Cable Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the standing committee's meeting for Wednesday, July 1st, 2026. All council meetings will be live streamed on the city's website and for guest speakers joining us at the table, please do not turn off your microphones. Our first order of business is roll call. Will the clerk please take the roll? Mr. Sharland.

Mr. Sharland. Mr. Coghill. Ms. Grace. Mr. Lavelle. Mr. Mosley.

Here.

Mrs. Salinaccio. Here. Mrs. Warwick. Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Strasburger, Chair. Here. Mr. Sharland.

Yeah. Councilperson Sharland, we cannot hear you. We understand that you're trying to talk. If you can toggle your audio, then you can join us.

He's talking, but we can't hear it.

We are not able to hear you, unfortunately.

Heather, it looks like your microphone is off or your computer is muted. Down in the right corner, how it's like the speaker is X'd. Okay.

Okay.

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Yes. Yes.

Okay, so to update those who are tuning in or who are joining us by Zoom, those who are joining the Zoom meeting outside of council chambers are able to hear the council members joining by Zoom. For some reason, we're working to troubleshoot. We cannot actually hear those joining by Zoom currently, and we are working on it and also working to identify members on the hallway who can join us. But we cannot proceed until we know we can have the participation from those joining by Zoom. Councilperson Sharland or Council President Lavelle, if you can speak now, we'll test this.

Can you hear me? This is Daniel.

We can hear you. Thank you very much. And apologies for the technical difficulties. No, not at all.

Mr. Sharland. You're on mute now, Mr. Sharland. And he just dropped off.

we can hear you thank you very much thank you thank you we have quorum all right our next order of business is to amend the agenda can I have a motion to amend the agenda motion to amend the agenda I have a second please second all in favor please say aye aye Agenda is amended. Our next order of business is public comment. I would like to remind all speakers that the rules of council state that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before city council. Profanity will not be permitted. Please state your name and neighborhood for the record, and you will have three minutes to speak. Our first registered speaker is Ilner Akhmedjanov.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Oh, hi. Yes, I'm here.

Should I proceed with speaking?

Please proceed. We can hear you.

Okay. Good morning, members of the City Council. My name is Ilnar Apichov. I'm a Pittsburgh resident living in Bluefield neighborhood. A few years ago, I purchased a small multi-sex where I live, and I rent the other units as short-term rentals. Like many Pittsburgh residents, I use this income to help pay my mortgage, cover my bills, and maintain my property. I support reasonable regulations. I believe every short-term rental should be licensed, inspected, and required to meet fire and safety standards. In fact, my property recently complemented the condition of the property. Responsible homes have nothing to fear from reasonable renovation. What I cannot support are these proposed caps on the number of shirts or rental units allowed within a building. we ask, what problems do these cats actually solve? If a property is safe, well-maintained, properly licensed, and does not create issues for the neighborhood, why should it matter whether there are one, two, or three shirts from rental units? Responsible operators should be judged by how they manage their property and not by an arbitrary numerical limit. Mr. Rentals also benefit our community. I hire local handyman and local cleaner, and every year I receive recommendations for neighborhood restaurants, coffee shops, and small businesses. My guests support those businesses every time they visit, shady side area and own a small multi-site where they live in one of the units and rent the other ones as shirts for rentals. It has become their retirement project and they enjoy welcoming visitors and sharing everything Isborough has to offer. Under the proposed caps, these too would be significantly affected despite operating responsibly. I respectfully ask City Council to work with responsible holds to develop balanced regulations focused on enforcement on operators who repeatedly create nuisances, allow disruptive parties, or fail to follow safety rules. Those are the operators who should lose their licenses, not responsible holds who consistently follow the law. Please do not penalize the overwhelming majority of responsible hosts because of the actions of a handful of bad hosts. Work with us to create regulations that protect our neighborhoods while allowing reasonable property owners to continue contributing to Pittsburgh's economy and welcoming visitors to our city. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia McHenry, Is Patricia with us? In that case, we will move on to Ellie Harward.

Good afternoon, council members. My name's Ellie Howard. My homes are in the north side. I have two side-by-side row houses. Since being here last, I got married next door in the courthouse. I'm a Pittsburgh homeowner, small business owner, and a short-term rental host. This is not my first time coming before you as a small business owner to plead our case. You've heard from hosts, you've heard from those opposed, but I don't really think that you've heard from Pittsburgh. You've not truly heard from the families that travel here for weddings, funerals, graduations, medical care, sports, concerts, and family gatherings. This decision will not just affect hosts. It will majorly affect anyone traveling to our city. Pittsburgh is growing, still rising, and still being discovered. We have major companies seeing an opportunity here. We have professional sports, universities, hospitals, tech, culture, and neighborhoods that people want to experience. And yet with this proposal, we're moving backwards in how we allow people to travel here. People choose how they stay based off what fits their lifestyle, their family, their budget, and their reason for coming. And by eliminating that option, you're not just eliminating hosts. You're eliminating people that may not choose to come to Pittsburgh at all. You're not affecting one small business. Even those running multiple Airbnb rentals are employing so many other businesses. You're affecting hundreds of small businesses, homeowners, cleaners, contractors, maintenance teams, landscapers, photographers, designers, and local vendors connected to this industry. You're affecting people who use hosting as a main income and supplemental income. And in an economy that's really harder and harder to survive in. So for many residents, this is a mortgage money. This is utility money, child care money, retirement money. And I want people to understand it's not an easy business. incredibly small months. It's not just opening a door and collecting money. There are slow seasons, constant maintenance, taxes, insurance, cleaning, repairs, guest issues, emergencies, and we make it work. And these bookings are never guaranteed. We do it because we love it, and we love hosting people. We love sharing Pittsburgh. We love creating places where families can gather, celebrate, grieve, recover, work, and experience the city. This is your current agenda. This is not a vote that will solve homelessness, gun violence, or the housing market. These issues are serious, and this legislation doesn't fix them. Homes will still be expensive, developers will still buy property, and investors will still exist. What this will do is take away options from guests, income from residents, and support local businesses without proving that it solves the problem. Responsible hosts are not asking for no rules. We support accountability, safety, occupancy standards, noise enforcement, and consequences for bad operators. But regulation is not the same as removing responsible people from the market. Please do not use short-term rentals as a stand-in for every larger issue Pittsburgh is facing. Slow this down and listen behind the loudest sides of this debate.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bridget Marazil.

Good morning. My name is Brigitte Marisot. I live on Pittsburgh's north side where I manage a number of short-term rental properties. I'm also a mother of two children who attend Allegheny Traditional Academy and Urban Impacts after-school program. This is my neighborhood. This is where my family lives, where my children are growing up, and where I've chosen to build my business. Before this, I spent 15 years as a college professor. I left higher education to spend more time with my children while operating my properties full-time. I want to begin by saying that I support responsible regulation of short-term rentals. I support registration. I support inspections. I support clear safety standards and accountability. I believe responsible operators should be held to a high standard because our neighbors and our guests deserve that. What I cannot support is legislation that goes far beyond regulation and effectively eliminates responsible, locally-owned short-term rentals. I understand the concerns that bring us here today. No one wants unsafe properties, nuisance houses, or absentee operators who don't care about their neighborhoods, and neither do I. But those bad actors are not the majority of our hosts in Pittsburgh. Every day I work hard to be a good neighbor. I respond quickly when issues arise. I maintain my properties and I know my neighbors. Beyond my business, I've helped raise more than $10,000 for neighborhood projects and organized the installation of five public murals to beautify our community because I believe businesses should invest in the neighborhoods that support them. The people staying in my homes are also often misunderstood. Most are not here for parties or weekend vacations. They are families relocating to Pittsburgh, traveling professionals on month-long assignments, people whose homes have become unlivable because of fire or flood, or families staying near Allegheny General Hospital while a loved one receives medical treatment. During some of the most difficult moments in their lives, they need something a hotel cannot often provide, a safe private home where they can cook meals, do laundry, care for children, and feel a sense of normalcy amongst tragedy. As a local operator, I am proud to provide that. My concern is that the bills before you do not simply create reasonable guardrails. They risk eliminating responsible operators like me while doing little to distinguish us from the problems they are trying to solve. I respectfully ask Council to consider regulations that target behavior, not business models. Require registration. Require inspections. Require local accountability. Enforce noise, occupancy, parking, and safety standards. Thank you very much.

And hold bad actors accountable.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chief Ikohana Halmakina. We don't see Chief Ekahana here. We will move on to Michael Subkowiak.

Subkoviak.

Subkoviak, thank you.

It's a good Irish name. Good morning, Council. Thank you for listening to all of us today. My name is Michael Subkoviak. I have a series of small Airbnbs in Oakland. I live in Oakland. I've lived there for 30 years. I've been hosting for 15 years. I've hosted over 2,500 different guests from around the world. And so to me, The existing environment that we have created here in Pittsburgh is a vibrant part of the community. Short-term rentals are part of that mix of businesses that support small business owners like myself. It allows me to live here, reinvest in my community. I've spent thousands of dollars repairing homes, helping the neighborhood out, and having the entire neighborhood lifted by what we do in the neighborhood. We have plenty of regulations on the books currently that protect the community. From noise abatement, trash regulations, to parking, short-term rentals are already managed through the regulations that we have. I know I got a note if my trash was out two hours early, right? So we have regulations in place to keep us as functioning as a neighborhood. The new regulations that we're proposing here will kill short-term rentals. It's looking like 75% of short-term rentals might be killed off by this regulation here. The current system now allows seamless transition also between short-term and long-term rentals. So a lot of my guests will come in for a few weeks, end up staying for months, years, whatever. So we need a way that we don't wreck this ability for guests to come here and transition through the different things that they're going through in their lives. The other thing I was thinking about, short-term rentals really are part of what makes a vibrant community, just like the arts are, just like outdoor activity, just like coffee shops. And if we start to play with this ecosystem here, we really damage what potential we're trying to create here in Pittsburgh. And so I think that's what we need to take a look at of when we try to place this regulation in here, what are going to be the cause and effects that will happen down the end of the road? And I don't think that part has been looked into well enough before we make these decisions. So thank you very much for considering those. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joseph Ostrowski.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Joseph Ostrowski. I was born in Beachview, grew up there my whole life, but I own a couple short-term rentals in Mount Washington. I'm a sergeant for the city of Pittsburgh Police, and I respectfully urge the city council to reject the proposed restrictions on short-term rentals. I want a quick disclaimer. My views are not, they do not represent the position of Pittsburgh Police. They're my own views. They don't represent the city of Pittsburgh at all. I write from a unique perspective as a sergeant with the city. If the goal of the legislation is to improve public safety, I believe these proposed restrictions are aimed at the wrong people. The overwhelming majority of short-term rental hosts are responsible business owners who work hard to maintain safe properties. They contribute to the neighborhood, provide supplemental income for their families. I think broad restrictions would disproportionately harm the responsible hosts who are doing little And while doing little to address the individuals who actually create the public safety concerns. As police officer assigned to zone one on the north side, I witnessed firsthand the tragic shooting that occurred at a short term rental in 2022. Nobody wants to see an incident like that happen again. However, since that incident, Zone 1 has adopted an informal zero tolerance policy towards large short-term rental parties. When police officers receive complaints regarding these gatherings, police respond quickly and shut them down before they escalate. As a result of the proactive enforcement strategy, violence directly associated with large short-term rental parties has dramatically reduced. I encourage the City Council to follow this strategy instead of implementing policies that will effectively cripple the short-term rental community in Pittsburgh. Police should be given the resources and directions to respond swiftly to unauthorized large parties and shut them down immediately. Hold the individuals organizing the disruptive or dangerous parties accountable rather than imposing sweeping restrictions on thousands of short-term rental hosts. A zero-tolerance enforcement policy of shutting down large parties is immediate and effective. A great example of the effectiveness is the specific enforcement that we've seen on the Southside. After years of violence that plagued the area, the City Council and police have worked together to help dramatically reduce the violent crime in that area. Several years ago, there were shootings almost every single weekend. Now they're very infrequent. I think responsible short-term rental owners are investing in Pittsburgh's neighborhoods. They're supporting local businesses, paying taxes, providing quality accommodations for visitors. They should not be penalized because of the actions of a small number of bad individuals. I respectfully ask City Council to focus on these individuals organizing the parties causing the problems while allowing responsible hosts to continue to operate and contribute to our city. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Chad Wise.

Good morning, members of council. My name's Chad Wise. I live in Manchester, and I'm representing both Steelstra and my business, HostWise. I'm here again because the latest version of these short-term rental bills is not a compromise. It's not even a regulation. With the special exemption process removed, council has shifted from regulating short-term rentals to destroying them. The bill introduces some of the most restrictive language in the country, functionally eliminating residentially zoned STRs with severe caps on what little could remain in commercial areas. Based on initial data, it would eliminate at least 75% of the short-term rental nights in the city, putting more than $350 million in annual local economic activity at risk. That's not regulation. That's a wrecking ball. Look at how the city responded to Market Square. After serious public safety concerns involving younger crowds, the city didn't ban everyone from Market Square or close the restaurants. It didn't say no one could gather there anymore. Instead, the city created a targeted role for a specific issue. Now young people need to be accompanied by an adult during certain peak times. That's regulation. You identify the conduct causing the issue, and you target that conduct. With short-term rentals, Council's doing the opposite. Council has not presented any data showing that short-term rentals are causing issues at a rate that justifies a citywide ban. Yet this sledgehammer of a bill would force responsible owners and local managers out of business and hurt cleaners, contractors, visitors, tourism, and tax revenue, all while introducing no ordinances to the actual bad actors and the handful of guests causing the problems. And the supposed safety logic doesn't add up. To be clear, I'm all for primary residence hosts. They're part of the short-term rental community too. But there's flawed logic in assuming that primary residence rentals are safer. In the primary residence whole home rental, the guest is there because the host isn't there. If a party starts or something goes wrong, the person council is relying on is gone. Meanwhile, many responsible non-owner-occupied hosts have local contacts, 24-7 support, noise monitoring, guest screening, and other systems designed to prevent problems before they happen. So this bill doesn't reward safety. It rewards a political category. We've said this repeatedly. License us. Require 24-7 responsible contact. Enforce noise, trash, parking, and safety ordinances. Shut down repeat problem properties based on trackable data. Do not use a few incidents as justification to ban an entire category of responsible property owners. And let's not pretend the ban eliminates short-term rentals. It only pushes operators underground away from licensing, away from tax collection, and away from accountability. This zoning bill is poorly written, economically destructive, and legally vulnerable. If council passes it, it will do nothing to solve the problems you claim to care about. It will instead punish responsible operators, strip rights from property owners, damage the local economy, and invite years of litigation. Move forward with licensing and enforcement instead. For four years now, four years, we have offered to help craft responsible regulation, and that offer still stands. But we will not quietly accept a backdoor ban dressed up as public policy.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dylan Baskew.

Thank you, Council. My name is Dylan Bosescu. I live in the Southside Flats on East Carson. I want to tell you a tale of two streets, East Carson during Saturday's street lockdown and the same East Carson during Sunday's open streets event. I had the chance to see both firsthand. Biking back from viewing the World Cup on Saturday the 27th, I saw a street with foot traffic decimated by security fences. While I normally can bike back home safely along a well-lit main road designed for cyclists, this TSA tour de force forced myself and other passersby onto poorly lit, poorly maintained side streets where there was objectively less safety than on the busiest weekends in the Southside before. and all of this for a pittance of the business on weekends past, if we want to hold a night market on the south side, let's actually have one. Look at Allentown's night market for ideas, where they don't turn the street into cell block one, where everyone in this city of neighbors is welcome, but if you don't really want that, at least don't pretend this is anything more than tragedy repeated now as farce. but what my neighborhood could be i saw this too on sunday i saw it when the walls came down and gave way to children and families of all ages who enjoyed the outdoors rode their bikes and learned more about our community the way it ought to be That is what we can be and what it should be. It turns out safety didn't mean spy drones to keep out teenagers. Cops could direct traffic instead of directing discrimination. We have the tools to create safety in this city already. We just need the courage to use them consistently. They are not walls. Not in Berlin, not on our southern border, and not here. What they are are our people, all of us. All I demand is equal respect and dignity for your people, my people in this city, in all our streets, and at all times. I hope to work with you if you can be brave enough to end the age discrimination in my neighborhood, tear down these walls for good, and restore equal dignity to my home. Show me that you have that in you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Corey Dethorn.

Good morning, Council. My name is Corey Dethorn. I'm the son of Pittsburgh. I grew up in the West End, was raised there my whole life. I currently own a business based out of Mount Washington in Pittsburgh. I'm also a local real estate investor. I invest in short-term rentals. I invest in long-term rentals. I invest in affordable housing. So I know the gamut. I'm here to comment on the recent amendments to the Bill 26009, which eliminates that special exception for existing hosts. The bills written would effectively eliminate 75% of the short term rentals in the city. I want to start by saying clearly that we're definitely for regulation. I'm going to echo what Chad and some of the other hosts have said and not get into it. The amendment goes further than regulation. It really takes a local economic engine out of Pittsburgh and pushes it away. My company, Mega Clean, separate from my real estate investing, we manage about 100 Airbnbs. Not a lot. A sizable number. We support about $80,000 a month in payroll. That's a million dollars a year of direct payroll that goes to city residents, people spending their money that live in our neighborhoods. That goes away the minute this ban goes into effect. If you take that, that's $800 a month per listing. If we eliminate 1,500 Airbnbs in the city, $15 million in payroll goes away. These are real jobs. They're not theoretical. They're cleaners. They're maintenance. They're guest service staff. They're my autistic brother who drops off towels and toilet paper when a guest asks. These are contractors that we call landscapers. They generate millions of dollars in economic income and host revenue, make for capital improvements. They allow me to buy the house that needs fixed up that brings an affordable housing unit online. In the West End, on Lorenz Street, I'm looking at houses from the PA Land Bank. I can make those affordable houses if I have my Airbnb income. The guest staying here, I'll get into a scenario. If I'm from St. Louis and I plan a trip, I have a family of three. I want to bring my grandparents. I'm like, let's go to a ball game. I'm looking at Cleveland. I'm looking at Pittsburgh. I'm not staying in a hotel with my seven, eight, and six-month-old and my grandparents. I'm looking at Airbnbs. I go on Airbnb. I can't find one in Pittsburgh. I can find one in Cleveland. I'm going to Cleveland. And I know as Pittsburghers, we don't want to lose to Cleveland. And that's the way that the bill's written. It could have over $100 million of economic income by eliminating short-term rentals. People spend $264 for every $100 of lodging. If people were spending... 1,500 Airbnbs, do the math, okay? It's $100 million in economic income that would impact the city. So let's not lose the Cleveland. Let's make the regulations that were monitored, that hosts have resources to work with public safety, that when we have problems, there's a path forward, not what's written.

Thank you. Our final registered speaker is Robert Wilson. Is Robert with us? So we will move. We don't see Robert online. We will move on to those in the audience wishing to speak and come back to any other speakers who might have joined us.

Good morning. Carlino Giampolo, Panther Hollow. Yesterday I had asked the seven council members, other than council members Barbara Warwick and Bob Charlin, to contact Mayor Cory O'Connor with the message, shut down the Oakland do-it-yourself skate park. I hope that each of you have done so. In previous testimonies, I talked about the tragedy of individuals who label people or issues and then love or hate the label. These individuals don't look deeper into the character of another individual and the contents of their minds, or look deeper into the injustice of an issue. This mindset has brought horrific pain and suffering to black Americans, the LGBTQ community, women seeking equality, and to the Jewish community, especially here in Pittsburgh. I trust that none of you have labeled these two council members as colleagues that would prevent you from looking deeper into the injustice of this issue against our community. Please contact the mayor and end the shame that this skate park has brought to this council, the mayor and his administration, and the city of Pittsburgh. On September 3rd, 2025, Councilmember Warwick spoke to the dozens of skateboarders and their supporters who came here to testify in support of the skate park. She mentioned that the park's maintenance manager told her and A.J. Haddon, the Pitt student who led the construction of the skate park, quote, if there's ever any vulgar graffiti or if I ever see any garbage in the playground, I'm ripping it down, end of quote. Again, the statement was, quote, if there's ever any vulgar graffiti or if I ever see any garbage in the playground, I'm ripping it down. End of quote. Today, the skate park has massive amounts of graffiti, some with vulgar and crude language that encourages underage drinking and recreational drug use. Council Member Warwick, have you spoken to the Parks Maintenance Manager about the current conditions at the skate park? If not, why not? Council Member Charland, have you done so? If not, why not? Neither of you have ever answered the question, who gave the skateboarders permission to build the skate park? Is it the Parks Maintenance Manager? If so, does a parks maintenance manager have the authority to unilaterally and forever alter lives and bring harm to an entire community? There is still more to be said about Councilmember Warwick's September 3rd remarks. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Sarah Wilson. I'm in the Mount Washington area of Pittsburgh. I own a cleaning company. We work with hosts who continually want to host guests here in a safe environment, in a clean environment, in a comfortable environment. We have guests that come to this city for so many reasons. It's not the bad things that you see on the news. We're the people who are in the homes after the guests. These people are here for their kids' graduation. They're excited because they just graduated Pitt or they just got a law degree. They're here for a funeral because they're from Pittsburgh and their mom passed, and now they have to clean out a house, but they just can't bear to stay in the house. And so they have a place to stay that's safe, that they can cook their own meal if they need to. These are also the people who are coming to see our sports games, and it's the first game that they've ever been able to bring their son to, and they can't wait, and they're gonna get the memorabilia, and they're gonna buy all the things, and they're gonna eat at JJ's Diner. These are the people that are putting money into this economy, and most of the guests are great but the problem is you don't hear about the great guests you just hear about the people who traumatized a neighborhood and blew up house or whatever like you hear about the bad ones but there's so many good people that would be affected by this that i know travel with families And it also brings me to my people. I have a much smaller company than maybe some other people, but I have 28 people on my team, most of which are part-time, and they work with me because they need to make ends meet. They already are working full-time jobs, and they still need some more money to just make it work. They're Pittsburgh people, and this will severely affect them. I also have people who go to college here in the city and are trying to help pay for their education. I have single moms who, that is an expensive task, and need a job that has availability and flexibility to work at different hours. and work when a little more flexible, because I don't know how much you know about children and childcare, but it can be traumatic. So they need this type of job and they need this availability. And again, I hope that you don't let the sins of a few ruin what is a great opportunity for both Pittsburgh and for the people who live here in Pittsburgh. I think that we need to take a scalpel approach rather than a hatchet. Instead of just saying, whoa, we're just going to cut the whole leg off, maybe we just look into treating the injury and fixing the small problem. There is regulation that can be implemented and has been in other cities that has helped with these types of problems. We should have safety inspections. I know all of my clients would be on board for that. They have safe houses. They would be happy to register. They're already paying taxes and doing these things. Regulations are great. Noise ordinances, even parking regulations, I think should definitely be a thing. Inspections of the property to make sure it looks like the listing. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi, everyone. My name is Dorna Palcic, and I'm not a good public speaker, but I'm a Southside resident and a taxpayer, optometrist, owner of several short-term rental in Pittsburgh, and I hope you guys reconsider this. I'm not an out-of-state investor. I operate responsibility, employ property manager. But on top of it, I micromanage every single reservation to make sure they agree with my policies and quiet times and party rules and everything just to make sure they follow it. And they will be fined if they don't. And my business supports local jobs, generate tax revenue, and brings visitors who spend money throughout Pittsburgh. And every guest has to tell you exactly what they're coming, and I agree that they will not party. And we have devices that is called minutes device on every property. And it doesn't record people what they're talking, but it knows if there's crowds. And it lets us know if its number are increasing and it looks like it might be too many people or the noise is too high. And we immediately contact the guest and they right away quiet down and everything's good. And I completely understand about your concerns but However, responsible hosts should not be punished for the action of a small number of bad actors. The property involved in the Northside shooting that started all this issue was not a standard short-term rental alone. It was also listed on an event rental platform called Peerspace.com and was marketed for gathering and rental per hour. and it was just for events and parties. It is also important to recognize that incidents such as parties or even crimes can occur in long-term rentals as well. We don't respond by banning long-term rentals. We enforce better rules and hold bad actors accountable. The same approach should apply here. And short-term rentals are an important part of Pittsburgh tourism economy. Visitors staying in Pittsburgh and all different neighborhoods get to learn the neighborhoods, love it, and a lot of people actually move here. A lot of people from New York City are moving here now. Hotels can't always meet demand during major events, and short-term rentals help keep Pittsburgh accessible and competitive as a destination. This increases activity in our neighborhood and generate tax, supports our city, infrastructure, and public safety. And my income stays in Pittsburgh. I hire local cleaners, contractors, purchase supplies locally, pay taxes, and reinvest in my properties and community. I respectfully ask the council to distinguish between responsible hosts and bad actors and focus on targeted informants rather than broad restriction. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dennis Vodczak, and I can be a little nervous when I speak. I'm a 68-year Pittsburgh resident. I've been an executive chef in the Pittsburgh market since 1976. I know hospitality well. I run the historic day house short-term rental in the Mexican War Streets. I'm right on the park. I can see Lake Elizabeth right outside the front of my home there. And we create an experience for our guests and visitors that come from all around the world. Not everyone leaves a review. As of today, we have 1,818 five-star reviews. Wow. We have one four-star, and that's it. It's remarkable the visitors that come into the city. They come in for Steeler games. That second week of May, when the schedule comes out, my Airbnb blows up because the Steeler fans want to come to Pittsburgh. They want to experience Pittsburgh. Everyone that has said prior to me speaking about the revenues and everything, I concur with that. We do need some regulations so that we can control the bad actors. There are bad actors in all different walks of life. Please don't punish all the good people that are doing good things for the city. I had guests come in last Friday, a young couple. They love historic buildings. The house that I use for my Airbnb was built in 1871. Mr. Day built it. He had 10 children that lived in the house. And he was a boat and shipbuilder for the steel industry. The history just goes on and on. The couple came in last Friday. They flew in from Nashville. We know what the expense of that is. They took an Uber from the airport to my home. They went to dinner. They went to a nightclub. They spend lots of money. In the morning, I supply a free continental breakfast for the guests that come in. And then, since it's Fourth of July weekend, they got on a train to see Pennsylvania to go to Philadelphia to look at the Liberty Bell and learn more about our history. So Pittsburgh is home for me and home for a lot of visitors. I hope this bill does not pass in the form that it's in. that we can reconsider what should come and be responsible on it. If this bill does pass, I'm 68 years old. I will have to sell my home because I cannot afford the upkeep on everything that we have to do. So thank you for taking time and listening.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning. My name is Yvonne F. Brown. I live at 715 Mercer Street. That's the high rise of a Befford, 190 apartments, senior citizen building. I wanted to say about the Airbnb. My daughter took me to Atlanta to see Barris Hammond, who's a Jamaican singer. We stayed in an Airbnb because she said she wanted to be close to the center. And then she also... Wanted to be able to, we could drive and not go a long way. But it was something, because all the hotels were full. So the Airbnbs, the upkeep, if they kept up, they were beautiful. It was a home, and we cooked our own food, and we... We slept like we wanted. We were able to enjoy Atlanta. So I agree with the Airbnb owners that they are, the majority of them do take care of their property. Now, what happened on the north side, they were saying the police actually sat and watched what they were doing. And then everybody ran in the building. And I felt that the police should have went or either called the cops. And they ride around, keep riding. They would see that. But when they went away, the same way when they shot up in the church, they were there, told there was going to be trouble. And then the police leave. As soon as they leave, they run in the church and kill people. We need the police to be more proactive. And I'm not mean, not mean vilely, but if you see something happen, then watch. I mean, you could be around. You don't have to actually run up to them or even go in the building if it actually looks like that. Then also, I listened to 90.5, that's WSCA, and I actually heard today Rosa Parks, when she was explaining about how she was treated when they arrested her because she would not get up off the seat that only white people were to sit in. And another thing, remember this. and they were speaking about that the buses would have seats that would be empty, but because it's for white people, black people would have to stand up. Now, these are things that you shouldn't know about your history. We were fighting just to be able to sit down in empty seats. Imagine that. Oh, they would have beat me because I would have sat down. Okay, I'm done.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Special Agent Sunshine and Missing Child Cerise Taylor. First, Lord, I want to apologize to Chair Strasburger for the accusations I made against her, which were not against you. I apologize. They were against this councilwoman right here at the end, who attempted to murder me using an intern who tried to do voodoo on me and stop me from breathing. In Jesus' name. Title 18, USC, section 242 says, whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subject any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both. And if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both. And if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to kill shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both or may be sentenced to death. The prohibited acts in 18 U.S.C. 1028 I want to focus on come from Section E and F. Section E states, possessing an identification document other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possession or a false identification document with intent such document be used to defraud the United States. This is the fraud that I'm attached to, identity theft fraud, insurance fraud, computer fraud, fraud by someone becoming my conservatory illegally, guardianship illegally. F, possession and identification document. That is an identification document of the United States, which is stolen, knowing that such document was stolen. Like my identity. Y'all know my identity was stolen. As a child, I was granted a house. Two of them. Y'all stole them, sold them, and now I'm being forced to be homeless in Jesus' name? I think not. Whoever's in my house will be removed by force in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Are there any further speakers? There being no further speakers, we will move on to the standing committee's agenda. The first committee is the Finance and Law Committee.

We have deferred papers, Bill 39. Ordinance directing the Allegheny County Board of Elections to place before the qualified voters of the City of Pittsburgh at the 2026 May primary election of referendum question Shall the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter Article 3 legislative branch be amended by changing the budget approval rules to ensure timely passage at the end of legislative sessions?

Motion to hold four weeks. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of a four-week hold for Bill 39, please say aye. Aye. Aye.

Bill will be held. New Papers, Bill 654. Resolution amending Resolution Number 723 of 2022, effective December 27, 2022, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2023 Capital Budget, the 2023 Community Development Program. and the 2023 through 2028 Capital Improvement Program by reducing play area improvements by $60,000 and increasing public safety equipment by $60,000. Motion?

Oh, sorry. Second.

Discussion? Council Member Salinetro.

Second. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of a four-week hold on Bill 654, please say aye. Aye. Bill will be held. Bill 655.

Resolution amending resolution number 857 of 2023, effective December 27th, 2023, entitled Resolution Adopting and Approving the 2024 Capital Budget, the Proposed 2024 Community Development Program, and the 2024 through 2029 Community Improvement Program. increasing PJ McArdle Broadway bridge over hillside preliminary design tip by $500,000 to account for additional Federal Highway Administration funding being received at no cost to the City of Pittsburgh.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 655, please say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, bill 656.

Resolution amending resolution 775 of 2025, which authorized an agreement or agreements and lease or leases by and between the city of Pittsburgh and First Vehicle Services, a transdev company to manage and maintain the city's vehicle fleet. by decreasing the approved spend by $988,402.29 for a new amount not to exceed $78,260,941.46 over a six-year period. Motion to approve. Discussion? Council Member Warwick. Yes, we do.

Morning, Council. Matt Singer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor. Oh, yeah. So just to clarify in our agreement with Transdev, we have two categories that we use. There's our target category, and that's for everyday maintenance, and we pay that monthly. And the non-target is what goes above and beyond our number and certain fees not covered in our contract. That captures things like working on vehicles that are very, very old, as well as things like preventative maintenance or inspections. It would be a normal price to be able to do it on time, but we are occasionally very late. The issue with that lateness is that we always don't have enough spare vehicles. So say a garbage truck, even if it's overdue for maintenance, we can't necessarily take it off the street because then there's no one to do that work. I think some folks from OMB have also joined. If I could ask your permission to bring them up.

This is related to Bill 656, the agreement or agreements in lease between the city and First Vehicle.

Hello. I'm Bronwyn Turnage. I'm the acting fleet manager currently for the City of Pittsburgh. So this legislation for the trans-theft contract, what we have done is PWSA has requested to have their invoices directly invoiced to them. Previously, the city was doing one invoice and then doing an internal process to make PWSA whole. Moving forward, there will be two invoices, so therefore we're reducing the budget line on the target budget, and we've decided to then move those funds to the non-target side in order to assist with those non-target costs.

Okay, thanks. Can you clarify? You said PWSA?

Yeah, so PWSA has a portion of our fleet, or they have a part of their fleet within this contract. So they are requesting to have their portion of the contract that they are responsible for to be invoiced directly to them. So we were getting one invoice for all target costs. So now we're separating it into two. So therefore, our budget line for that target cost would come down. And that has been then moved over to the non-target side to cover those maintenance costs.

Okay, so PWSA is paying... Directly to TransDev instead of paying us and then we're paying them. Yeah, kind of more of an efficient process for them. Okay. Okay, I was hoping you were going to say because we got all these new vehicles.

No, not quite. I think we're at that precipice where we're going to see those maintenance costs come down because of all those new vehicles. But unfortunately, it really wasn't. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. It really wasn't forecasted appropriately at the beginning of the year. So we are averaging close to around $440 a month, and that wasn't really, like I said, forecasted appropriately in that non-target budget. So being able to move that $2 million over is really helpful right now.

Well, maybe we'll see that decrease later on. Yes, I hope so. Six months or so. Okay, thank you. That's all from me. Thank you.

Further questions? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 656, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thank you both.

Thank you. 657. Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of the Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company for legal services in connection with a litigation matter in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for an amount not to exceed $10,000 over one year.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 657, please say aye. Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 667. Resolution further amending Resolution Number 924 of 2024, effective December 18, 2024, as amended and titled. Resolution adopting and approving the 2025 capital budget, the proposed 2025 community development program, and the 2025 through 2030 capital improvement program by removing unencumbered funds from projects pending closure pursuant to Chapter 218 of the City Code. Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 667, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 668.

Resolution further amending resolution number 834 of 2025, effective December 21st, 2025, as amended and titled. resolution adopting and approving the 2026 capital budget that proposed 2026 community development program and the 2026 through 2031 capital improvement program by reappropriating and reallocating funds closed due to the requirements of chapter 218 of the city code motion approved second discussion

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 668, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation, Bill 669.

Resolution further amending and supplementing Resolution No. 675 of 2008, entitled Adopting and Approving the 2009 Capital Budget and the 2009-2013 2013 Capital Improvement Program by reducing Park Reconstruction Program by $19,537.68 and increasing Park Reconstruction Program by $19,537.68. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 669 please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation.

That takes us to invoices. Is there a motion on invoices?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of invoices please say aye. Aye. Invoices are approved. That moves us on to interdepartmental transfers. Is there a motion on transfers?

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of interdepartmental transfers, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Transfers are approved. That moves us to P cards. Is there a motion on P cards?

Approved. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of P cards, please say aye. Aye. Aye. P cards are approved. That takes us to Public Safety and Wellness Committee, chaired by Councilman Cockhill.

supplemental new papers bill 680 resolution authorizing the mayor and the director of public safety to enter on behalf of the city of pittsburgh into a professional services agreement or agreements with operation better block to conduct the safe passages youth violence prevention program at a total cost not to exceed 250 000 over one year motion to approve second second discussion

Council Member Warwick. Yeah, I just wanted to quickly thank the administration for moving forward on this. The Safe Passages program is a really great program that's happening in our schools and some of our PPS high schools. It's been very effective over, I think, the past two years in reducing disciplinary incidences in the schools. You know, it's difficult with these programs. Money begins to run out, and then you're sort of like, you know, in a holding period, like, oh, no, what's going to happen, right? And so I'm glad that we were able to step in as the city. I don't think this is all that they need, but it certainly will keep the program going, make sure that folks can keep working through the summer. I also very much hope that PPS can step up as well and, you know, be a partner, a funding partner, right, to keep this program going because it is certainly a partnership between Operation Better Block, the schools, and the city. So, you know, if everybody could pitch a little bit in, but I am very glad that we are keeping it, keeping the... you know, keeping this operational for the immediate future with this. So very appreciative to the administration for getting that done. Thanks. Thank you. Council President LaValle.

Just quickly, briefly to Piggyback on Councilman Warwick's remarks. One, I'm glad we're actually doing this. It's a great program. But to her point, it is actually within Pittsburgh Public Schools. And so we do need Pittsburgh Public Schools to participate because this program started as a $3 million grant from the state, which means it's not sustainable if the city has to pick up that entire tab. to maintain the program moving forward. So we will have to work over the next six months or so to figure out what the sustainable model for the program is. But I'm glad we're able to continue this through the end of at least this year. So thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, I'd like to echo my esteemed colleagues' remarks about this program. It's hosted by Operation Better Block, which is in my district, and I know two of the schools that they operate in are in my district, but I believe they also operate in Councilperson Lavelle's district and Councilman Collickill's district. as well as in councilwoman warwick and i think in councilman wilson's district so this is even though um it's housed by organization in district nine um it represents um activity throughout uh the majority of the city and and as councilman lavelle said um you know the importance of taking this step and kudos to the administration for you know responding to the outreach from the organization itself as well as our advocacy as members of council about the importance of this program because we know oftentimes activities that start in the neighborhood spill into the schools and vice versa. Sometimes they start in the school and spill into the community, so there's no... really arbitrary lines when it comes to public safety uh you know those who have uh nefarious purposes you know they don't adhere to the arbitrary lines between uh city government of the city of pittsburgh and the pittsburgh public school district um so i think this is a step of us um understanding uh the importance of of our role in in ensuring public safety and and as councilman lavelle said it's going to be important over the next six months to find a sustainable or working with Pittsburgh Public Schools as well as the philanthropic community and other partners to ensure that, you know, That in our efforts to keep our streets safe, you know, a direct pillar of that is keeping our schools safe. So, again, I want to thank everyone for their involvement. And it's truly, truly a worthy cause. I spent about a week and a half ago, a couple hours at the ambassador's retreat and met with the folks who actually work in the schools and got to meet them. personally was really moved by their dedication to the work that they do, which isn't always easy. But, you know, it was really a great experience. So, again, kudos to Tylee Thompson, who leads the effort, as well as Jay Gilmer over at Operation Better Block for all their work to make this stopgap happen. And hopefully we can figure out sustainable long-term solutions moving forward.

Thank you. Any further comments? First round? Second round, Council Member Warwick.

Council Member, your microphone is off. Sorry. And how the young people are engaged in the work themselves. Just briefly, just for anyone who isn't familiar. Appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

This is huge, and I know all of you, a lot of you have been really supportive through this process. You know, these young people, actually, if you look at, there were 64 kids that were part of this program last year, and in 10 in each school, six sites, 22 graduates right there, and when you're looking at the young people that are part of this program, these are young people that are trained to be violence intervention, violence interrupters, understanding the disease of violence, and as councilman mosley was sharing like this these are like young people who because what happens in the community ties into the schools and what ties into the schools happens in the community that are on the front lines of being able to interrupt that disease of violence and are getting consistent training and a stipend to be able to be key pieces of the puzzle of being able to intervene when we're talking about violence prevention so i'm excited that the city is um is actually gonna is supporting this And as it was shared earlier, we'll find out other sustainable ways to be able to find money for this. But these young people on the front lines being able to help counteract a lot of different things. But we're actually tapping into their genius to be able to help find ways that we can tap into the community issues where they're on the front lines to be able to give us information that helps us to be able to be more effective in what we're doing community-wise. So I wanted to make sure I came up and said thank you to you all for that. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further discussion? Councilman Cockhill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome. Thank you. I appreciate you. Yeah, no problem. So this is REACH working with the school district.

This is through Operation Better Block.

What resources does the city bring to the table here, I guess?

For them? This is a partnership between the city of Pittsburgh and Operation Better Block. This is something that they work hand-in-hand with the outreach workers. They have a team that gets trained and actually does violence intervention, violence interrupting in the schools. They work with us to be able to

When you say us, you mean you and your team?

Yes, Tommy Thompson with our team. So we're constantly in communication. They're part of our ecosystem. They've gone to some of the national conferences. I'm talking about these young people. They've been on the front lines of a lot of things and actually have been leading a lot of these conversations that we've had with... with Chief Lando about ways to be able to deal with everything from the takeovers to community building to be able to keep people safe. I trust your instincts.

I mean, so you're saying you saw this. This is a very positive thing. I'm excited.

I'm excited about this, really. I was worried that we were going to lose it, and I'm excited that it's here. So that's why I wanted to make sure that I said thank you to everyone because this is a key piece, and this is keeping young people busy, but it's also pouring into their and bringing out their expertise to be able to help them get the support.

And get them at that young age. It's very important.

Very.

Thank you. And Councilman Mosley mentioned my district. Is that Carrick?

Yeah. I know they're in Brashear. Brashear. In Brashear. I think Carrick was the one school that they weren't able to get. Is it your alma mater? No, sir. Well, it's central. It's central. Yes, sir. They weren't able to get in. That was the only school. So I think that was the only high school that they weren't able to get into. But I know there's going to be a new principal. It would be great to be able to talk to that principal and see if we can get in there.

Yeah, right. Okay. Well, thank you, Cornell. I appreciate you being here. And, you know, again, I trust your instincts and your experience. If you think it's a good thing, I do too. Very much so. Thank you so much. Appreciate you all.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yes, a third round, Council Member Warbeck. Just to quickly say also, if anybody is, you know, once more, we had a really nice post-agenda where we had some of the ambassadors come and speak of this really informative, just kind of gave a really deep dive into the whole program and how it works and whatnot. Definitely.

Yeah, I was just going to say that that was an illuminating post-agenda. I want to say thanks for hosting that and to all members and participants who came. Because on our side, if we're not working hand-in-hand with all aspects of either reach routes, safe passages, you sometimes need that direct support. communication to understand how everything is divided up who is working with whom the whole ecosystem of stop the violence and this is one piece of it so that was incredibly helpful and agree with what others have said about continuing to move it forward and getting pittsburgh public schools to support it as well Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of Bill 680, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thank you very much. That moves us to Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Councilwoman Salinetro.

New Papers Bill 652, resolution providing for an agreement or agreements with STV Incorporated for costs associated with the preliminary engineering phase of the McArdle Bridge over Hillside project, providing for the payment of the costs thereof not to exceed $997,407.91, reimbursable at 100%. Second. Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 652, please say aye. Aye.

Affirmative recommendation, Bill 653. Resolution providing for an amended reimbursement agreement or agreements with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for costs associated with the preliminary design phase of the P.J. McArdle Roadway Bridge over Hillside Project, providing for the payment of the costs thereof not to exceed $1,250,000, an increase of $500,000 from the previously executed agreement, reimbursable at 100%, at no cost to the City of Pittsburgh. Future resolutions will authorize the project-specific service agreements.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 653, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation.

moves us to land use and economic development committee chaired by councilman wilson new papers bill 664 resolution amending resolution number 245 approved april 21st 2015 providing for the implementation of a residential parking permit program area h h in the central north side community council district 1 To expand the district to include an additional address pursuant to Pittsburgh Code Chapter 549. So approved.

Second. Discussion?

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 664, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That moves us to Recreation, Youth, and Senior Services Committee, chaired by Councilmember Warwick.

New Papers, Bill 658, Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into a Facilities Usage Agreement or Agreements with Macedonia FACE, for use of the Ammon Recreation Center located at 2217 Bedford Avenue in order to provide senior services activities with quality programming, congregate meals, and supportive services for older adults, maximizing shared community resources starting in September through April for a term of up to two years at no cost to the city.

motion to approve brief discussion second discussion do you want to come up yeah sure

Good morning, Council. Luanne Horan, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation. So what we are doing is we are offering and partnering with Macedonia FACE to allow them to come into Ammon Rec Center and operate senior programs from September to May. After that for summer they have another place to go. So this is, we don't have children that much in the center during that time of year. They're like later in the afternoon. So they approached us about needing space and we said we could help them. Right now we have five facility usage agreements with other partners already. So this would be the sixth one. They're finding that where they are now, YMCA or YWCA, that they increased their rent so high that they can no longer provide services in the community there. It's too expensive. They don't have the money to do it. So we'd offer them to come and participate at AMN and provide programming there, which benefits all of us because there's not a senior center around there, so the services will continue to take place for the seniors.

Yeah, that's great and I'm glad that this is something that a partnership that we're able to take advantage of. I'm very glad that this is happening and appreciative of our partners and glad that we can help alleviate their costs by offering them a free space, I assume, right?

Yes, we offer it free for all the centers that we are partnering with.

But, you know, this is sort of, and this is something we've talked about in other contexts before, but, you know, with Parks and Rec is that, you know, these days with our kids and our seniors, right? these types of human services that we provide at the city, right, for our kids, for our seniors, are needed more than ever, right? On the one side with our kids, we have families that are struggling with rent and groceries and just the cost of everything, that any type of cost-free childcare is, you know, And then also on the side with our seniors, same thing, lots of pressures with cost of living. So meals that we provided our senior centers and also just community, right? So not kind of being stuck at home alone, especially when transit is difficult, right? Having a community center in your neighborhood. And so the issue is, I think, or an issue is that At the City of Pittsburgh, our Department of Parks and Rec does an outstanding job of providing these services if you have a location in your neighborhood. But if you don't, then you don't get these services. And I know that every year, and I'm just sort of saying this as we're heading into budget season, every year Parks and Rec comes to the table and at council we say, wow, it is amazing how much you all do with so little money, right? It is amazing how much good work you do with so little money. And I think that it's really time as a city that we start to reevaluate how that works and elevate not only how critical these services are for the communities that receive them, but also start to grapple with how unequitable it is for all of our Pittsburgh taxpayers that if you do not have one of these locations that we run in your neighborhood, then we're relying on some outside group to come in and do that work. on their own dime basically and and that may work that may work for a little while not for you know I mean we we can't control what what other groups have the capacity to do so I think that you know this partnership is great but and and I'm not proposing that we build rec centers in every single network that is not feasible right but I do think that as a city we need to start getting more creative and increasing the funding so that we can expand our services really to everybody in the city so that everyone in the city of Pittsburgh has access to the same way that regardless of where the DPW division is, you still get your streets plowed, right? You still get, no matter where the garbage trucks sit, you still get your garbage picked up. the city of Pittsburgh is very good at providing these services to seniors and to kids and we should be really taking a hard look at ways that and I think that it's actually in line with this this idea that we want families to come to Pittsburgh and let me tell you there is nothing more appealing to a family coming you know to picking a neighborhood right than the fact that there is a rec center in that neighborhood where their kids can go after school or or you know maybe if there's a you know if they have a a senior in their household right a senior center where they can go and um and take advantage of those services so i agree i think councilwoman so we need to get you more money luanne is what i'm saying that'd be great we'll find a way to spend that for sure provide more programs um can i just mention something that we

I want to put it out there. We are operating our cooling centers right now. And we're going to extend that through the weekend all the way through Sunday. The weekend hours are going to be 12 to 6. They're not our regular all day, 8 to 7. So I just wanted to put that out there. And we're going to get a posting done shortly so the public knows that they have a place to come to cool off all the way through Sunday with this heat.

That's all for me.

Thank you so much. Any other questions or comments from members? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 658, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thank you so much. Thank you. That moves us to Intergovernmental and Educational Affairs Committee, chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Deferred Papers, Bill 412. Resolution authorizing the Pittsburgh Land Bank to acquire all the city's right, title, and interest, if any... In and to the publicly owned properties in the 12th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh designated in the Deed Registry Office of Allegheny County as Block 125A, Lot 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 133, 0 Lincoln Avenue and 0 Mayflower Street, Council District 9 at no cost to the City.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 412, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation.

New Papers, Bill 651. Resolution amending Resolution 37 and 126 of 2026, which authorized an amendment to the cooperation agreement or agreements with the City of Pittsburgh Equipment Leasing Authority for the purchase and leasing of vehicles, equipment and accessories, equipment support infrastructure, and professional services in fiscal year 2026 by increasing the authorized amount by $85,000 to purchase vehicles for the Department of Public Safety, OCHS, and decreasing the authorized amount by $1,983,750 for the Department of Public Safety, EMS, for a new not-to-exceed total of $26,289,269. Motion to approve. Second. Discussion?

Council Member Warwick. Yeah, thanks. Do we have someone to come speak? Thanks.

So this legislation is going to be $85,000 for a van, which is going to be wheelchair accessible for OCHS. They have voiced their concern that there are limited options in terms of vehicles that can help with individuals who have disabilities who need a wheelchair. And this vehicle is smaller. It's supposed to be able to work more effectively within our landscape. And they would like to move forward with that purchase. The other element of the legislation is the removal of the EMS operating funds, which you all are aware operating was reopened. It was reallocated to other projects. So this is more of a clerical process of amending the co-op to align with the reallocation of those funds.

Yeah, so do we know then, because we did talk about this before, as far as where those funds are going to go?

So operating has not provided me specifically exactly. I think there was a variety of projects, and we can look into that for you if you need specifics in terms of where those funds were specifically reallocated. But I do not have those specifics at this time.

Yeah, I think for me what is most important is that the funds stay, continue to be used for vehicles, that we don't divert funds to other things, right? Because we have gotten these fantastic, you know, the council was able to bring $10 million into the EL, or, you know, put $10 million toward vehicles. We're getting these gifts from UPMC and, you know, Highmark, et cetera, et cetera, which is all great, but those gifts are targeted, right? They're specific that we can only use them for certain types of vehicles, but we have lots of vehicle needs across the board, as you well know. And so I am of the mind that this money should remain in the vehicle pot, so to speak. Do we know if that's the plan or?

I mean, even prior to the most recent announcement, the previous announcements of partnerships with nonprofits led us to about, like, a $3 million net increase for vehicle funding. So none of this does supplement the two that's reprogrammed. But in addition to that, like you said, some of it is targeted to this has to go towards DPW vehicles. This pot has to go towards ambulance. That does help us then free up vehicles. I don't want to say money is fungible, but then if we were already planning to purchase an EMS vehicle with existing funds, that then frees it up to still go towards other fleet needs within what remains what's budgeted for ELA.

Yeah, that for me, at least, is the important part, is that it stays within the fleet, right? I mean, I know that it is, you know, and we have lots of needs across the city, but, you know, our fleet need is ongoing every year, right? And even with these gifts, we are not at where we need to be, you know, for next year or the year after, the year after. So to make sure that those dollars stay within fleet, even whether they're able to be spent in... you know calendar year 2026 or not um so i'll i'll leave it at that that's just just thoughts from me so thanks thank you further discussion

First, let's introduce yourself Bronwyn, because I believe it's the first time you're at the table with me at least.

Oh, with you, yes. I was here just a little few minutes ago. Oh, okay, so I missed you. But thank you, I appreciate that.

Okay, okay, but Bronwyn, you're acting fleet manager. We know our chief over here. Basically, it was a good ELA meeting last time, identifying the new monies that the administration, which has done a wonderful job working with our nonprofits, and this is just exactly how I anticipated it, I had hoped for, I guess. And, you know, it's good to see the mayor not making good on it. I mean, it creates problems for us in ways, which, like, how many vehicles? What vehicles? Which we have all of our directors kind of identifying, and you all are just taking their advice and seeing what makes sense, what doesn't make sense, and we're going to come up with our list and start purchasing vehicles.

Yes, that is the plan. Yes, we have been. Yes, it has been a very busy purchasing year and it's been exciting just because, you know, as we were discussing earlier, we have maintenance costs that are rising and having that new fleet in place is really going to hopefully see those prices decline.

Yeah, no doubt. It's going to take a year or so to see any sort of significant decrease. But we're already knowing that we have these new dump trucks coming in from the PNC gift. There's already dumps that we're like, we're not fixing this. We're chasing good money and we're decommissioning them already. Knowing that in the fall, they're going to have...

new ones. This will eventually end up helping with our expenses with Transdev. This will eventually help out in many ways. Again, there are challenges. We can't just go buy a whole new fleet for EMS or anybody in particular, but it is good that we have certain parameters we have to go by and that helps us prioritize what we can spend. The money is outside of the nonprofits that we can spend on the vehicles that are needed. We spoke specifically about fire at the last meeting, and they're in a pretty bad situation. We've got to hope that certain vehicles stay, or ladder trucks, I believe, stay safe. I don't think that Ralph and the union is too confident that that will happen. But that's a tricky situation because it takes so long to get the fire apparatus and to get it equipped and geared for what they need as Pittsburgh firefighters. So, you know, we'll figure it out. But, again, we're not without challenges just because we're flush with it. cash now does create any challenges. Do you want to say anything about the fire? I mean, I feel comfortable that we're going to be ordering in the future what they need and five years from now. It will be history, I hope, but far we have to worry about specifically, I feel like, for the next couple of years.

We have multiple RFPs for multiple types of apparatus already on the street. The ladder trucks and the pumpers will be closing next week, so we'll have an idea of cost then to see, you know, like with the roughly $7 million that we have left from – Council moving that extra money over now that we know how much all the snow stuff is going to cost. And once we get that pricing in, we'll have a much better idea of what we can and can't buy for fire, how much, how many. We're looking at all options. All options are on the table, especially now with this new gift of $4 million a year for five years. What's the best, you know, how are we going to get the most bang for our buck in making the most out of that?

I trust you will.

We're looking at everything.

We're going to look at all angles, you know. So it's a good problem to have, but, you know, it's...

Exactly. New problems, but they're not terrible problems to have. Great, great.

No doubt, no doubt. Okay, well, thank you again. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's it for me.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Second round, Council Member Warwick. Just one thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, but just to kind of put it into context is... at the ela the meeting before last right we got the list from all the departments for the repla for like what they would like to replace right vehicles that that are ready to be replaced and i think the total added up to like 50 million

It was actually more than that after you included the additions. It came to 62 million. Yeah. The ask was close to 157 vehicles.

Yeah. So, yeah, so it was like 50 million of just replaced. Like, that's just the vehicles that departments are like, we need a new one of these. And then an additional to, and like, you know, new additional vehicles to do more work, right, to improve services. And, yeah. You know, we had to request, just to not send something ridiculous over to the capital budget committee, we had to ask that your team pare that down to $20 million, I believe.

Yeah, and we actually kind of kept it more reasonable than that. We try to keep it closer to $15 million. Right.

because it was what was realistic in terms of actual submissions and their time and and why not we had to be considerate of that um but yeah we felt like that was a good anchoring number to start from yeah so so just to be clear like if you know if we could do you know if we could really meet the need we would have we would be spending 60 million dollars next year on vehicles right but we had to pare it down to, you know, just an ask of 15. And you don't get what you ask for necessarily. So just to kind of keep it clear for everybody what we're talking about, you know, running a city, like the amount of vehicles that you need to run a city is significant. And it's definitely not sexy, but it's necessary for those basic city services and for every department, every department that we have here at the City of Pittsburgh, so. Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 651, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thank you all. Bill 659.

Resolution authorizing the Pittsburgh Land Bank to acquire all the city's right, title, and interest, if any, in and to the publicly owned properties in the 18th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, designated in the Deed Registry Office of Allegheny County as Block 15M, Lots 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 265, 266, 0 Chalfont Street, Council District 3, at no cost to the city.

Motion to approve.

Second. Discussion? seeing none all in favor of bill 659 please say aye aye affirmative recommendation bill 660 resolution authorizing the pittsburgh land bank to acquire all the city's right title and interest if any in and to the publicly owned properties in the 12th ward of the city of pittsburgh designated in the deed registry office of allegheny county as block 125a Lot 375, 169 Auburn Street, Council District 9, at no cost to the City.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 660, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That exhausts our standing committee's agenda. We do have announcements. This afternoon at 1.30 p.m., Council will hold a cablecast post agenda on the Downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District Implementation Plan, chaired by Councilmember Mosley. This Friday, July 3rd, City Clerk and Council offices will be closed in observance of the Independence Day holiday. Next week, Council will hold their regular meeting on Tuesday, July 7th, and Standing Committee's meeting on Wednesday, July 8th, both at 10 a.m. Speaker registration will close at 9 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. To register to speak at any of these meetings, please complete the sign-up form on the council meeting webpage or contact the clerk's office at 412-255-2138 by the applicable registration deadline. Is there a motion? Is there anything from members? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to excuse the absent members, approve the minutes, and adjourn the meeting. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned.