trying to be efficient at this. And I don't want that to be a skewed conversation on talking about the soccer field this evening. We're talking about the 27 budget as a follow-on budget from the 26 debacle budget. We overtax people. We're in a heavy tax window as it is. Uh, it's time to do something about that. It is also a balance that we need to try to accommodate the needs of the soccer fields and the ball fields and all the other things as well. But this is, it's not just a Pittsburgh topic. It's a national topic. Property taxes have gotten out of control. The 1 thing that we can affect. Is how we spend my and what we do with the money we receive.

It is a national topic, DJ, but we were elected to be concerned. And so now we're doing something about it. And we absolutely are. And the only reason I bring up the soccer field is the fact that we were really quick to say, okay, it's a good idea to spend a million dollars of the Eagle Pitcher Money that came in the 1 time, my thing is, what do we do? Okay, that's that's helping cut something. What are we doing to build something back in the community? That's.

That's the only reason I bring that up is I think that the property taxes are lower and the people line to move to Pittsburgh understand that we're trying to fight that fight with them for them. Then I think we'll draw people to move to this community or stay in the community and not move away. So that is about that's a consistent battle and I'll go back and I'll say it again.

I said last time I'll say it again. There are two other entities involved in that equation. We're doing our part, and that's all we can worry about. But I mean, we're not the only ones that are affecting people's taxes.

I agree with both of you. And you also, Doc. Property tax is a national, state, and local issue. It's a big issue. And people want relief from property tax. We're doing our best to do that. I think a 3.5 mil reduction shows that we are committed to reducing property tax. We've shown... I'm talking, Doc.

I know.

Okay. That means when I'm speaking or anyone... Let the other person speak before you interrupt them. So anyway, we've shown that we have a revenue source right now. And I, you know, three and a half mil reduction. I don't want that to be a one time or two time, two year thing. And then we got to start. We need to look at the revenue sources that we have to support the three and a half mil. Your picture was one. I asked about the data center, and I was very much surprised that no one can answer how much revenue we have generated in five months from a revenue source that we have in our town. Maybe I'm wrong with that, but I think that's something that we should have known without having to look too hard. So we do have the data center that's generating revenue. We have Eagle Pitcher, and it's on us and the city and the department heads to try to live with that 3.5 million reduction. I think that's what we need to stay with and look for other revenue sources, just like you said, Stu. And who said we're not going to do the soccer fields? Does it have to be turf? Does it have to be turf this year? I thought we were talking about grass.

I think if you do turf one, at least you've got one that you can play all the games on. You can practice on the other two, but I just think that's a more responsible way. But again, I'm not in the turf business, but... you know but to your point chuck we're talking three and a half mils i think we're all in agreement i don't know that we're really talking about changing anything more so i i don't understand why we're not voting on this thing tonight that's why i'm just going to say i i want to make the motion to approve the budget with a 3.5 mil reduction well i think we all come to well i was in florida i thought we had an agreement go ahead doc

Well, we're not done discussing it, so we're not going to vote on that right now. We're in the open hearing right now. Yeah. Yeah.

I'd say just that, you know, for our budgets, we have revenues and we have expenditures and we need to make sure we're not overspending in any way. We, we, we do. And. that numbers do matter. And when you look back at budgets, you compare and you can see where you're going, what you spent things on. And so those numbers are important to compare from year to year. So that's why you need to have them right and know this is what we spent. Because otherwise, who knows what we'll be spending, what we'll choose to do. So I'm just saying It is important to make sure you do it right.

It is important. And thank you, Chrissy. I mean, we've heard, we've heard you, we've heard Roger, we've heard others talk, but we've also heard every department head in this city talk about what they're doing. And we're basically asking them, like I said before, asking them to do more with less for 2027. And I just don't know what that looks like in 28, 29, 30. Um, I just, I don't want to see us set ourselves up for I'm fine with the 3 and a half mil now. I think that's great. But I think I don't know that it's realistic that that's going to continue. How do you how do you continue to give people increases in pay and people's. The thing that we, the things that we buy to conduct. and do our city services and provide the citizens with the services they expect. How do we continue to do that when the prices for everything go up, but yet here we are scrutinizing everything that's out there? It's great to ask, and it's great to look, and we've done it. Like I said, we've talked to every department head since January at one time or another.

This is pretty interesting. I think Missy probably came up with another one. There's the top line.

This is simply numbers right out from the county. These are. The mill rates for, you know, since 2013. And the blue line, which you can barely see is proposed, but the city started with. All right, and then the orange. Reddish looking line is what the final mill radius and you can see in general when the city makes a proposal, we try to target a mill rate to keep it the same. As the previous year, and then and then at the end, of course, the final determination, which is outside of the cities. That's that's 2 lines.

That's 2 lines. It just kind of gives you back to 2012 an idea of. You know, basically what we've done traditionally was just pulled the whatever we finished the year with that previous year with the mill rate and just stuck it into the formula for the upcoming year. The interesting thing, and so you can see that there's a blue line over red line. Obviously, the 207 mistake is at the end where you see it changed up last year, but for the most part. There's very little variation. The interesting thing is the other side of the equation is the assessed valuation. It says evaluation is a whole nother monster. Um. I'm not even going to attempt to explain that. Let me try to do that. But Jay, if you could, the green line is important and then where it goes.

Right. This graph is showing the increase in the value or the change in the valuation divided up between the change in the existing property values and then the change based on new properties coming online. All right. The green line is if there was no change in valuation at all. Okay. So if you look at that blue line, that was the change in the valuation of existing properties. In about six of those years, the value of the existing properties actually declined. There was not an increase in value. And of course, the orange line is new, so it was always above the zero line, because it was new, brand new. And in most of those cases, in all of the cases, actually, where the valuation of the current properties was negative, it was offset. by increases in new so basically the fact that pittsburgh has been growing uh has has allowed us to stay above that overall above that green line so the two the reason i wanted to bring it up is there's two big spikes in there on that red line is it red it's orange um one is one is the casino

Because the casino wasn't incentivized. I mean, that was the state laws. You just have to, you have to come in, you have to pay out your own way and pay for everything. The other 1 was a combination of things, but basically FedEx. And FedEx just came in and said, we're going to open up a FedEx and they didn't ask for anything. They didn't want to do any interviews and they opened it up. So those are the growth. Those are the growth opportunities. Um. That we sometimes just get businesses want to come in there a big impactful businesses that create a lot of jobs don't ask for tax breaks and boom. So, not everything is a sweetheart deal, or whatever we referred to it earlier. We do have our opportunities and if you can look at the graph, and that's to Jay's point, those spikes happened a lot of times. When our evaluation was going down, which is usually around 2020, you can tell it gets kind of weird around the pandemic and then it's actually big after that. But the point is, I kind of like now that. Stu brought up and blazes in here, and he's going to talk a little bit about what he did to me on the ball fields to get. You know, all that going, but there are opportunities. For 1 time money this year, you do have an opportunity to take the mill down significantly 7% decrease in a mill rate. I don't know where anybody else in the States doing that. So that's a big deal. We are the citizens of the citizens. The staff is proud to be part of that. We've never done that before, because we always just plug that mill in and live with the evaluation, whether it goes up or down and sometimes it goes down, but. I know it took 45 to 50 years for us to put turf on those ball fields. I would hate for us to take 40 years to put turf on that soccer field when we have that kind of money and you can do both in this year. And so I do think. Blades probably set me up here, but because he's in the, he's with mammoth, but that is an opportunity to do both. Those are the things that 3 and a half mil reduction 3 and a half mil would stay. But there's, there's still that only ate up about. There's 2.6M that we had left from Eagle picture 800, as, you know, went to the health fund. So that's 1.8 left. This is about 640,000 dollars and 3 and a half miles. So there's still a well over a 1M dollars. To do something 1 time, and I know we want to try to ride this for next year and the next year and I get that, but we all know the trouble with the 1 time revenue source doing that because eventually they're going to come calling because that's going to go away. We have to do something with the middle. I'm just saying. We only sell bonds every 2 years, the next time to do anything that soccer field would be in 2 years, which mean we have to sell bonds, which means they're not going to get turf for at least 3 years. And it's 2011 since we've seen it this hot. I know we're going to put in irrigated sod. And we're going to say, hey, we're going to have 2 fields, but I'm not sure that's going to be much of a playing surface. And I don't know what the answer is for the next 3 years until they can get some turf. So that's all I would say about that. But I appreciate the 3 and a half mills. I think we all did it knowing it's not a long, long-term solution. And let's ride that budget and let's monitor it next year, month to month. And maybe it's the right, maybe it works. Maybe we don't have to do asphalt bare feet because we can't buy boots. That's our job. But we don't know anything yet more than we know. That's a 7% reduction of property tax, which is healthy. And staff will be in here as long as you want us to, to go through this budget for the rest of September. But I know Matt, they just called me out and there's a 24 inch line that burst right outside of the wastewater plant, the water plant. We may be on a boil order by the end of this day and these are the kind of things that are going on every day right now. And every time we spend in here talking for 3 hours about this budget is it's there's an expense to doing it. So I'm just pleading with you.

I'm glad you said it that way. I'm glad you explained it out that way. No, no, it's good information. I think there's there's real value in what you just said. Every year, something else happens. Every year, something else comes up. There's opportunities and there's debts. So we're not focusing on property tax as one of those on either side. It hasn't been done. And that's what's happened, I think, across the country. It's not been an initiative by the local governments to focus on and try to do something about it. So every time there is a new revenue and we have it one time with the pitcher money, you said it exactly. There is an opportunity to spend it on something that could benefit the community. And I agree. That would be a great thing. But then we're walking away with the concept of the additional money from that that we haven't spent on the 27 budget be applied to the 28 and the 29 budget, which we could very easily do. So I think every year there's going to be something somebody wants, somebody needs, but Every day somebody's complaining and needing property tax relief. So you just walked it right into the exact reason why this commission has been working so hard to try to reduce spending and focus on property tax relief this year because it needs to be focused on. There will always be distractions. There's always going to be new things that come up that we've got to spend money on. But if we're trying to spend it before we have it, then we're going to get caught up anyway. I don't think this eagle pitcher money is the answer. No, it is a short-term amount to help us for a couple years until we come up with another idea, a better idea, collectively between the staff, management, and this commission to focus on that. So we can take every dollar from our reserves and everything and apply it to something that is needed or is at want. We have to balance that out. We have people that don't have anything to do with soccer in this community. And if we allocate all that money towards that, and we're walking into that account, and they never go to those soccer fields, they never tie on a pair of cleats, they never take their child or their grandchildren to it, then we've just taken away from them something we can't affect.

But DJ, you know what? Those people that will never set foot on the soccer field, I might be one of them. I'm not a big soccer guy. You know what they will benefit from? The sales tax from the gas, from the groceries, from the restaurants. It's not fair to say that if you don't like soccer, you're not benefiting anything from that.

You're saying in your argument earlier was that if there's not a turf field that we have an opportunity now to make happen, that we're not going to have any of that, and we are. We're going to generate sales.

I'll defer to Chris on that, but I think the amount of play that those fields are going to get, I think they're going to be really hard to keep irrigated, and just from the play that they're going to have, just from the wear of it. natural sod is going to hold up this time of year as much as they're going to be used. Again, that's just my thought. I would support that. But again, I support it for economic development and or sales tax generation that we wouldn't have had before. And that benefits everyone.

I think the want list and the random Tangent for this, there is an opportunity here because we have a bunch of construction on the softball and baseball fields, but. Again, if we don't at some point, focus on trying to help the entire community that pays taxes in their residential zones. If we never do that, then we're failing this community. And we have an opportunity right now to make that change change the culture of. Not focusing on it and not doing anything about it to actually making a change and that that's going to take several years. It's not just this year. It's not just 5 months of working on the 27 budget. It's from now forward. We make concessions and we make plans and we make. Arrangements every day to make the city better and that's all this is going to do. It's not going to alienate anybody. It's not going to. Starving when it's not going to change anything from ever happening, but we're talking about a budget. but we're dancing away from the definition of the budget. Let's budget it this year for what we can get done, and then we work on what the needs and wants are next year for next year's budget, every year.

My point is we can do both, if you would consider that. So, that's all that's the only reason I bring it up is we have the opportunity to do both. We have an opportunity to cut.

And we also have an opportunity to build our community, but you said yourself, the plan for what we're doing to cut is not sustainable long term. So, if we're going to be doing this every year. So, that's the point of doing the budget every year, right? But if we're taking away additional funds that we could use towards programming towards reduction in property, that's not you're not really.

It's just not a sustainable model. I don't I mean, it's a step forward.

It's a step forward.

But what happens when it runs out DJ and then you got nothing to show for it other than 2 years of. You know, 23 dollar reduced taxes on 100,000 our house.

So you say we do nothing for property tax and I'm saying we're doing something this year and I'm saying we could do something to bolster the revenue from.

The people that we're going to bring into this community from that soccer field and from these baseball fields, and I'm saying there's a big fundraising campaign from a lot of very generous. thoughtful people in our citizenry that are going out trying to make these things happen so that we don't have to we as a city don't have to bear it all I'm just saying I think we ought to at least put something forward towards that instead of just expecting somebody else to do it it's kind of shocking to sit here and hear some of these statements towards we can't do anything else we can't do anything else to reduce spending and reallocate revenue but now we have a new idea on how to spend that money

Is that not contradictory in itself?

It may be to you, but I'm saying we build the community, not just cut the community, build the community. We cut services. I know you don't think we are, but we're making people to Cheryl's... Phrase that she used lean and mean we're asking people to run lean and mean for 2027 and they're signed on for it and they're going to do it. But I don't think we can run lean and mean every year after that. So again, but when you're not used to doing it, you don't change. You're not used to doing it. But wow. I mean, that's to say that I guess we just. However long you've been a commissioner, however long you've been a commissioner, I guess we've just been turning a blind eye to it because this all happened under our watch. This is my fifth year, so I guess what we're saying is we just let all this crazy spending go on under our noses. I mean, is that what we're saying?

When I sat at that podium last year and I asked you guys all questions and I asked questions individually, yes, that was happening. There were people that had no idea what was going on and where the money was going to be directly spent from each revenue channel or how much money was coming in. That actually was happening.

What did you uncover in the last nine months that we're wasting money on or spending money frivolously on as a city? No.

What you're saying, what I'm saying is the communication piece wasn't there.

You made a comment. The communication piece is always there. I mean, Darren meets with us once a week. He is the city manager. We meet with him to find out what's going on. He meets with department heads every week. I know I don't miss the meeting unless I'm out of town. I don't know about the rest of you, but there's plenty of communication with the city manager.

So, in last year's budget, you believe the entire commission understood that budget and was functioning off of a full understanding of how it worked.

I believe a mistake was made when the when the. What we put forward at the county. When it was converted to mill dollars to mills mills to dollars, whatever that situation was, that was the mistake or. oversight or whatever you want to call it. I don't think there was any intentional act to dupe the citizens out of $207,000.

I don't think anybody on this commission voted to do that. I don't believe that happened either. I believe the mistake happened because there wasn't enough eyes on people weren't paying attention to the budget and its process.

I don't think we we we scrutinize the budget as long as I've been here. I like we not like this. Like I said, and there was a reason for that and we found out the reason we made a mistake. We're just scrutinizing and see where we can reduce expenses and hopefully you know low property. And because and because we've scrutinized this then. We're being told that, you know, the minutiae or we're going to cut services or, you know, employees are worried that we want to put them out of work. That's not ever been said by us. We're trying to save money. We made a mistake. We scrutinized it this year more than we've ever done in 13 years since I've been here. Most times, and I'm part of it, whatever was presented, we approved. And you were five years doing the same thing. So... Scrutiny to the budget? Is that a bad thing?

I'm not saying it is.

So again, going back to it, I don't feel like we have done every possible thing we can to make sure we're doing everything within this budget. So we're still within the hearing, so we can't vote on this currently until the hearing part's closed. But yeah, I think my suggestion is to do a full special meeting just for the budget, go line by line by department, and we cover bases. If we as a group collectively can find anything else to adjust the budget to assist with what we're doing, then we do. If we can't, then so be it. We did the effort, we put the work in, And it'll make sense. But if we do, if we just bypass that part of this process, we say, oh, it's good. I'm tired of looking at it. I don't want to look at it anymore. I don't want to spend more time.

I'm just saying that's a three half mils is a good reduction. That's what I think. We're all proud of the accomplishment. That's a significant number. I'm proud of the department heads for doing that. What are we going to get from a special meeting? You're going to ask me to cut more?

Possibly. We're going to look at it. Go line by line.

Yeah, do we have time? We have time for 1 more special meeting. What would that hurt?

If there's nothing, I don't know Chuck. I really don't know what it would hurt. I'm not sure what we gain from it either. Well, maybe we don't bet you at that special meeting. We vote for.

3 and a half bill, maybe that's what it's going to be stupid. At least we gain the trust of this community because they don't have as much. We didn't have it last year.

So we got elected because they didn't trust us.

No, they wanted us to make a difference.

It sounds like you're saying they didn't trust us, but they still elected us.

Let me put some words in my mouth. What I'm saying is they wanted to see some change, and we're doing that now. And you're fighting it, and so is the dog. I'm not fighting it. Then let's do every possible thing you can.

You've been here through the whole thing. We've been here meeting by meeting.

Well, in my opinion, one more meeting, a special meeting. Maybe we won't find anything else that we can cut. But I think decision to citizens deserve that. We are scrutinizing it one last time. And if that's what we come up three and a half, are we doing that for.

For the greater good, are we doing for political theater? Because I'm starting to think that.

No, it's not political. Don't do that.

Don't do that.

Guys, we're talking about the city budget right now and you're going somewhere else.

That's what I'm saying.

I stood at that podium last year as a civilian before I became a commissioner. I asked questions about this budget and I got different answers from every commissioner and every person I asked because it was not a common understanding of the commission and the functions. We've established that we've done tons of things this year to make sure that that communication is there from the commission to the staff and to the people in the public. I don't want to shortchange that we have a good thing working towards this. Again, if we don't find anything else we can move, then we don't. But if we have the opportunity to do that, why would we not take that? Why would we not sit down and go over this and spend a few more hours on this? That's not asking you to drive 1000 miles or spend 10 days somewhere else. You're here to represent the community, and that's what we're doing. I don't understand why there's so much pushback on this.

I feel like that's what we've been doing, DJ, for nine months.

So what is another few hours?

One more meeting, I guess. Is the hearing, are we done with the hearing? So we don't have anybody else.

Oh, is there anybody else who would like to ask any questions on the 2027 proposed budget? Seeing none, I'm closing the public hearing on the proposed budget.

I renew my motion to approve it with a 3 and 1 half mil reduction.

Well.

I don't know if Doc's still on there. He would second it.

So if we don't have this, you're trying to get around one more meeting.

I just, my mind is made up that we have done everything we can in the last nine months. I just feel like this is the time to approve it. It's been on our calendar since, I don't know, early spring, maybe January 1st. I don't know what it was. September 8th was supposed to be the day that we vote on the budget.

Well, I think other people think one more meeting was not going to.

I know, but I'm just saying, if we follow the calendar, which I guess certainly don't, but I mean, again, that's my opinion. You guys do what you, you vote your heart. I call for a vote, and I'd like it to be a roll call vote.

And this is going to be Approving the three and a half mil reduction and the 2027 budget and the 2027 It is not complete Then don't vote against it.

I want a roll call vote. That's what I said.

I'm gonna know No, all right, yes, no Perry no sickly You made a motion

i made the motion you made the second we're voting on the on the motion doc okay so what happens now so it was voted down that motion failed three or two go on to the consider part of the agenda all right consider the following variance galaxy food mark what let's back up what was that roll call again You want on the budget?

Works was a no. Yes, you're no area. No and secretly yes. Alright.

Consider the following variance Galaxy Food Mart. Consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission Slash Board of zoning appeals to grant the requested submitted. by Galaxy Food Mart for a side yard setback variance from 10 to 5 feet and a rear yard setback variance from 20 feet to 5 feet at 406 North Rouse to allow for the construction of a liquor store.

If you guys have any questions, both of these were pretty simple for us. Any opposition? No.

Actually, I was fortunate to be able to go to that meeting last week and see the process. It was very interesting how they want to put this together, and I think they have a good thing that they want to produce for the community in that location. They have plenty of space for what they're asking for, so motion to approve. Second.

Then moved and seconded to approve this variance. All in favor say aye. Aye. Did you vote, Doc? Yeah, I said I didn't hear you all opposed. Same time motion carries 50. Consider the following item be vacation request. The city of Pittsburgh considered the recommendation of Planning Commission slash Board of zoning appeals to grant their request submitted by the city of Pittsburgh to vacate the lot immediately north of 109 North Elm.

Same thing. This was just a little piece of property. You guys had already vacated everything around it. It just was a. Part that accidentally got through and so 3 foot slower.

Yeah, so the community understands also, if they weren't watching the zoning meeting, there was a small chunk left out of the original vacation. And this is just to clean that up to make it a solid piece. That's correct again. There's no issues motion to approve 2nd.

Been moved and 2nd, and all in favor of approval say aye aye. All opposed, same time. Motion carries. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Item C, change order number one. Mammoth Sports Construction LLC agreement consider the staff recommendation to approve change order number one to the agreement with Mammoth Sports Construction LLC for the sports facilities improvements at Donald Guthrie's Sports Complex located in Lincoln Park to add amenities including backstops, seating, and lighting with the total cost of the additional amenities Guaranteed by point forward.

American visitors so phase 1 was the stabilization turf and outfield fence for the complex was roughly 6Million dollars. You approve that a couple of months ago. Phase 2, you should have a list in front of you that has the change order outline by field. There's 8 fields. Most of them are getting the exact same thing, which would be backstops, the bleachers, the lights, the dugouts and the foul holes. Stice is only getting the backstop and bleachers and lights because the other 1 is overdressed in the earlier. Um, agreement, and we have. Excuse me, this is being funded completely with donations. Again, so there's no city money in it, but it's a city assets. We're bringing it before you. Um, we have ladies here is with mammoth. We have Joe Dallas here as represent point forward. We have. Chris, who's backing away from the mic, but is with the parks department and be happy to answer any questions.

So stice aside, um. All these are pretty close in value. They're all uniform products. It's all going to look very similar to the same on all the fields other than the different minimal terrain features for each field.

Yes, except we made a decision on wild redberry on the dugout.

I think so.

Yeah, well, we'll also have additional upgrades that the other ones will have. That way it'll be more of a trophy little league field as opposed to because we're nice to be for the high school softball field there and everything. And then, yeah, so we'll have additional upgrades that the other ones will not. Everything's going to get an upgrade, but those will have the additional ones.

Okay. So to answer your question, other than those two fields, the others will be uniform and what's.

And how they all look, I think it's wonderful these, the donations of stuff for coming in to support this. I think there's a lot of people eager to see the finished product. A lot of phone calls about when it's going to be open next. I know it's going to be some time, but do you foresee any additional past this point? Change orders out in front of the complete construction for we're currently at.

And if so, I think right now we're, um, you know, we're in the basic design, but if, um, there are some chances and chances to enhance the part, certainly there could be. Um, but that would have to be funded, uh, by donors. If donor came to us and said. Put up a brick wall here and we pay for the donor wall with that's not in our budget because we try to keep it tight, but we, we would consider. I think you asked last time what if you get it more there's certainly things we could do, but it would all be have to come from donors. None of it from the city.

Are we currently looking at any of those additional changes in the near future before completion of the existing construction plan?

Right now, we're trying to get this under contract, which is why it's before you today. They're obviously moving very quick out there, if you've watched. The faster they move, the more pieces that get done as they're moving. It's important, so that's why this is before you today. To Joe's point, fundraising is going to continue. To say that somebody doesn't come in and put a

super duper scoreboard on one of the fields with their name across the top of it um it's not out of the question but um and i'll give you an example what kind of activities happened as we were looking at dugouts and it was like you know these are the dugouts we had before this was going to cost us more money uh what is this weekend spent some time out there he's like okay well maybe we keep the dugouts we have you know put the steel we got steel paint it put some thing okay we saved some money so it's You know, we're we're still trying to to get this project in a place where it's a good project that we're proud of. But if there's a good opportunity to save some money, we we're trying to do that.

And then the, you know, the additional manual is guaranteed by point for LLC. You know, what are we as far as what they're contributing as a whole on these projects? I mean, is there an end result we're going to Is there an interest in naming anything after point forward or. The process of the use of the fields in the future from them from you guys actually, you know. Working in the donation side of this, I just haven't heard anything about it yet. If there's going to be a window of. You know, how much money has been pooled for this and donations.

Towards it if there's something, yeah, let me give you a little contact kind of original goal from the public was 2.5Million. We're doing great. We're at 2.2Million. We're not there yet. Um, but we need to, we need to get moving. We're going to have this done by next spring. So, that means ma'am, that means the order from the city. Excuse me? So, in order to do that. those that to get 2.2 and people told us the reason we collected some of those at a higher amount donations was because they had three year to pay three years to pay it so that leaves a deficit of what point forward has today to what money we're going to be able to secure for the city so that you can take that put the order so What point forward is able to do is to go to the bank, get the financing and provide the float for the 3 years. On the strength of the donors that have pledged on the projection on the project. They are willing to do that. We also secured the bank. We were able to work with another donor. They'd like to be anonymous that would secure that note. With the bank, so it's just an amazing. gift if you will no absolutely so we were looking for a way basically we were looking for a way so that the order could be given by the city with no financial obligation of the citizens of pittsburgh but to handle the float and the continued fundraising that's the only questions i had any other questions moved to approve been a motion to approve is there a second

I second it. So been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thanks, guys.

Can I ask one clarifying question? To that, I want to make sure we're clear. If, as we're working through this process, really it's the outside the turf of that, if there are opportunities, whether through sponsorship and that, that we have something we're going to do to enhance the project or make it just even nicer that will be funded by donors, we would come to you and ask you for that.

Yeah, I'm just like looking at projections for future change orders on on adjustments if they continue then to make sure that the source of income or the source of revenue for those is

I hope this is a case on a positive deal. I hope that you have some change orders come before you where you get some money back. If you remember, we did those stabilization allowances and always said you go high. We don't want any surprises. We have to come back and ask for money. But I hope and I suspect that we won't have to use all that. So that would be a change.

We appreciate the research you did too on the distances on the fields to help reduce costs. I know that took a little bit extra work to in this whole process, but I do remember you bringing that up that.

some of the fields are actually deeper than they need to be for regulation play and you guys found that in your analysis so we did and and i sometimes i don't know if i'm working for mammoth or the city but i actually called aaron today and i said i think we can save some money on dugouts i think we're all working for blaze to be quite honest that's okay where would that money go back to then if it's not needed

They don't, I mean, that's so good question. If we had access money, our, our dream is last meetings. People were asking, what are you going to do in 8 to 10 years when we need to replace them? So, what we'd love to do is to create. Through sponsorships going forward, be able to create a sinking fund. So that there's some money there so that when you have to in those 8, 10, 12, 14 years, however long we're able to keep those feel that we have a fund started built up so that.

So that brings up a good question. I know we're outside of the scope of this schedule right now, but if people donate towards the softball fields currently and you find ways to reduce spending, you have a surplus of money that was donated specifically for those fields, are there guardrails and things in place for that money and where it can go after the completion of the construction?

Right. It's a donor agreement. It's got to go to what they give it to.

And we had no option, but then you have future projects for the same location down the road. That might just stays there.

Well, a lot of will be like, uh, they rip a backs up. Instead of going to look for the money to replace that, it'll be in the fund. And if there's a reserve.

And I could put words in blazes team, but they said spending some money on maintenance. Will extend the life of the fields. You want to have some money there to be able to do that on a manual basis.

And this is a true, very unique opportunity where you have the. The donors are donating to a city-owned revenue-generating asset. So the money that is made from the ball tournaments will be used by the city and stay with the city to operate the facilities and hopefully maintain them to a level that the donors are happy with. But at the same time, we don't want to have to go back in 10 years to Joe's point and say, hey, now we've got to replace all the turf. Let's do it again. So the money that is... The reason the city's involved in this is because we are strictly going to be approving the invoices because it's our asset. We have very little money and it is, you know, we have a 1Million and then we have the 750,000 and then we have the asphalt. For the roads, but we will be operating these and keep it at revenue within the city to maintain and operate the fields and have those tournaments because they're that important.

And those tournament monies goes into that reserve?

No, that money, Joe is talking about if donors give and we don't need their money, where does it go? It goes back for the donor agreement to the endowment fund or sinking fund, whatever he calls it. The city will be operating those. That money will be city money. That's why having people donate $9 million to a city fund

revenue generating asset for us to use is a very unique partnership and it's special and that's uh mainly due to the guys and people behind them they're up here can i make one comment so one of your donors wanted to be i think in that first phase five million that was donated with private money approximately one of the donors i asked him i said how do you he gets hit up for everything And 1 of the things that they shared with me was, is we'd like to donate and projects that we know that will grow the city or the entity involved. So we know the metrics we know what brings in people in the community. We know that sometimes there's things that are hard to sell for the city. Because it looks like an extra, but in the long run, she's going to benefit big time from this.

Yeah. We're counting on it. Sorry, I know that commentary wasn't good. Nope, that's a good pitch. We're happy to be partnering with you.

That's why they believe in donating that kind of dollars and getting back to their city.

This keeps it moving. Thank you.

Item D, FAA.

Hey, Mayor, can I interrupt real quick? So I just talked to Matt, got an update. For anybody that's listening, we do have a huge pipe that's coming out of the water plant that has blown up. It's a significant amount. There's a chance that we will lose our water. So if anybody is listening to this, and if Stephanie's here, we'd appreciate if everybody would conserve water tonight, because if they don't, there's a good chance we'll have a boil order for the next few days, which is something we don't want any part of with the seat. So, um. Once again, our crews are out there doing it while we're in here doing what we're doing, but they're on it. I think there's a. I wouldn't say it's 5050 chance to get it past, but there's still some water in the tower. So they're working diligently right now to get that patch. And if they can, we won't get there. But if you're using water, you're sprinkling, you can hear this, you know, somebody. Turn your water off, get out of the shower, turn off the sprinkler and just hold tight for for a day if you can, because we need all the water we have right now to get through this. That's all I got. Yep.

All right, item D, FAA Intended Lease Agreement Amendment. Consider staff recommendation to approve the request submitted by the Federal Aviation Administration to amend the FAA Attendance Agreement for the indoor radio communications outlet space at Atkinson Municipal Airport to extend the lease for an additional two years and to add three prohibitive and security clauses.

The least controversial item on the agenda tonight. I'll let Bill explain it.

Ten years, Chuck. Ten.

Do what now?

It's ten years.

Oh, what did I read?

Oh, 10 years.

Why did I come up with two?

Thanks, Bill. So we're just looking to extend that current lease. What we're doing with it is the airport's housed. We have a room. We have houses, radios. It's a frequency. for aircraft to communicate with Wichita Flight Service. It's a ground-to-air frequency, so they can file flight plans, cancel flight plans, get weather briefings, and get other advisories. So what it is, it's just a tool for the pilots at the airport to use. It's been an ongoing lease. We've had this equipment there for over 30 years, so it's just an ongoing, just extended to another 10 years.

I know I asked you this question before, Billy, but I forgot about it. What was the antenna at Station 2 for?

That was what they called a non-directional beacon. That's a discontinued frequency. The FAA discontinued all those throughout the United States. This is something a little different than that, but it's still a frequency that the pilots can use. The non-directional Okay, so that's that's why it was discontinued.

All right. Any other questions?

Motion to approve.

The motion is our second in motion by DJ, second by Cheryl. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks Bill. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Item E, Community Development Block Grant Project 23-PF-0026, Washington School. Final monitoring. Consider staff recommendation to authorize the mayor to sign a letter addressing, addressed to the Kansas Department of Commerce, outlining the required corrective action the city will take to ensure future compliance in regard to community development block grant CDBG funding.

Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. On May 26th, this particular grant is for the Washington School Child Care Project through community development block grant. On May 26th of 2026, Kansas Department of Commerce and Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission, that's our grant administrator, came to City Hall and they review our files on this project and then we received our final monitoring basically results on August 25th I believe yes at City Hall and basically within those final monitoring steps, there was a finding which basically requires us to submit a letter saying we won't do it again, just like any other finding or any other audit. They want to make sure that you have a solution. to the issue so that it doesn't happen again with future grants. It is a formality. I have spoken with Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission and just asked, you know, how serious is this? And of course, we take it very seriously as a city and staff, of course. However, she did say it does happen often. The major finding that was found is that we did not release funds. So as we are approved for grants, You have to draw from those grants. So we would have a contractor send in pay apps, which is their request for payment to their subs and anybody doing work on the job. Myself and our grant administrators at SEKRPC We'll review those pay apps. They'll do the summary based on the initial budget that was submitted when we applied for the grant. And then we send that off to the Department of Commerce to request the draw from the grant for that amount. Once that draw is completed, that can take up to two to three weeks for Commerce to process. that we don't have a set date. So once we send it off, we just kind of have to wait for it to come in. When that money comes into the city as a pass through to the sub recipient, the grant agreement required that we release that money within three business days. That did not happen on two of the disbursements. So that was the finding that they would like us to review and take care of and put in new policies and procedures to fix. We did not lose any money. In fact, this project came in under budget. The reason within the letter, there's the financial management aspect. Looks like we lost money. We were approved for a grant for $750,000. Our local match in our budget was the $966,000. Good thing was we came in under budget, but you can't pull all $750,000 if you didn't spend your $966,000. We did not lose money on this. The money went exactly where it was supposed to. It's a very tight compliance process. And as our grant administrators is here to help us even more going forward. So we did resolve the issue just to clarify on the draws. So when the money hits the account, it needs to be released within three days. That did not happen on the first which was request for payment one, two, and three. Those were combined and we were 30 days late on that. That was simply because, and it's not funny, but I know exactly why. Myself being new, our grant administrator was new. We did not have MISI in place just yet, so having No finance director at the time that was familiar with the CDBG process along with myself. There were several situations there. In addition to that, when the money hit the funds, finance sees that, but I'm not notified. I will be going forward, but I wasn't at the time. There was no system in place for that. So those are a lot of the things that we're working on for compliance. The next one was released within four business days, so just made barely the cut there under requirement of the three the rfp number five was released on time and rfp number six was released on time uh especially with the holidays which was on the day after christmas and we released it on december 30th so we got it under control of course any grants going forward we will have in compliance check the letter um for you to sign is just uh I prepared that as a courtesy so of course if there's um any questions that you have on that or um don't agree with we can hopefully edit tonight Tammy before he signs and I'd be glad to do or answer any questions that you all might have I know that's a lot of information but tried to summarize

Well, I was in Florida and I got the packet and I read this and I text you my concerns. My concern was the final monitoring on the grant for Washington School. The findings required corrective action is to update policies and procedures and submit covered letter signed by the mayor explaining how the city will ensure future compliance.

Yes.

requested action the mayor to sign the attached letter to Kansas Department of Commerce on behalf of the city of Pittsburgh. It's another concern, summary of cover letter. Finding issues regarding the expenditure of CDB funds outside the three-day business window. I had a question on that. The city has implemented update internal procedure to ensure that CDB funds received through the treasury will be expended with its three-day business future grants. The cover letter want me to sign. I have no. I had no knowledge of what took place. You know why wasn't the three day? Is you and what are the? Internal procedures. To make sure that this doesn't happen again. So that's why I text you.

Yeah, and I called back twice and text you back. So I just want to be clear on that on record that I did respond to that. So, and I didn't, I wasn't, I didn't hear back from you didn't get to speak to you before tonight's meeting. So I apologize that we weren't able to connect on that. So, so, of course, with Missy starting in. late 2025, so right kind of in the middle of this. We did get a hold of it at that time. There was management in place that was handling that. We also have a new policy, a financial policy for CDBG grants. Our new financial management system will be a huge help in this particular grant compliance. So I am looking forward to that. That will make things a lot more obviously compliant and smooth as we get those funds, we can release them immediately. We plan to also have regular grant meetings and a position in finance that will specialize in grants along with myself, Missy, and the rest of the city staff. And it's not just CDBG, but it would be with anything, whether it's parks or any other department that has grant funding. It is important to follow the compliance. It's also important to respond in time with the plan going forward. And that's what we are doing tonight. That's what we're asking for tonight. It's just a letter to send to Tim and make sure that we cover any future issues.

So when you responded back on my concerns, you said that some of these requests for the withdrawals was after 5 or on a Friday afternoon, but

so that's what i was kind of confused with i said they could have been so i had to pull that from missy and finance i didn't have access to those records when they came in and when they left so i i pulled that and asked for those things to see what the difference was and that's what i outlined in the when i first started speaking of when they hit when they were released uh the four business days the on time and then of course on time during the holidays so uh i just didn't have the details of that at the time we were setting up for a night at the friendly tavern and i was out of the office

Well, you know, and I've seen this cover letter that's addressed to the right people. And like I said, I was kind of concerned because all you need me to do is sign it. And I didn't have any of the details, what took place, what occurred, why we didn't follow the process.

I understand that. It is a common, typical courtesy to prepare those letters. I've had several letters we prepare for the mayors to sign. I, of course, would have worked with you on that due to The deadline of the agenda being at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, that was tricky. So I apologize, especially if you're out of town. We wouldn't have been able to do that anyway. But like I said, if there's any edits or anything you're not comfortable with, basically, this just can cover covers all the compliance requests and lets them know what we're willing to do and how we're moving forward.

Anybody else without the letter you're saying how much is money being forfeited without the letter or what is?

What's the no so the the funds have all been? Expended everything's everything's good. What they're saying is when they come in and do the final monitoring They go through from start to finish and they dig into everything. In fact, I cannot be present They have to have a closed office. They have all of our files it is does not include city staff unless they have questions or there's something they need and that happened in may the department of commerce has two project managers covering the entire state of kansas right now so um they are also understaffed so it took until the letter date of august i believe 26th whenever that came to us with the finding and then they requested that this letter be signed by september 8th We notified Tim Parks at the Department of Commerce and CDBG specialists that we in fact have a meeting on the 8th and I wouldn't be able to get it to him unless it was tonight or tomorrow and they're okay with that. So it was done as timely as we could do it. But yes, Chuck, I understand your question of why was the monitoring in May and we're just now finding out. I can't answer that. I received the letter on the 26th of August.

That was my primary concern. When this agenda came out, the Response packet from the findings directing to and it's dated. So we see that you received them 25th. My question is, after they did their initial run through all the different categories, and they had this finding, was there no conversation? They notified nothing at the time.

No, sir.

So you found not me.

Nope. And no, no one at the city city. so they did their suit i would assume typically if they were staffed up and on time i can't speak for them so i don't want to speak for another organization but um i would say probably within 30 to 45 days you would get your findings if there is any or at least your final monitoring letter but again i can't speak to that uh the timing came when we received it so i would assume it should be sooner but

And so, is it is it common? And again, I'm learning rapidly how the grant process works and all the different grants that are floating out there and the hard work you guys put into apply for them. Um, the response and so the big concerns that that were red flagged up front for me was the timeframe of the response from them. Obviously explain some of that. When there's a grant sitting out there and we're expecting the funding to come in, is there not any phone call traffic or follow up with the agency that's going to approve the grant to validate a specific window when it's going to hit the account?

We have some back and forth, and usually that comes from when the developer or contract is like, hey, I get my money, you know, I need to pay these subs, I need to pay these, and that, so that's usually when that would expedite that, but even then, it would then be a call to SEKRPC, and then they reach out, or Jenny Eardley at the time with CDBG, and just say, where is it at, and she can give us kind of a window, but they get two to three weeks to process, so it's just... We're just sitting out there waiting, and one day somebody's going to drop it in there, and then we find it?

I mean, essentially, that's... That's the way this reads.

It shows there's a deposit from Treasury and it comes in. Yes. So if accounting didn't have a memo, which they didn't on the first one, then they don't know where that. So it goes into that CDBG account. It's just there.

So who was watching this? Who was in charge of this at the time when all this took place? Missy was new. She hadn't come in yet. But who was previously watching the grants and tracking all this stuff?

That's what we rely on SEKRPC for. That's our grant administrator. But again, they're not seeing our accounts. for the city who was monitoring that on city staff who was watching all this i would assume the whole finance department i again that's not my okay i didn't i was not privy to that i wasn't able to see that so um And that obviously is something that will change with the new system so that we're all getting notifications when those come in.

And that was the next point is in the cover letter. It talks about, um, we're going to do all the right things. We're going to, we've made concessions to make sure it doesn't happen again, but it doesn't really go into detail about all of those. So is that another document that the commission doesn't have or, I mean, you lightly touch it. Uh, well, I mean the concerns on, findings page or what he's wanting to ensure it but is there i mean you have i guess you explain Before we go to that, the amount was also a concern. The amount of money that was affected by this finding. And that was brought to me by some civilians that had questions on the amount of money that was or was not spent in the three-day window time.

Just to be clear, really quick. So the money wasn't being spent in the three-day window. If this is the account that CDBG is holding the grant funds in for us, we request a draw from that. It drops down. Once it hit the city, it wasn't released immediately within the three business days. So there was no the city wasn't spending the money. The city was a pass through. to the project. Yes. So we, we didn't lose any money. There was no funds lost. Um, we just, it came from here to here and then it was held too long. It needed to kick straight out. So it didn't acquire interest or anything like that. That's the whole reason that they wanted out in three days. That is tricky for any municipality. Uh, even grant administrators admitted that that's hard. um so so but once we figured all that out and we were reviewing all of that we released them on time and we got it fixed our grant agreement we said we would so the initial documents that were built and vetted through the commission had that in there yes yes it was in the grant agreement that we signed and said yes we'll release those funds in three days because that's the compliance yes so again my concern is just the i guess identifying the amount of money that was affected by

this finding we did not lose any money i'm not saying lose money just the amount of money that was it's stating that it wasn't submitted to the vendor in those three days so what is the amount of money that was attached to that finding i'm not sure what you're asking the grant was for 750 000. yes and as of what was this august 25th

The city has requested and expended 610,000 under budget.

It's under budget.

So you didn't need 750,000.

You did yes, but we, that was only if we spent what we said in our budget, when we applied for the grant, we said we were going to have a local match of 966,000 dollars. Okay, we did not. It came in under budget. You can't submit for money you never spent on the project. So we spent less. So we spent the $765,000, whatever it is. It's not in front of me. So we spent less. We were granted $750,000, which is the max for a child care project because we said our local match was $966,000. We spent less than our local match, so we get less. We can't have all $750,000 if we didn't spend what we promised.

So you spent $610,700?

Out of the $750,000.

Right. So you said earlier the draw one, two, and three was 30 days late. So those three draws, what's the amount?

Okay. Okay. Yep. That makes sense. So the, again, within this budget amount, there were amounts that had to go to Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission as our grant administrator. Most grants allow for about $25,000 out of grant funds to be paid to an administrator. So the first RFP number one was $4,500. That $4,500 is paid to Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission out of the grant funds, not city money, out of the grant funds upon publication of the invitation to bid the project. A second RFP number two was $4,500 as well, which is upon the city's first approval of the first construction pay estimate. And then the request from the developer to pull from the grant was $92,145. So within all of that, our request for drawdown from the grant that would have been $750,000 was $192,845. That's RFP 1, 2, and 3 all combined. That was 30 days late. It was the first one coming in. So that was 192,845. Of that, when you come to RFP number four was 5500 to SEK RPC when project constructions at 50%. That's what we owe. And then the draw on RFP number four was 115 to 65. So our total request was 120765 on RFP for that one was paid out and released to the developer within four business days. RFP number five was 103,800, so 103,800. That was released on time on November 13th. RFP number six was a $4,300 payment, which was the city's approval of the notice of substantial completion and prior to close out. That goes to SEKRPC. And $180,000 is a pull from the developer. So the total on that one was 184,300. And that was on time with the holidays. That was in December. So those all, the full total on that is what they're referring to in that letter of the Hold on just a second. 610,710, yes. 610710 of the 750 we were granted. So we just didn't spend as much. It came in under budget, so we can't pull the full grant amount. That's how the match works, and that's how the budget works when you first apply for a grant.

Was that 750,000, Kim, for the new building?

It is for the new building only. So this is not the historic Washington School. This is for the addition child care facility only. So the grant funds are used for that building only. And this is the budget for that building only.

Is that new building been put in service?

They are. Yes. So she and again, just for everybody at home and you guys on September 22nd, we will have a public hearing for close out of the grant. So we will go through and outline all of this. What was applied for, where it's at. many children are there uh candy will be here we'll have point forward here we'll have myself um jay city staff everybody so we will also be able to if there's additional questions between now and then be able to cover those as well that evening okay so uh and again thank you for going through that and yeah itemizing it so we're all clear on because i think that was one of the big concerns when this agenda got pushed out was

Then we lost money. Yeah, where it was and where it actually went and when and that's why I've asked those specific questions. So we can make sure we. Sure, get the information from the information that people that are asking it. Um, as far as the and again that the cover letter, I, I read it to be, um. I mean, it covers all of the basis, um. For. The Department of Commerce, and then how they're looking at this, I guess the concern would have been more so for me in this. The timeframe, the amount, and then the cover letter actually being worked hand in hand with the mayor to come to a final product. It makes sense. Especially, I mean, I know you do this all the time and lots of departments do. And so I'm not, I'm not trying to beat you up on this. I'm just saying this is a substantial. And if it does happen a lot of them, you know, it's I'm not. Common with this, so I'm learning it, but in the future, these type of memos. Um, I don't know. He gave you he gave you the. That was the date he gave you was there was there a point where you could ask for additional time until America back in town to discuss this and work on it? Or is it is that something that can't be done?

I'm not saying it can't be. I just usually don't. If we're asking to comply with the $750,000 grant, I just kind of go with what our, well, if we can and we're making it work because today's the eighth and if we can get it signed, that'd be great. Um, again, if mayor, if you're not comfortable with any of the verbiage on this letter, I'd be glad to retype and have you sign whatever you're comfortable with. Of course. Um, but it was a courtesy. It was for agenda purposes. I couldn't submit the memo without a letter. You know, that's incomplete.

So, again, it wasn't well, before I asked the other commissioners what your thoughts on this letter after reading.

Well, again, I voiced all of my concerns with it just that it didn't have the additional information in the cover letter as it being what. What the commission and what the mayor is going to review, I would have liked to have seen. All the additional changes that were put in place and policy changes as a packet to. Ensure that we have visibility on what's being changed. So it doesn't happen again. Mistakes happen overlap happens. There's there's all kinds of you deal with a 1Million things a day. Um, I just, um, moving forward and looking forward to having that information available, uh, and that would have alleviated, you know, 90% of my questions if it just had had, I guess the beans and bullets involved and why, well, like I said, I was just a little bit concerned not knowing any of this and, oh, you're asking me to sign something that I don't know what the heck you're talking about half the time, but

And then another concern I have, we're committed to prevent this type of violation from occurring on any future CDBG projects. So will that affect any other? I don't know. Things happen in Pittsburgh that might want to have this CDBG grant procedure that we violated by not following the procedure, it sounds like to me. So it won't affect any future, anything in the future.

That's why they're asking us to just submit our plan for compliance is to make sure that it doesn't happen on any future. So that's what we're doing and we're committing to that and. Working with them as our grant advisors, Kim isn't this basically a final.

Review of the grant before they close it out. Um, and. Isn't that typical in a review process that they find something to that they're not happy with or or. There's they recommend corrective action on. I mean, is that uncommon?

I mean, I mean, again, this was my 1st grant to deal with, so I can't speak to my. Crazy experience on that. I did learn a lot. I am learning a lot. I think all of us have, but it is pretty typical in anything else, any compliance, any reporting. If you're perfect, that's awesome. And most of the time, if you are, you've probably done five or ten. All these projects are unique. All of them are different. There's different things that can pop up. They have a job in using federal funding from HUD to make sure that their municipalities are compliant, and that's CDBG's responsibility and Department of Commerce's responsibility, so that is exactly what they're doing, and they're helping us through it. Tim Parks is aware that we may not submit this until tomorrow. He's okay with that. Everybody's been very supportive, and it is a big deal. It's a big deal, but it is... a typical process and they just ask us to do the letter and make sure we do better and that's it so will it affect future grants mayor i i don't know i think if we don't do this it sure would because that would show that we're not wanting to be compliant but we're making every effort we can to not have it happen again well i know from the inception of this project there's been a lot of concerns

all through the things, things that were said, things that weren't said, and that's, you know, I've asked questions through the process. One of them in particular was the licensed daycare provider for Washington School. And Ron Skripcik and Jake Byard both standing up there, and Ron Skripcik said the licensed, through KDAT, the licensed daycare provider was Washington School LLC. That's the facility. It wasn't the provider's name. of KDHE approved provider. So you see where I question some of this stuff. Like when I see this letter, just sign it. We'll do better next time. It concerns me because there has been a lot of concerns over this project on different things that's happened. So that was my concern, especially reading it from Florida and trying to figure out what is this about. And the concern is, and you can't answer that. This is your first one you've done. You can't answer it. It's going to be an issue with any further future grants through this. Hopefully it won't. Hopefully, maybe this... With my signature says that we're I'm not going to say it because I don't like saying we're going to do better next time. We should be doing what we should be doing this time. You know, I'm not going to make an excuse that we're going to do better next time, but we should have made sure everything was properly done this time. And that's what this letter says we're going to do so.

If everybody's all right with that, the last thing I want to say is, again, with the with the changes that have been implemented, since I don't I can't see that, I don't know what all that entails. I would ask the workflow step section revised workflow steps. But there's a possibility to include the commission on. Compliance like stair stepping through. The process, I know if it's something that's going to create a giant headache or not. But if it's something that we can, we can have some type of a. We're 3 months in this is where we're at. We're 5 months in 8 months in something of that nature.

Yeah, and again, with CDBG in particular, you usually are only doing one at a time. So it's not like there's 20 of them going on at one time. So this is something we can focus all of our energy on. If we apply and get another one, then we can certainly figure out a way within the workflow to, even if I just do periodic updates of non-agenda at the end, if that would work.

It could be an email to let us know where we're standing with them and we're still in compliance with all the checklists.

And for the general public, if they're curious, I can do it at the mic. That's easy. Any other questions or did I hopefully alleviate some of the questions?

I don't have any additional questions. With the existing version of the letter. Seconded.

You're moving to approve this letter and you're seconded. Alright, well everybody's alright with it. I'll sign it so all in favor of. proven it say aye aye all opposed same sign motion carries thanks thank you thank you for answering all the questions i appreciate it i don't know what we do do we just uh do away with item f special city commission meeting date well

We want to have on, we need to establish what they were going to do it. So the motion to approve the budget this evening failed. There's still a concern from the public and I believe we need to do a special meeting to. at least give them the information they'd like to hear about the line items in the budget. Is there a date in the next two weeks that makes sense for the commissioners, I guess is the question. And then we apply a date to it. Any date would be fine with me. The only conflict I have is the 16th. I won't be available.

What about a Monday night?

The 14th of September?

Yeah. Seems to be the less conflicted day of the week or even the 21st. The next meeting is on the 22nd.

Just one second to verify.

Do you have any day that you can't be there?

Well, to be honest with you, I don't have my schedule with me, so I'm not sure.

Okay. All right. Let's do the other day.

Monday, the 15th is fine. The Mondays at 14, Monday, the 14th.

530.

Yeah. Somebody make a motion for that special meeting. I'll make a motion to have a special meeting concerning the 2027 budget and go by line item by department the 14th of September. Second.

Second. We've been moved and seconded. For the special meeting, all in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, wait a minute. Roll call vote.

Brooks. Yes. Aye. Yes. Munsell.

Yes.

Perry.

Yes.

Sigley.

No.

All right. Motion carries. Non-agenda reports and requests.

Yeah, just an update on the water for now. Just conserve water if you can. We're working on it. The plant is shut down. Currently, we're surviving on the towers, but that's a finite source. If we can get the plant back online before the towers drop, then we can avoid a boil order, but that's what we're working on right now.

I have one thing, and I brought it up about our fire department radios not being able to be used and was going to be fixed in September. Do you know, Darren, if they're using the radios we purchased or not?

I don't know.

I actually had a meeting in my official capacity PSU chiefs with a 911 director and a vendor in there. I think the plan is still to have it in the next week or two. Okay. Ish. They're working on it.

Thanks for the update. I have an item to refresh. We brought up several meetings ago about the, um, legal options with our establishments that have liquor licenses in the city, liquor licenses. I haven't seen any traction or any additional memos or any additional work pushed in front of me about Trying to come to some type of a normalization for the establishments in the city of Pittsburgh. We see anything else, Henry, any traction on that? Or is it kind of dropped to the wayside?

I don't recall that.

What is it? We're talking about the drinking age for the city of Pittsburgh and the businesses that have licenses to sell alcohol and beverages. They were looking at a way to normalize all the establishments in Pittsburgh to where they all in the same playing field as far as allowing under 21 people and patrons to come in and spend money in those establishments. We have several that sell liquor and alcohol and beer that have gaming options and that was kind of the the two things we were held on the last time we spoke this were where the latrines bathrooms were located and what type of gaming options were available we were going to look at what the requirements were and if we can make this make sense for all businesses that are trying to stay viable so we would have to look at i mean we have Some on Broadway that have different gaming options, different structures. We have some that are not on Broadway that have additional gaming.

You're saying gaming. I don't think you mean gambling.

Not gambling, yes. No, just activities for people to do and options for food and options for non-alcoholic sales.

I would think we'd want to work with our police department on that to get their input on those ordinances.

Well, the last thing that we were doing, the last time we spoke about it, Henry, you were looking at how the state looks at it and what our next option is going to be. So that's been probably four or five meetings ago, if not more.

Yeah, I... So the commission wants us to look at allowing under age 21 patrons in all drinking establishments.

I'm not saying that DJ is asking the questions.

So we were supposed to look into how to make that work for all the businesses that are trying to stay viable in the city of Pittsburgh. So we have a bowling alley that sells alcohol and people bowl. We have a pool hall, sells alcohol and people play pool. A lot of the other businesses that also have those licenses to include the restaurants, if they're interested, they're currently allow underage people to go in and purchase soda pop and sandwiches and whatnot. Yeah, I believe there's a cut off on the time period. There is. So what does it take to normalize that field, I guess, is what I'm refreshing somebody's mind. We talked about it through a meeting.

I thought we were talking about restrooms just need to be installed. No, we were only talking about 1 establishment. I thought. And I thought he was told that if he put restaurants in that he could, he's got the beer garden. He could he could do that.

I think I think. Where we got sideways on that was that was 1 specific business that had existing. structure but moving forward for all businesses we need to normalize the requirements what what defines a business to allow underage patrons to be in there and the last thing I think I was told was it had to do with how they identify what they are so if pool halls a pool hall they can do that if they're a bowling alley they can do that but if you identify as a bar or another establishment then you can't so

It has something to do with food sales, percentage of food sales.

To qualify as a restaurant, yes, there's a food sale requirement. Right. So an ordinance was put in place for the yard, the drink yard currently, a non-structured business to be able to have food sales from outside sources and sell alcohol through their structure, but it had to do with where their bathrooms were located. That seems to be the big hangout that everybody had during that meeting. But we haven't gotten any worse since then. So I mean, I don't feel we need to let this die. I mean, we are a community that's trying to help our small businesses stay viable. So we need to have the discussion on how to make all businesses that are trying to be involved in that atmosphere on the same playing field. If you have to say you're a bowling alley to make that happen, how many lanes are required? If you say you're a pool hall, is one pool table enough Or do you need 5 and we don't have that established? So it was kind of a gray area as it was being explained to me months ago. I would just like clarity on what the qualification is aside from the drinking age. That determines if you can have underage patrons or not.

So I think I remember what usage do it had something to do with. Under age, so if they needed to use the restrooms. They didn't have to go into the bar. They'd have to have some kind of a restroom.

We established that the three that are currently operating and allowing underage have that. The underage people have to go or will cross people that are consuming alcohol to get to the bathrooms, regardless of where they're actually located. So the bathroom argument kind of was moot. it didn't really solidify a location for the under 21 crowd it it just said the conversation was this is this is where it's the bathrooms are located and that's why it's an issue um so are we saying that an establishment has to create outdoor bathrooms in order to have use of their outdoor area for underage and their indoor area is exempt because currently that's the way ordinance reads well the ordinance has a definition of an outdoor recreation area and that's what they have to me right so the bowling alley is indoor the pool hall is indoor the bathrooms are still simply outdoor recreation areas those are pool halls or bowling alleys right so what determines Because we're dancing around this what determines who qualifies for underage patrons and who does not what exactly the ordinances that you guys pass. Right so currently we have different ones for different locations.

So, I mean, we have different ones for different criteria. Yes, we have restaurants. We have bowling alleys, we have pool halls and we have outdoor recreation areas.

Right so what what determines other than the naming feature. What if you're a gaming location or you have activities for underage patrons? Like is it just the naming feature and it's in the definitions in the right, but we don't have a standardized ordinance for all locations is what I'm getting at. We have different ones for different criteria, but the criteria has been set by.

Well, we have an ordinance that prohibits entry of underage patrons and it makes exceptions for certain. types of structures, types of locations. Well, not structures necessarily, but what the primary purpose of those businesses are.

Right. So I guess what I'm asking is we need to establish some type of a guide for businesses, current and future, that They understand and know what the requirements are to be able to have the underage patrons in their facility company by legal guardians and whatnot, but also have the ability to entertain. The social activities that they provide, so we have several businesses that have the back sets. They have darts. They have. You know, all kinds of things, so we're kind of setting and it's been set for several years. You have to have. This in your name and definition, the ordinance states that you are a pool hall, but. If you provide like services and you have a different type of structure, then. Where's the cutoff? How many pool tables makes you a pool hall? How many?

We can put that in the ordinance if we can amend that ordinance and change the definition of pool hall to say that you have to have a minimum number of X pool halls if that's what you.

Well, I think we've over time alienated some businesses from having those patrons because of the way it's currently worded. So yeah, maybe we just look at the existings and we make some adjustments. I don't have an answer for the entire thing, but I think the bottom line is you have underage patrons going to several businesses and spending money and have like amenities at other businesses that can't have that service. So we need to get some, I guess, you know, just a general normalized ordinance that makes sense for all the businesses if they provide, you know, I mean, I mean, what are we saying as a governing body? They have five different types of something to do there to allow them to come in and buy cheeseburgers? Or are we holding on to the naming feature in the definition in the current ordinance that's out there?

Well, if they want to qualify as a restaurant, they have to meet the minimum, you know, profits for the set forth in the ordinance.

Chief, you spoke on that a little bit in that last meeting about the percentage. Do you mind coming up here for a second? I hate to put you on the spot.

I just... Yeah, there's a lot of... There's a lot that can be discussed about this. I don't think we're prepared it tonight to really delve into what Henry's kind of talking about here. We can. Our staff can visit with city hall set and. Try to find some sort of compromise or solution to what maybe what you're talking about, but.

And I thought we were working towards that and I think maybe we just got busy with the budget and we got busy with, you know, other big things that have happened in the city in the last several months. But, um. I mean, there's there's community outreach in this that we need to look at.

I'm curious. Is there is there more than 1 business that's affected by this?

And there's a there's a new business. I hadn't heard from anybody else. I saw a text message yesterday about a new business. It's trying to trying to establish themselves in Pittsburgh and they're, they're telling people they're going to be an 18. Establishment where they can have underage drinkers and and come into the community and and survive and put other businesses. On point or whatnot so yes, I think there's other businesses that would want to.

Change or have some ability to are you aware of any other than the 1 right now? Not not future ones. It's kind of.

So, yeah, I would like to see somebody wants to come and have 18 year olds in a 21 and under that.

Yeah, the text I saw was from an investor. And again, I'm not going to name names for this purpose, but investor wanting to apply money towards a new business, a new location here in Pittsburgh that provides meals and gaming for under 21, but also sell alcohol and food.

Yeah, we had somebody come to the EDC and ask about that. I don't know if it's the same person, but that was the delineation. There was they were in a. they were in an 18 and under was not part of the 21. They were sharing a kitchen, but you couldn't get into the 21. The 18 was, it was like the kitchen, the 18 and under, and those people could stay till two in the morning. And I believe they met with the police department and Diana, you know, said it was okay. And then the other one next to that would be another establishment, which would be a 21. And I don't know what the name of the club was, but it was 21 and over, but it wouldn't be, um, there would be no 18, um, And under in that twenty one and over serving liquor, they were definitely the same developers separated.

Yeah.

And he was going to and he would. Sell food to either or, but it was, they were completely separated. Yeah. Coexisting. Okay. So, I mean, I haven't, we haven't been approached by anybody that wanted to do. The alternative that you're describing, but it doesn't mean it's not on somebody's mind.

I'd like to see some traction on this, and if we get some type of meeting set up to discuss this and find out what our options are. If we have businesses that are having underage patrons participating in those activities, then we need to be more specific. I'm not so much even saying make it harsher for businesses, but we probably need to make it make sense for all businesses, not just specifically to their gaming type or their structure or their location within the city. Does that make sense?

Sure.

Is there anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. We are adjourned.