Cable Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the standing committee's meeting for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. All council meetings will be live streamed on the city's website. And for guest speakers, please do not turn off your microphones. Our first order of business is roll call. Will the clerk please take the role?

Mr. Sharland.

Here.

Mr. Coghill. Ms. Gross. Mr. Lavelle. Here. Mr. Mosley. Ms. Salinetro. Here. Ms. Warwick. Mr. Wilson.

Here.

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

Thank you. Our next order of business is to amend the agenda. Can I get a motion, please?

So moved.

Second. All in favor? 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... that comments are limited to matters of concern, official action, or deliberation, which are or may be before City Council and profanity will not be permitted. Please state your name and neighborhood for the record. You will have three minutes to speak. And our first registered speaker is Armin Sami.

hello council good morning from new orleans i'm virtual today i wanted to give some public comment on trade my name is armin sammy i'm a resident of friendship in pittsburgh and i'm here requesting more information before council votes on the downtown trade in my read the promise of of trades in general on this trade is this if we invest in downtown now that investment will pay off in the future by increasing tax revenue i like the core promise of that I'm not convinced that the downtown trade does that. If we compare the implementation plan posted by the URA for the downtown trade versus the Manchester Chateau trade, the Manchester Chateau trade felt concrete. If you look at it, for example, it says, if we want a Ferris wheel, we'll need to restore the river bank and have upgraded utilities. And so that's an investment we need to do today to generate the tax revenue in the future. I can see how the upfront investments there are needed to realize the future revenue. The downtown TRID implementation plan feels much more amorphous to me. All the projects it lists are projects that are already planned or in the pipeline. So it feels like it's capturing revenue from projects that would happen with or without the TRID. And to me, that's not how this should work. To me, the TRID should make improvements that create future tax revenue. And if the downtown trade does that, I have not seen evidence. I've emailed the URI, I've read the documents and I can't find any evidence of that. I do see an amorphous bucket promising $168.5 million for quote, potential future development, but it's not clear to me that the trade is claiming to create that future revenue. I think it's just saying that those are projects we don't know about, but are likely to happen with or without the trade. So here's what I ask. If the TRID is expected to increase future tax revenue, the implementation plan should show that. The implementation plan should distinguish between development that's already expected and development that's projected because of the TRID. So I ask council for more details in the implementation plan before voting. Thanks for your time and hello again from New Orleans.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mel Packer.

Morning, Mel Packer, 623 Kirtland Street, Point Breeze. Remarks about the downtown proposal. For the purpose of my remarks, we will accept that Pittsburgh, while truly part of Appalachia, is seen by most of the U.S. as part of the Midwest, including by business leaders, and at the very least has ties to the traditional Midwest. From the Guardian Weekly Magazine of July 10th, 2026, quote, Since the pandemic, thousands of Americans have moved to the Midwest from other parts of the US. It is bouncing back. The Midwest is the only region where all states have gained population from July 2024 to July 2025. Midwestern metro areas make up the majority of the fastest growing metropolitan areas over the last two quarters. People are moving because of lower cost of living, more temperate climate, and end of quote. But then from my own reading, and developers know this as well, they're moving because the west is burning, the south is going underwater while heating up, the east is losing its coast to oceans, and of course housing costs, and developers know that. The population is going to continue to increase in this area. Fast forward, why are developers interested in taking on projects in Pittsburgh? Let's try a little capitalism 101, or economics 101, which apparently some city officials never took. One, what is profit, how do you make it? Profit is money gained by selling a product for more money than it took you to make it. Two, what do developers do? They erect large structural units for the purposes of business or residential use, charge more to purchase or rent them than it costs to build them, thereby gaining profit. Three, are developers stupid? No, they're not. The proof is that they only build those structures when they know that future profits are coming. Four, will developers build when the future looks bleak for the possibility of profit making? Of course they won't. Five, why are developers seemingly racing each other out of the gate to develop structures in the city of Pittsburgh? because they know there's money to be made here. Pittsburgh is going to continue to grow in population as it is already, and it will attract residents who can afford the developers prices. No one can ignore that there are literally thousands of upscale the units on the board or in the construction neighborhoods all over the city. Number six, when developers sense looming profits for their efforts, do they need financial incentives to build in this city? Of course they don't. They just want to make money. But if they can run a con game on city officials who think that somehow developers will walk away from profits unless they're given financial rewards, they will certainly take the offers. So it really comes down to simple economics. Why do we need to bribe developers to build more units when they're already doing it and want to do more? Why do we offer incentives to companies that have been winning tax appeals big time, yet somehow believe they won't fight tax increases down the road to pay off the bond? Well, who do our city officials love the most? The residents who make the city work and elected them or the developers who contribute to their campaigns? We know the answers and you should just say no to this trade. It is not and will not benefit anyone but the developers. It will do little or nothing for those who make the city work. The builders and developers are here. More are coming. We don't need to bribe them to get here. They're coming and they're smelling blood. Don't make it our blood. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ken Regal.

Good morning, members of council and attendees. My name is Ken Riegel. I've lived at 6465 Jackson Street in Highland Park for the past 40 years. I'm here today to express my objection to the proposed downtown transit revitalization district. The proposed TRID is the sort of public-private partnership in which the public bears risks and costs while the private sector reaps the benefits for itself. The TRID plan calls for public borrowing of up to $200 million of which 80% would be given to a select group of private owners of highly valuable downtown real estate. Only the other 20% of this public money would be available for public needs of any sort. And even that slim share would be only for downtown, not the needs of most of the neighborhoods that you each represent. The theory behind this corporate welfare is that it will cause so much development that new property taxes will enable us to pay off the bonds and after 20 or perhaps 40 years still have new tax revenue to help the city meet its present and future needs. I'm sorry, I misspoke. None of its present needs at all, only some unknown ones far into the future. Now, what's wrong with this theory? First, real estate development is an inherently speculative business. These owners, many of themselves from out of town with vast resources invested across the nation, want the citizens of Pittsburgh to mitigate their risk without sharing in the rewards. Are their plans so iffy that they are unwilling to risk their own capital without major taxpayer help? If these risk-taking entrepreneurs can't make money, some of them building only for the luxury housing market, they should either scale back their ambitions or sell their property to someone who thinks they have a better idea. According to what I learned in college economics class, that's how capitalism is supposed to work. Second, many of these private interests are already feeding at the public trough. Some have already been announced as beneficiaries of Governor Shapiro's downtown development plan. One received a $1 million state redevelopment grant six years ago, is still vacant, and was lobbying the state for 10 million more just last year. Others are receiving or likely eligible for LERDAs, the Downtown Enhanced LERDA, Pennsylvania housing finance funds, or if they were so kind as to build some low-income affordable housing, federal low-income housing tax credits. Finally, nothing in the TRID plan puts any public obligation on the recipients of this taxpayer largesse. No affordable housing targets, no public amenities, no improvements to public transit except in the name of the district. No, nothing. And this plan would impose these corporate welfare priorities and debt service obligations on city councils for so many years that those future city council members might not even be born yet. There are more reasons, but I'm out of time. Reject this plan and focus the city's resources on addressing community needs, not private greed.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joanna Deming. And on deck is Pete Schmidt.

Hello. Good morning, all. My name is Jo Deming.

I live at 447 Marshall Avenue in Peary Hilltop. I'm here to ask Council to vote no on this resolution authorizing the adoption of the Downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District. The City of Pittsburgh continues to get more expensive, and solving the problem is also getting more expensive. Neighbors, grassroots, and community-based developers must be trusted with significant resources if this is going to change. Neighborhoods like Perry Hilltop and Fineview, where I have been working and living for more than 20 years, need a serious investment of intentional capital to secure livable communities where we can thrive. We are waiting for significant resources to finish the work the city has started. Activating community plans, finishing the renovation of Fowler Park. We have a pool that's still sitting vacant when it was supposed to open this summer after five years of wait. We have a gym building in this park where it is sitting vacant. It was started before my 10th grader was born. Significant dollars are needed to implement the Choice Neighborhood's plans at Alegany Dwellings that was completed three years ago. Significant dollars are needed to provide deep subsidy and complete more permanently affordable homes. Significant dollars are needed to renovate hundreds of vacant properties that remain. Dollars are needed to support our urban farms and provide local markets where people can buy healthy food. Instead of putting this money into downtown, the Strip District, and parts of the North Shore, money needs to be invested in communities like ours. The plan is based on a loan that may not be paid before myself or many of the people in this room die. My kids will be grandparents by the time the debt is paid. We want this legacy. Capping tax revenue in our most productive income-producing areas for one-time influx that just benefits that area. I live on the north side. We've invested in the North Shore, and the people know the money trickles up the hill. Once we invest in the areas, what do we have? How does the community benefit? We need to look at things like rent control, investing in permanent affordable housing for people at 50% or lower AMI. We need to invest in our neighbors and our community. We're really going to see the change we want in this city. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker is Pete Schmidt followed by Kim Smith.

Good morning, Pete Schmidt, Mexican War Streets Northside. I am the Western Pennsylvania District Director for SEIU Local 32. For decades, our union has been committed to fighting for and improving worker protections and raising living standards for the people who call this city home. We strongly support investments that strengthen downtown Pittsburgh and make it a place where all Pittsburghers can thrive. We want a downtown that we can be proud of to show visitors, businesses, future residents, and a place we can all call home. We also recognize that Pittsburgh's commercial real estate market is facing serious challenges. We appreciate the efforts of the mayor, city council, the URA, and other stakeholders who are working to position downtown for long-term success. But there is another crisis that must be part of this conversation. Workers are losing their jobs, their benefits, and the protection they have fought for and earned over decades. In just a moment, you will hear from one of those workers, Kim, who has been an integral part of her building for over 30 years. Workers like Kim have spent their lives cleaning, maintaining, securing, and operating these buildings that helped make downtown Pittsburgh a success. Their hard work created value for these properties long before conversion projects became a reality. We understand that the proposed trade represents the latest in a series of public investments that total hundreds of millions of dollars. But public investment most must also support the workers who are the foundation of the tenants experience in these buildings. Across Pittsburgh and throughout Pennsylvania, commercial to residential conversions are resulting in the loss of good union jobs. Longtime workers are seeing their hours cut, their benefits eliminated, and their jobs disappear altogether. When developers and property owners receive public support to facilitate these transactions, too often the workers who built and sustained our downtown are left behind. A real world example is unfolding right now at the former Alcoa building, now known as the residences at Alcoa on 611 William Penn Place. Before its conversion, the building employed 12 janitorial workers earning family sustaining wages, affordable full family health insurance and pension benefits. Recently, the last two workers were displaced by PMC Property Group. In less than a decade, a building with 12 family-sustaining union jobs then cut to two through conversion is now reduced to zero. We cannot afford to let this happen. Pittsburgh is a union town, that matters to me, and I know it matters to all of you. Public investment should not be a subsidy to promote racing to the bottom. The success of downtown cannot be measured solely by occupancy rates, development projects, or tax revenue. It must also be measured by whether the people who have worked there for decades can continue to earn a decent living, support their families, and retire with dignity. We are encouraged by the recently added amendments that will accomplish the following. We believe the, I'm sorry. We believe these amendments will not just protect workers, but also secure the city's investment by ensuring stable, high quality operations that improve property values in downtown. As you consider this proposal, we ask that you ensure public support.

Thank you very much.

Comes with accountability and thank you.

Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Kim Smith, followed by Stephen Kelly.

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

Over the years, the tenants became much more than people I worked for. They became my friends. You want to speak? I can't. I'm going to start crying. You can do it. You can do it.

I can't.

Take your time.

Is it okay if I read the rest with Kim?

Thank you.

She's never received any complaints about her work, only compliments. People have even been emailing the building manager in an effort to save her job and calling on PMC to do the right thing. She cleaned three floors and always did her best to ensure tenants had a clean, safe, and welcoming place to work in. When PMC came in, a manager at PMC told her they wanted to keep her because the tenants cared about her. They recognized her value and the relationship she had built over decades of service. She was excited because through collective bargaining, she's been able to win health care, four weeks of vacation, six personal days, and a union wage of $22.17 per hour. Before the union came in during the 1990s, workers earned little more than minimum wage, which, by the way, is still $7.25 in the state of Pennsylvania. Recently, herself and another cleaner were laid off, kicked out by PMC through no fault of her own. In an instant, 37 years of hard work, dedication, and relationships were taken away. Even though she had never received even one complaint about her work, she has to ask how much would it really keep to keep a longtime union worker, a Pittsburgher, to respect her hard work by providing decent wages and benefits. PMC can afford to keep both her and her union. Instead, they have chosen to eliminate an important union job in order to increase profits. That building feels like her second home. She spent nearly four decades there and planned to stay there until retirement in a few years. She feels deeply hurt, disappointed by the way she was treated. She cannot afford to lose her union, her job, simply because they want to save money. After 37 years, she deserved better.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephen Kelly, followed by Layla Float.

Hello, my friends. My name is Stephen Kelly. I have been a member of 32BJ for 15 plus years. I have seen many of you at our rallies and our fights, but none could be more important than the ones we are facing now. 32BJ is aware of the challenges that Pittsburgh faces. This is why we urge you to protect good union jobs. These jobs provide hope for people who cannot afford to go to college. for people who may have fallen through the cracks and see little hope for the future. These jobs must be here for them. There are companies coming into Pittsburgh with the idea that they are going to break our union. There are companies coming into Pittsburgh with the idea of union busting. To this we say no, and we urge you to stand with us as we say no. One of our workers, you just heard from her, had over 30 years of service, was thrown out of her building for no fault of her own. We tried to talk to PMC. We tried to reason with them, but they basically said, we do not care. We understand that we care and that you care as well. And we ask you not to allow these companies to come in here with their money and their cheap union busting tactics and destroy good union jobs. Someone once said to me, the easiest way for a poor man to get into the middle class is a union. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Leila Vlote followed by Bernadette Mosey.

Good morning members of the council. My name is Leila Vlote and I live in central Oakland. I have recently moved to Pennsylvania and attend the University of Pittsburgh. I live in campus housing, and as someone who is new to the city and who it directly affects, I want to become a more involved member of the Pittsburgh community and understand the decisions that shape it. As I look through today's agenda, two items really stood out to me, the Downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District and the proposed donation from UPNC for emergency medical services. As a broke college student, I rely on public transportation to get to class, explore the city, and connect with other people. Investments like these can strengthen downtown transit and have the potential to make Pittsburgh more accessible, encourage economic activity, and create a safer, more connected community for residents, workers, students, and visitors. I think this could be an excellent use of city funds. I hope these improvements continue to prioritize reliability, accessibility, and the needs of people who have to use these services every day. I was also happy to see the proposed UPMC donation and support to new EMS vehicles and equipment. Just the other day, I was walking to class and saw an ambulance pull up to help someone on the street. It's encouraging to know that help is available when needed. Emergency medical services are important to every community. Investees in these services and equipment can help ensure that first responders have the resources they need to provide fast and high quality care. As I mentioned, I have recently moved to Pittsburgh, and that comes with its own worries. So it's really comforting to know that if I need help, it would be there in a timely manner. This is an investment that can have a real impact on public safety and in the lives of people across Pittsburgh. Although I'm new to the city, I appreciate the opportunity to attend this meeting and learn more about how local government serves the community. I look forward to becoming a more engaged resident and continuing to participate in conversations like these. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bernadette Mosey followed by Madeline McGrady.

Um, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay. This plan is good in theory. This plan is good in theory as I have sat here and I have said that we need our empty buildings turned into housing. But this plan is baiting the town folk to believe in a fake bill for mixed affordable housing. Make no mistakes. This is a King Trump approved like kingdom plan. Take and take and raise and raise our taxes to first pay you, then pay the royal subjects, the developers and the contractors and the LLCs. All while the seniors, veterans, disabled and families are forced into poverty and streets for your LLCs and developers to fatten their pockets and receive tax breaks. We can't get tax breaks. They are denied, we are denied real help. Did you know that Allegheny County Link describes how they describe the homeless? Not living in a car, not living in grandma's basement, not living in an abandoned URA property, there's so many of them, and other abandoned properties. You must be living in a tent on the ground. I repeat, you must be living in a tent on the ground. But if you live in the tent on the ground, Guess what? Another taxpaying entity, I love them, the police, they come and they take you and they arrest you for living in a tent. The circle of street life begins. So our tax-paid housing departments first force you to live in a tent in order to attempt to help, then send another tax-paid entity, the police, to remove your tent status. And now King Trumpleperv wants to arrest tax-created tent city homeless people, then place them in massive homeless detention centers. More taxes. And guess who builds them? Their private entity, their developers, all of those people are just going to get it right back. This plan needs honest, local, small business remodelers and construction workers who have the skills. Kind of like the builders Mayor Ganey got slammed for knowing and trying to utilize. This is like when you are blocked, when you block the small vendors in Pittsburgh, Now you're continuing to block the same builders, the small families that are builders and construction workers. Redo this plan to only utilize small locals to build. Help them get started. Be transparent. Affordable housing. Look into New York's generational leases. They are amazing. I lived in New York. They are amazing. A generational lease. They're locked into an affordable price, and they have it all listed out in a legal definition on how your mother can move in, the other people in your family can move in, and that home is their home for generations. It works. Whoever is running your housing authority needs to lose his job and live in a tent.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Madeline McGrady, followed by David Bonkoski.

Good morning, council. My name is Maddie McGrady. I'm a co-chair of the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table and a renter in Highland Park. We are the Housing Justice Table Coalition of organizations and independent advocates working to ensure that safe, healthy, and truly deeply affordable housing is treated as a human right in Pittsburgh. I'm speaking today to urge council to vote no on the downtown trade proposal. At its core, this proposal would borrow against and divert future public tax revenue to subsidize private development. It only firmly commits 10 million of potentially up to $2 million in borrowing to public infrastructure and makes no guaranteed commitments to public transit. Public dollars should be leveraged to serve the public first and not to protect the profits of speculative real estate investors. Our public dollars are one of the most powerful tools we have to shape our city. Those dollars should be used to expand non-market housing options, public housing, limited equity cooperatives, and other forms of social housing that are community controlled and that prioritize keeping people stably housed and protected from displacement, not profit. Instead, this proposal prioritizes subsidizing private development without any evidence or guarantees that it will produce the deeply affordable housing that we actually need, including housing that meets the needs of families. and workers. We can and must require far more from the private sector than is outlined in this proposal in exchange for public money. Secondly, there has been a truly deplorable failure of the URA and the city to be transparent and to be meaningfully to meaningfully engage the public around this proposal. I had to file a right-to-know request to get the planning study. And the PA TRID Act Chapter 9 explicitly states that community and public involvement are required in the development of a TRID, and that a public meeting must be held in order to explain the purpose, components, and alternatives to a TRID. That plainly did not happen. And I think we should all agree that robust public engagement and giving the public the opportunity to even understand what is being proposed here is a necessity, regardless of your theory of economic change. THIS WAS NOT TRANSPARENT. THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO LEARN THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS EVEN IN THE PROPOSAL, TO ASK QUESTIONS OR TO GIVE ANY INPUT WHATSOEVER BEFORE IT WAS FORWARDED BY THE URA TO THE TAXING BODIES FOR A VOTE. THAT IS CRAZY. Well, I appreciate the post-agenda meeting held on July 1st. Thank you, Councilman Mosley. That conversation did come too late after the study had already been commissioned and paid for with public funds, and it was not sufficiently publicized to be meaningful. A robust democratic process is not a formality. It is how we ensure that public money is accountable to the public and aligned with community needs. Taxpaying residents, including struggling transit riders, families, workers, and small business owners deserve a clear and honest accounting of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs before our elected officials vote to divert tax revenue for decades. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Buenkoski, followed by Bobby Sanford. Is David with us? Okay, we'll come back to David. Bobby Sanford. Is Bobby with us? We will come back to Bobby. Our next speaker is Demetria Penny Harris.

Good morning. My name is Demetra Penny Harris.

My apologies.

It's okay. I live in the Allentown section of Pittsburgh. I'm here to ask you to vote against the Downtown Transit Revitalization Investment District. I ALWAYS FEEL THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THINGS THAT THIS COUNCIL IS DOING OR PLANS TO DO. I MET MY COUNCILMAN, BOB SHARLAND, WHEN I FIRST MOVED INTO MY BUILDING. I WAS HAPPY THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME TO TALK TO ME AND ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I HAD AFTER THE MEETING. It led me to believe that you are someone who likes to involve the community. I was shocked that I didn't hear about this from your office via a letter to our tenant council or by mail. If I was not a member of PA United or Pittsburghers for Public Transportation, I would not have known about this. I feel that this should not be passed without public opinion. I also feel that taxes should go to programs that people need. Homelessness and affordable housing are two examples of where money from taxes can go. They need places. I'm sorry. We need more programs for our teenagers also. They need places to go and things to do. Some of that money should go to programs for them after all. Aren't they our future? When I finish here, I am going to start conversations with everyone I know and some I don't know. I'm going on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. I'm going on the bus, I'm going off the bus. And I might even talk to some people in the elevator. I just want every single body that votes to be informed because I am an informed voter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Loretta Payne, followed by Laura Perkins.

Good morning. My name is Loretta Payne. I live in the Hill District and I'm representing the Hill District Consensus Group. We have had many meetings in the Hill District regarding a trip and the consensus is across the board that instead of giving money to developers, these monies can be used for community land trust and co-op housing. This is an effective way to create inclusive communities is to have a community land trust with co-op housing built on top. They're a form of permanently affordable housing in which a community controlled organization retains ownership. That land could be in houses could be for lower income households in exchange for purchasing homes at below market rate prices. owners agree to resell price restrictions that keep homes permanently affordable to subsequent households with similar income levels. Meanwhile, the sellers are still able to build some equity. A community land trust provides stewardship for housing units land, such as preparing home buyers for purchase, supporting owners through financial challenges. And CLTs or community land trusts are considered a prime tool for allowing residents to return a stake in gentrifying areas. That's because the initial subsidy remains with the building and keeps it continuously affordable over time without requiring new influxes of public money. So it's self-generating. Community land trusts have benefits in weak market areas as well as their stewardship protects communities by ensuring fewer foreclosures, better upkeep and stable residents. Community land trusts and co-ops bring sustainable home ownership within the reach of more families supporting residents who want to commit to their neighborhood long-term. They provide an avenue for a community to have a say in redevelopment plans. So this is how we can spend the monies. Instead, now downtown is nice, but our revenue, income revenue can be increased with home ownership as well. Thank you.

Laura Perkins, followed by Eva Mitchell.

Hi there, Laura Perkins, resident of Bloomfield. I'm here to ask you all to vote no on TRID for many reasons that have already been said. This process has lacked a lot of transparency, which could be illegal. So just to cover your backs, you might want to be more transparent, especially, I know this is not you, but the URA has pushed this through very suspiciously. What is what are we trying to achieve with this? Are we trying to put more money to public transit? Because we could do that directly. I see that we would have to take out a loan for $50 million. Pittsburgh Regional Transit receives $50 million per year in fares. Why don't we make fares free for a year with that $50 million? I think I'D LIKE TO ASK CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, WHAT CITY INITIATIVES HAVE YOU HAD TO VOTE AGAINST SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY? BECAUSE IF WE ARE FOREGOING $200 MILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY, WHY DON'T WE PUT THAT $200 MILLION OVER 40 YEARS TO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SAID YOU WOULD LOVE TO FUND IF YOU HAD THE MONEY? Specifically, what revitalization issues? Because this is a transit revitalization, supposedly. So what revitalization issues have you hoped to fund? Because we can fund that with the money that you're giving straight to developers. How many of you said that taxes are too high? Because if we're just giving it to developers, we wouldn't have to have that issue. I'd like to encourage everyone present in this room and everyone listening, once council members cast their votes, to investigate developers' campaign donations to city council members. Specifically, I'm going to call out Bobby Wilson and Bob Charland, who seem to support these issues. That's it. Vote no entred.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Eva Mitchell, followed by Amanda Nietrauer. Is Eva with us? COME BACK TO EVA. AMANDA NEUTRAUER.

YES. GOOD MORNING. AMANDA NEUTRAUER, SHERIDAN RESIDENT. I AM CALLING IN TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE DOWNTOWN TRIP AS IT'S PRESENTLY PROPOSED. In the early 80s, Reaganomics, or as we know, trickle-down economics, became the economic compass of the country, where we incentivized the wealthiest businesses and individuals by giving them tax breaks, which we know widened the economic divide. At a time when child care centers are closing or becoming less accessible, hurting working families. At a time in the West where we have crumbling streets, crumbling sidewalks and homes collapsing in on themselves. and when we have a city-wide lack of safe third spaces programming or infrastructure for our young people at a time when senior and caregiver services across the county have wait-listed all new applicants because they lack the funds to support the growing need for services at a time when our school district finally gets a financial infusion from the state after decades of discriminatory practices underfunded the district leading to the crumbling schools and underpayment of teachers You all want to borrow against the taxes of the city, county, and schools to put into a fund for developers who don't even live in the city, whose main purpose and goal is to make as much money as possible for their investors. And you do this with little to no information on what we'll actually get. You want to hand them grant money, not low interest loans, free money to develop in just a single area of the city. Instead of understanding all the ways Reaganomics hurt everyday Americans as a cautionary note, you want to push what I call trickle-down development. somehow giving these folks our money and developing private infrastructure in a space we know the majority of us are not welcome betting that it will generate a boon in tax dollars is supposed to radiate throughout the city a few years down the road people are struggling to eat pay utility bills and stay in their homes now in real time people are suffering and their lives are getting worse And instead of proposing ways to support mom and pop developers who live in our neighborhoods and revitalize decaying and vacant main streets by supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, where we know there's a much greater and more immediate return, this gift to developers is what you are proposing is both uncreative and irresponsible. I urge you all to actually go through a public process, have greater transparency, allow much greater input, and not to give our money away at a time when we raise all of our taxes and we are all struggling now.

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

Hi. Can you folks hear me?

Yes, we can.

Dean Lujanis, I'm a board member of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, and I live in the south side. And I'm testifying today to urge council to vote no on this proposal because this proposal actually does not meet the guidelines for transit revitalization investment district. The URA in their guidelines says this. transit related public infrastructure improvements. We've heard other testimony that 80% of this is going to private developers. But even beyond that, page two of the implementation plan, dated on March the 20th, lists a long table of specific private investments. What's going where, how much, in great detail. You've got to go to page eight. before you hear about what's going to go to public transit and infrastructure. And I'm going to read that. Don't worry, it won't take long. It's one sentence. It says this. The TRID framework supports investments in public transit supportive infrastructure, including improved pedestrian connections to transit stations, enhanced streetscapes along key corridors, station area improvements, and public realm upgrades that increase safety and accessibility for transit riders. Forgive me for speaking bluntly, but this reads like the person who was charged with drafting this was told, throw some transit sounding stuff in there, because we've got to check that box. I am urging, and you know, if we had a gloriously robust transit system, you know, understandable to play a little fast and loose with what meets guidelines and what doesn't. We do not have a gloriously robust transit system. So I'm urging council to not take public infrastructure money, especially money that's meant to benefit the transit riding public of Pittsburgh and give it to private developers. Thank you very much for your time.

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

Hi.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Good morning. Yes, my name is Terry. My name is Spencer. I live on the west side of Pittsburgh and Sheridan all my life. First and foremost, I want to say thank you to Pittsburghers for public transportation for making sure that we are informed of what's going on with this trip proposal. Calling in today to ask city council to vote no on this trip proposal. Once again, we find ourselves begging city council to support us. Once again, we find ourselves begging for resources. Once again, we find ourselves begging for leadership to We find ourselves once again begging for public dollars, whether borrowed or generated from tax revenue, to be issued and invested across our communities. Once again, we are begging City Council to not just look outside your front door, but look at your district. Your district is in disarray. Your district community members are investing in their neighbors, not you. Once again, we are asking the members of City Council to listen to your community and not private developers. Our communities should be invested from Fairywood to Fineview, from Brookline to Bloomfield. Our resources should be allocated through our annual city budgeting process. with public input this private conversation and these backdoor deals they have to stop y'all they have to stop we are begging you to once again invest in us and not private developers we are saying again vote no on this trade proposal We don't know how this is going to help us with this 40-year commitment that you have on the table. 40 years. Not 4, not 14. Invest in us for 40 years. That's what we are asking City Council. And with that, please vote no.

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

Hello, good morning.

My name is John McNulty. I'm from Elliott neighborhood.

And yes, I would ask Council to please rethink the TRID proposal here. I'd like to start with the improvement part of the transit revitalization and improvement part. Let's just take the Strip District. We have improvements very recently. We have the expansion of the Heinz History Center. We have the success of the terminal building. I go down there quite a lot. And, you know, if you ever hang out in the Strip District, it's usually a daytime or early part of the day. Now it's really vitalized even in the evening. You have the new feature like the Pittsburgh Walk of Fame, and there's going to be more famous people. And I think it's going to bring in people from around the country. They're going to be really surprised if some of their greatest stars actually come from Pittsburgh. It's better than the one in Hollywood, by the way, because we actually have an explanation of a little bit of the background and it's not getting trashed like the one in Hollywood Boulevard. That's just the strip. Let's go for downtown. Because of the NFL draft recently, we got all kinds of improvement to Point State Park, to the new Market Square with the nice little awning they have over top there. Art's Landing. mean what an awesome has anybody not been there yet it's a really really nice part when I think of that Goodyear tire store that had no business being there in downtown and now you know you're watching concerts outside and Picklesburg just happened this past weekend that goes along with the other festivals there's all ALWAYS SOMETHING HAPPENING DOWNTOWN, IF IT'S ANTHROCON OR THE ART FESTIVAL, IF IT'S A MARATHON OR SOME SORT OF RACE. I HEARD THAT THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO HELP IMPROVE SMITHFIELD STREET CORRIDOR TO MAKE THAT MORE OF A REVITALIZED AREA. THE NORTH SHORE, WE HAVE THE MIC DROP, WE HAVE ESPLANAUD. THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS. IT'S ALREADY A WINNER. The three areas we're talking about are already improved, and they're going to bring in people already. My proposal is that you think about the outlying areas. It's what I call sustained vitality. If you invest in affordable housing and you invest in transit, like I'm from the West End, you would help a lot of people that live where I live would love to come down more. I do because I live without a car. You could have more people living without a car. You could have a dedicated bike lane to make neighborhoods like Allentown, Brighton Heights, Springfield. When you have more people that want to live in the outlying communities, they will come downtown and they will sustain that vitality for years to come. We could even think outside the box, like why not have affordable housing down the Ohio River corridor? towards McKees Rocks and have boat transportation downtown. How cool would that be? That would be a draw in and of its own. Lastly, for people living downtown in well-to-do places, you could go to a place like the Old Stone Tavern in the West End by a bike trail. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Margo Nikitas, followed by Randall Taylor.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Margo Nikitas. I'm a resident of the South Side. I'm a member of PPT, Pittsburghers for Public Transit, who I want to thank for letting us know about this proposal today. I'm also staff on the United Electrical Workers, a national labor union representing tens of thousands of workers across the U.S. that's been headquartered here in downtown Pittsburgh since the late 1980s. I want to urge council and particularly my council person, Bob Sharlin, to vote no on this proposal. This proposal is not going to benefit individuals and people of Pittsburgh. It's going to end up benefiting private development. And one thing we know in both PPT and the UE is that putting hands in the money of private developers doesn't benefit the public. It hurts the public. In fact, the UE is slated to move back into a building down at 4 Smithfield Street. That is one of the the partnerships between the URA and private developers. I hope that building ends up being great and we're happy there and there is enough affordable housing. We know we're in an affordable housing crisis. And we're in a transit crisis. And that money should not be diverted to private development. This reminds me, as a longtime Chicagoan, when Mayor Daley leased the parking meters in Chicago for 75 years in a failed attempt to get the Olympics to come to Chicago. THAT DEAL HURT THE CITY, IT HURT CITIZENS, AND THEY'RE DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET BACK CONTROL OF THE PARKING METERS SO THEY CAN GET MORE REVENUE BACK GOING TO THE PUBLIC. I WAS LATE TO THIS MEETING TODAY BECAUSE I TAKE ACCESS PARATRANSIT WHICH IS ROUTINELY 45 minutes to two hours late. It's not dependable. And why is that? In part, because it's been privatized. There are five companies that they've outsourced this public service that they have to provide by federal disability laws. But it doesn't serve. It hurts the public. And we need development into transit, which is what this whole TRID proposal is supposed to be about. But what it really feels like is a ruse. And in fact, what we've heard previous testimony today, it hasn't been a transparent process. It's been a secret process. and that is to funnel more money into private development. We know in our community organizations that we need development within our districts. Councilperson Sharland, how many storefronts have closed on Carson Street? Recently, I just heard another longtime coffee shop and ice cream shop that's been an anchor in the community is going to be closing. How is this trip proposal going to benefit our district where we live, work and deserve a good life? Thank you.

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

Good morning, Council. Do I hit it? You hit it. OK. Good morning, council. My name is Randall Taylor, resident of East Liberty, forever displaced resident of Penn Plaza. And if we're giving away money, I certainly like Laura's suggestion. We could also talk about providing health care for people who've lost their health care. I think it's 96,000 Pennsylvanians. I'm sure they're in Pittsburgh. People have lost their SNAP benefits. So if we're giving away money, I'd like to start with helping with people who really need some help at this time. So people know I served on the Pittsburgh School Board for 12 years. I'm very familiar with these kind of proposals. I was proud to vote against free money for PNC, free money for Mellon Bank. I voted against Albion, that luxury apartment building on the corner of Baum and Liberty. Because the idea of those things, and we can go back now and look at how those things worked and whether those public investments actually led to things. Because we were told at that time that they were supposed to spur more development, create more jobs, create more housing, increase tax revenue. That was what the public investments were supposed to do around tax increment financing. You can make the case it did that in Home Depot. You can't make the case in anything else. And this proposal certainly wouldn't meet that criteria. So I'm not going to really speak to that because I don't really think you should vote against it. I think you really should withdraw it because this isn't going to end well. So I'll give quickly in a minute and a half that I have left just an idea of what I would do if I was investing. this kind of money or seeking public investment. The University of Pittsburgh had its largest increase of freshman class. As you know, this is a university town in case people don't know it. So you know what I would do, Councilman Coghill? I would go to a place like Homewood, right by the busway, which we got a lot of free land there, and I would start student-owned housing cooperatives right at the busway. Because these universities want to continue to grow. Because all they got to do is add another classroom. They're not paying another chair to. They're not paying their professors anymore. And so if we can potentially, around the busway, you know we can use the busway and they have the P3 where kids can just come out the door and be at their campus within 10 or 15 minutes. And if you actually created that kind of thing in a place like Homewood and you potentially brought 5,000, You're jump-starting a community. There's going to be businesses that are going to open up. There's jobs. There's going to be people who look around and say, hey, this is nice out here. I'm going to buy a house out here. I'm going to move out to Homewood. And you could actually be using those dollars. And you know what? Co-ops have to pay taxes. Those new businesses and new homeowners in Homewood pay taxes. So now you've actually invested public dollars, and now you can see you're going to get a return of tax dollars. So, Councilman Cobb, I think that's a good idea because you know in my final seconds that those buildings can fill up. You're not going to get much more tax revenue than you're getting now. So, let's invest and let's look where we can get a return on that investment.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Peter Kaplan followed by Verna Johnson.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for having us here. My name is Peter Kaplan. I spent half my career financing affordable rental housing. I also and I live in Point Breeze at 125 South Lang Avenue. I've heard some wonderful things this morning from the speakers you've heard. There are tremendous minds here in our community who have lots to offer to everyone. So I'm going to keep my remarks very brief. I do have serious concerns about the TRID, and I do recommend that you vote against it, especially the impact on the Pittsburgh public schools. The mission of our schools has nothing to do with real estate development, and the tax increment should not include the Pittsburgh public schools. There's a lack of affordable housing emphasis in this program, which I think is also a mistake. The other thing that bothers me is the is the fact that the city taxpayers are being asked to guarantee this debt. Now, other trades like East Liberty and the one I've read about in Philadelphia, the state provided debt service money to back up the tax increment if it doesn't resolve itself and doesn't have it there. So I think that At a minimum, since these other ones have done this, we should be asking for those funds, too, to minimize or eliminate the liability that our taxpayers will have for this program. The main reason that I want to talk today, though, is because you've heard this from many, many speakers. That is that there has not been an adequate process to bring this to the voters and to bring this to our residents. It is simply there was one document, the implementation plan, which, frankly, is a piece of crap. It doesn't explain the basics of the program. It created misunderstandings. It is a terrible document. And really, the fact that there are also minimal public hearings that people were not made aware of, the fact that all these people are telling you this sells you that the URA in particular has done a very bad job. in making this, informing our citizens. And I think you need to go to the URA and tell them they got to step up and really provide that kind of thing. They can't just leave it all on you. It's not fair to you. People need to be knowing about this and have the information they need. And the URA just isn't doing it. I'd also like to say that I'm going to just piggyback on what Randall Taylor just said. I live in Point Breeze. I commuted for 27 years on the East Busway. It's a fantastic thing. And a trade in Homewood would be incredible for affordable housing, for taking our busway station, which, unlike most of the other stations in more affluent areas, has not been rehabbed in years. And they just do little patches and things. It's it's it's really not effective. So thank you very much. And again, I thank all the people who've spoken today.

You are all brilliant and fantastic.

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

Well, my name is can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Well, my name is Verna Johnson. I live in the East Liberty area. I live in Lincoln, Leamington, Belmar. I thought that there was supposed to be an openness in government, especially when we vote for individuals to represent us. I think that the trade doesn't represent everyone. It represents a certain situation of people. And I don't think that's right. I think that as a voter myself, all the times I can vote, I voted for many, many years now. And, um, I started when I was 17, I'm not 17 anymore, unfortunately. But the thing is, this is not a fair situation for the rest of the people of the United States. I hear city council say something, but are you representing yourself or are you representing the people of Pittsburgh? I'm not trying to be a judge, but when I look at downtown Pittsburgh, where was city council when downtown Pittsburgh started to become a ghost town? Where are all the businesses? Why aren't you using that money to bring people back to the main streets, Fifth Avenue, Smithfield Street? Why is money being spent for something that doesn't guarantee people will come back down to Pittsburgh? And I really want council, city council, to consider what I'm saying and to vote no because the citizens of Pittsburgh do not agree with this. I'm only one, but I'm not alone. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker is Al Hart, followed by Elisa Grishman.

Good morning. My name is Alan Hart. I live in Stanton Heights. I'm a retired representative from the United Electrical Workers, which I was with for 43 years. From 2006 to 2017, I worked at our national office in downtown Pittsburgh, which was located in Gateway Center. So I was in downtown Pittsburgh pretty much every working day for those years. And I noticed something really strange going on. That even though the office vacancy rates kept going up, the towers kept going up too. The developers kept building more and more office space. And I thought, how can these rich people be so stupid? And when I saw the TRID proposal, it finally hit me. They knew all along that if they grease the right palms of our local politicians, they could convert those offices into luxury housing and get the public to pay for it. And that's exactly what this proposal is. This proposal is for 40 years. When this expires, I'll be 116 years old. There are children in elementary school now who will be sitting on city council in the years when this thing is still in effect. There are people who are unborn who will be on this council when this thing is still in effect. And their hands will be tied. They will not be able to address the problems of the city of Pittsburgh in their time because of what the council in 2026 did to give this money away to private interests. We're living in the age of Trump. We are ruled by a real estate developer who is one of the biggest crooks that history has ever known. We learn every day more about what he is doing to enrich himself, his family, and his friends at public expense. And this proposal is Trumpism. I guess I shouldn't be shocked. We have a mayor who was elected with money from the same people who elected Donald Trump. this is a disgrace and future generations look up and find out how they got stuck with this and they see the names of some of the members of this council who voted for this in 2026 they will curse your names i urge this council to vote this thing down although i know that some of you will vote for it i just want to thank the members of this council who i know will vote against it because it means a lot to me and it means a lot to people, a lot of people in Pittsburgh that at least some of our public officials know the difference between right and wrong.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Elisa Grishman followed by Tom Conroy.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I have to follow that? Hello, everyone. I'm Alisa Grishman, and I live in Uptown. I am the director of AccessMob Pittsburgh, and I serve on the board of directors for Pittsburgh ERS for public transit. I am vehemently, vehemently opposed to the proposed trade legislation. There's not a lot that I can add that either hasn't been said already or will be said by others. I'm too angry to even try. This is a blatant money grab by developers who only have their own interests in mind, not those of the general public whom council is supposed to be serving. Right off the bat, as we learned in 2020, the future is unpredictable. And with the ravages of climate change, the coming or hopefully not coming of data centers, the possibility of future pandemics and the uncertainty of tomorrow, it seems reckless to preemptively allocate 40 years, 40 years of anticipated tax revenue and pump it into downtown housing developments. To put this in perspective, I'm 44. That's my entire lifetime's worth of taxes. Why is it even being called the Transit Revitalization Improvement District when so little of the money is being put into transit-oriented development? There are so, so many more worthwhile projects the city could be investing in. I'm going to be that broken record and point out that we are in an accessible housing crisis in Pittsburgh. The wait lists for accessible housing are years long in some places. Also, I've been working with Safe Sidewalks crew to help Domi audit the sidewalk conditions throughout Pittsburgh, and they are frankly appalling. Whole neighborhoods are being left behind. We need to put that money into fixing things that benefit everyone, not just downtown. Pittsburgh has 90 neighborhoods, remember? That's all I have to say today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tom Conroy, followed by Laura Chu Wiens. Tom, if you're speaking, we cannot hear you. It looks like you're muted. Can you are you able to?

We can we can hear you. Thank you.

We can hear you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. My name is Tom Conroy. I live in District four, book line of 757 Mayville Avenue. I'm a constituent of Mr. Cargill's. I'm also a city member of Pittsburgh's for public transit and a longtime member. I have to give a shout out to everybody who took the time off today to come and speak against this. Members of city council and the mayor's administration have stated repeatedly that the city is facing a massive budget crisis. My question to the council is why is a $200 million handout to downtown developers being fast tracked with almost no public process? Downtown developers have been given almost a billion dollars in tax breaks in the past five years. but it seems like that's not enough for them. The city, meaning taxpayers, would borrow millions of dollars to invest exclusively in the TRID area, the Strip District, parts of North Shore and downtown. This money would effectively be a handout paid to wealthy developers, with the city gambling on future tax revenue to pay down this debt. Meanwhile, many of these developers are concurrently challenging their commercial property assessments to pay lower taxes in the future. The math on this is disturbing. Only 20% of this money would be invested in public infrastructure, and they've not named any public projects that would benefit. with 80 percent earmarked for specific private for-profit developers. It's all extremely vague. It has no guarantees for public transit, which is quickly becoming more of a mess in this city, or protections for the union workers that we saw speak earlier. Future public dollars from downtown the Strip and North Shore are directed to this fund for 40 years. and controlled by a non-elected, non-transparent URA, Watt City Council, which is a public body accountable to its constituents. Here's what our communities need. Public transit infrastructure, affordable housing, local food initiatives, child care programs, street and sidewalk repairs, Amenities that support the working class neighborhoods of all our communities, not private, wealthy developers. And these resources need to be allocated through the annual city budgeting process with a strong public input to ensure they are distributed equitably and address the needs of the moment.

Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Laura Chewins, followed by Kelda Gorman.

Good morning. My name is Laura Chiu-Wiens. I'm the Executive Director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, located at 4836 Ellsworth Avenue in Shadyside. I'm a resident of the Park Place community in District 9. I'm going to speak very personally. Over the last year and a half, my family has been impacted by and has carefully considered the budget issues affecting the City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Public Schools, and Allegheny County. Like everyone, our household's utility costs and grocery costs are through the roof. Like many other families, our children, ages seven and nine year olds, are going to be displaced from their elementary school, which is shutting down, purportedly as a way to respond to the PPS budget crisis. And despite these impacts, and in fact, maybe because of these impacts, we urged our neighbors and friends to speak up in favor of the tax increases on residents like myself in both the city and county over the last two years. We did so because we knew that by paying higher taxes, we would ensure that our elected bodies would better support poor and working class Pittsburghers in a time of economic crisis and provide for basic needs for food, housing, childcare, transit, and safe infrastructure. I did not support tax increases, so you can now decide to mortgage our city's financial future and bestow hundreds of millions of dollars with no public benefit or accountability to private real estate developers downtown. For shame. It should be for future legislators, for our children, to decide how our shared tax revenue should be spent to meet the needs of all communities in 10 and 20 and 30 years. Instead, you are choosing to leave our kids to pay down debt and stripping them of all decision-making power over these resources. A vote for the downtown TRID forecloses the possibility of investment in our neighborhoods, in housing, in small businesses, in education, in transit and food access for 40 years. I did not support this tax increase so that the city can lead the way in calling on schools to make families access to quality public schooling even less attainable by having our school district donate tens of millions to private real estate interests after my kids have watched their school close its doors. This plan runs afoul of state TRID law, and it should concern council members that the plan fails to meet basic legal obligations of public process of planning a TRID around a bus station or stop, not a corridor, and investment into public infrastructure associated with that transit stop. As the director of Pittsburghers for Public Transit, I want you to know that this is not in our name. This is not a transit policy or project. It is an abomination. Vote no on the downtown TRID.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelda Gorman.

Hello, I'm Canada Gorman, a resident of Oakland. Good morning, city council members. Think about this for a moment. The impact of trade. There will be no real public access, no funding for the health care and child care that your city residents and the people who elected you will benefit from. Also, there will be no subsidy if the school board falls short as they have every year for many years because of this choice. Most people would also lose their jobs because without proper schooling or proper transit, there is no way or access to real sustainable work. Which means, and also that would mean that there would be no, that people like myself, disabled residents, people who are dependent on a large majority of public services, including transit, Medicaid, all those things that are being cut is, Well, it's like getting jobs are hard enough. If you can't get the jobs then, but. The city will not have what it needs to sustain our economy. Then it will be 40 plus years before the, The city will be in a critical money deficit, which they already are. So I have to wonder why this decision even came into play or why this even came into play. Money. Money in private pockets. Money for campaigns. If you don't have jobs and you don't have people that want to live in the city and stay in the city because they can work, they can get childcare, they can get healthcare, you have nobody voting for you. There will be no city. There will be no city council.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tracy Lawson followed by Pamela Henderson. Is Tracy Lawson?

My name is Tracy Lawson.

I am from Northside, Spring Hill, and I am part of PPT. And I just have observations. I don't have a whole bunch of information here, but from what I see here, it's nice. I will start off and say it's nice. It's nice just like plush carpeting is nice. Beautiful windows are nice. Good wallpapering, nice. Is it foundational? Is it fundamental to our needs? My observation is Pittsburgh is downtown where we're I've worked for many years. Many other people still work where we visit, where we shop. And Pittsburgh is neighborhoods, many, many neighborhoods. That's the foundations. That's the observations I do know. I don't know all these other facts. As far as the financing here, I've been an accountant for about over 40 years. I let all the big accountants and economists talk about all that. I'll tell you that. But it comes down to this. The financing here is taking money from Peter and giving it to Paul. You know, I think it was Mark Twain who said, The politician who takes money from Peter to give to Paul can always count on Paul's vote. Guess what?

My name's Peter.

I think there's a whole bunch of other people here. I think their name is, you're Peter too, aren't you? And I think there's a whole bunch of Peters here. So that's basically it. It's like I'm asking for fundamentals, foundationals. I like a good plush carpet when I get it. Let's get the house in order. Let's get the house built. Let's get everything else done first. Hopefully I got, I didn't get taken off the gong show yet. Have a good day. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Henderson, followed by Sequoia Jeffries. Pamela with us. We'll come back to Pamela Sequoia Jeffries. We will move to Nicole Gallagher, followed by Natalie Ford.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Nicole Gallagher. I live on Haslidge Street in Spring Hill 15212. I'm a community organizer for Pittsburghers for Public Transit. I drive, ride my bike, and take the bus in my neighborhood. I'm here to express my deep concern over this proposed TRID. Committing taxpayers to a 40-year loan of hundreds of millions of dollars to grant private developers the funds to revitalize a small portion of our city in the name of transit and infrastructure, of which 20% is slated to go to said amenities in the area that has some of the best transit infrastructure in the city is appalling. In a time of school closures, public transit cuts, and affordable housing crisis, it's appalling. There has been no meaningful public communication or dialogue. That is also appalling. Spring Hill is a working class neighborhood on a huge hill. It's Pittsburgh. Many seniors and disabled people reside there. Tracy's my neighbor. People who have lived there in their homes for their entire lives and some for generations. Public staircases are very important thoroughfares to traverse that big hill. Multiple sets of those staircases are covered in poison ivy, crumbling and in terrifyingly unsafe conditions. I regularly see families with infants and strollers and disabled people walking and rolling down the shoulder of one of the narrowest hills of my neighborhood while drivers speed by. This is because of the poor state of sidewalks and their lack of ADA accessibility. Many of the disabled seniors living at St. Ambrose Manor on Eiten and Rhine can only wheel themselves around one square block radius because the sidewalks are so bad everywhere else. There are many dangerous blind corners in my neighborhood that would benefit from convex mirrors, pedestrian crossing beacons, and other pedestrian safety features. We have no bike lanes or amenities in my neighborhood. This past winter's massive snowstorm, side streets were undrivable for days, curb cuts and bus stops stayed unplowed for even more days because who is even responsible for curb cuts and bus stop plowing? We badly need a bus shelter at the inbound six stop at Ryan and Yetta, right next to St. Ambrose, at the very least a bench. If you did not know this, Pittsburgh has some of the lowest number of bus shelters per capita compared to cities of the same size, coming in around 10%. The city is responsible for the majority of these shelters, and at the rate they're being funded, we'll get seven new ones a year for almost for the almost 7000 bus stops we have in Pittsburgh. These observations are all just from Spring Hill, which, by the way, has an elementary school closing in the next few years. Now, imagine if we made a list of all the improvements that would be life changing in the other 86 neighborhoods not being benefited by this trade. i urge you city council to vote no for implementing this trade to deprive working people across pittsburgh to safe access to their neighborhoods in favor of downtown developers is morally bankrupt thank you thank you our next speaker is natalie ford followed by tiara collins

Good morning. My name is Natalie Ford and I am speaking today to urge city council to vote no to the trip proposal as a Ferrywood resident and on behalf of my organization for one to justice. To shovel more money into private developers' pockets to further develop without community input during a time when Pittsburgh residents are struggling economically more than ever is careless and tone deaf. This city cannot continue to only invest in the same three neighborhoods. It is entirely unfair for city taxpayers to fund these playgrounds that are primarily utilized by non-city residents. Residents in disinvested communities are not solely responsible for reinvesting in their community. The city is. These neighborhoods have so much to offer and so much potential, but the city doesn't see it this way. They've made it clear by the lack of infrastructure repairs, affordable housing, education funding, and available transportation across the city. Living within the city of Pittsburgh limits, it's widely accepted that we pay higher taxes to just live in the city. But that doesn't mean the city can fork over our money for private interests. The concerns of communities seem to never be taken seriously. We deserve a seat at the table, we deserve to have our voices heard, and we demand that our needs be met. I know I would much rather my tax dollars go to improving infrastructure and education rather than giving my money to a private developer to do whatever they please. The city cannot continue to do the bare minimum for its residents, but bow for private developers and corporations. That is not the job of public servants. Residents pay them to do their job. They should act accordingly. Council members, I advise you to vote no on approving the trip proposal. What the city needs is community-led and community-centered development, not another neighborhood full of corporate slop funded with our hard-earned money. If passed, I, as a city of Pittsburgh resident and others, will continue to pay for this for 40 years. By that time, I will be 64. In 40 years, I want to see all of Pittsburgh's neighborhoods flourish, not just the same three. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

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

Good morning. My name is Tiara Collins. I live in the Greenfield area. I just personally want to say transparency, transparency, transparency. Every time we have to come to meet, it's about transparency and how any time you guys are trying to do something that is not in the best interest of the people, you do it up under the radio. I am a board member for Facebook for public transit, and I found out about this meeting. I don't think you guys understand how important it is for you guys to vote against this. Well, let me tell you a little story. I have a mom of seven who has had a Section 8 voucher not once but twice. And because she has not been able to find a four or five-bedroom, she has lost her voucher not once but twice. She is currently living in a three-bedroom on Webster Avenue that I know should have been condemned more than 10 years ago, but because she could not find nowhere to live, She is still in this raggedy three-bit room on Webster. The money that y'all need to be investing and what y'all need to be investing that money in is housing. Our school's not closing, which all the schools that represent my son and my grandchildren are closing. But do y'all care? No, y'all don't care. Y'all say y'all care, but y'all don't. Here's what I want y'all to understand. I know some of you are up for re-election. Wear your phones and cameras out, y'all. Get your phones and cameras out. Because I need y'all to take a picture of what I'm about to say. I need a picture of everybody's faces. I can't be here to see it.

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

Since I know some of you are up for re-election, Here's my goal, and here's what I'm going to do. If for those who do vote for this, I'm going to spend your entire election making sure that you do not get back in office. And I don't care how many hours it takes or how many days it takes. You will not get re-elected. I will not sleep until your seats are taken. Since you don't care about the people and you don't care about us, why should we care about you keeping your seats? I hope you guys have a wonderful day. Enjoy. I'm done. God bless. Bye-bye.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Margaret Schnupp, followed by Karlyn Christie.

Hi, my name is Margaret Schnupp. I live in the Brookline neighborhood. I wanted to urge you guys to vote no. I completely agree with Tiara when she says that she would make sure that any council member who agrees with this, she would work to make sure they don't get reelected. I also will because... Having zero oversight on this downtown tread program, it just reminds me of the Pittsburgh I can't remember the exact name, the trust fund that we made for the city parks. That is just money sitting there that we've all paid. And I've seen no updates in any of the parks recently. I mean, from what we can see, money has been spent towards, you know, salaries of park employees, which should be a part of the regular budget. I thought this money was supposed to go towards projects, you know, revitalizing our parks, but that's neither here nor there. That's exactly what I feel like is going to happen with this downtown trade program, except for the fact that we're going to be giving money to for-profit developers. I feel that our tax money is already being spread too thin, considering that we have so much not-for-profits like BPMC not paying their share in taxes already. and our Pittsburgh public schools are not doing okay. I'm really concerned about the next decade and what that looks like, whether we'll even have public schools or it'll be all charter and private schools in the future. My daughters are 18 and turning 20, and they would be closer to retirement age before this money would be even paid back. That seems outrageous. I really hope that you guys don't vote to do this, especially with the plan the way that it's supposed to go now, because without having public oversight, I can't back that at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Carl and Christy, followed by Jayla Rucker.

Good morning, Council. My name is Karlyn Christie. I'm a resident of Brighton Heights, and I'm here representing PA United. Last week, when the New York City Council passed a bill that would give themselves and the mayor of New York an 18% raise, Mayor Zoran Mamdani declined to accept this increase. When asked why, he stated, I haven't knocked on anyone's door in New York City, and they've said their concern is that the mayor makes too little. I would like to ask the following question to city council. How many doors have you knocked on in the city of Pittsburgh where the residents said their concern is downtown developers are getting too little of our tax dollars? How many said their concern is we weren't building enough market rate condos as opposed to affordable housing? Under this proposal, 80% of initial investment and potentially more of the life of the TRID will go to real estate development projects selected by the URA with no community benefits agreement or accountability to the taxpayers. The proposed 40-year timeline would divert public tax money that future legislators and our children and grandchildren should decide how to allocate. Market-driven policies such as those proposed under the TRID have consistently exacerbated social exclusion and failed to meet the needs of vulnerable groups who now more than ever are looking to local government to weather this economic crisis. Are we going to continue to push the working class residents out of the city? Are we going to continue hemorrhaging black residents, people with disabilities, seniors, and low-income residents, all in favor of more market rate apartments, condos, and hotels? What about the seniors struggling to keep up with their property taxes while food, gas, and utilities are skyrocketing? What about the parents wondering where they can send their kids to school as PPS shutters more and more classrooms? What about the voters who feel unheard, ignored, disillusioned, and apathetic about the response from elected officials to their daily concerns? How does ramming through this proposal with little community input rebuild trust in our institutions? This past primary election, barely 23% of registered voters in Allegheny County took part in our democracy. If that doesn't sound the alarm that people feel their voice doesn't matter, then I don't know what does. Prove us wrong today. Listen to us, your constituents, that are asking for transparency, accountability, and a focus on investing in people, not downtown developers. At a time when working people, public agencies, and the city itself are struggling to make ends meet, we need different people-centered approaches to development. I urge the members of City Council to vote no on the TRID.

Thank you. Jayla Rucker followed by Stephanie Geese.

Grand Rising, Council. My name is Jayla Rucker. I live in District 6 in Manchester. I have lived in Pittsburgh my whole life, a short ride from here on the north side. And in my work, I have seen firsthand how every new development project impacts poor and working class people from all corners of this city. I'm here today with my people from the Housing Justice Table who have spent the better part of a decade fighting to keep Pittsburgh home for all of us, fighting to make sure equity is more than a buzzword for tenants in this city. My mindset is tenants first, tenants always, and this TRID proposal leaves too many of us behind. Behind me are my union sisters and brothers from SEIU and 32BJ, majority of them black, many of them women, and many live as renters. I think about how this TRID proposal will not only impact their jobs, but their lives as residents and their ability to live and affordably in Pittsburgh. As a city that has lost nearly 14% of its black residents and counting over the last decade and a half due to the housing unaffordability crisis, the possibility of further displacement is one I cannot accept. plans to use hundreds of millions of public tax dollars with major implications from many years should be transparent and accessible to the public with robust opportunity for public review and engagement is while locking taxpayer into 40 years of this proposal will barely have any meaningful public input is shameful and a disservice to all the people in this room and across the city. Public dollars need to go to public good, period. Public dollars need to ensure that residents in all of Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are prioritized the same way. Public dollars need to go where we, the people, say they go. Transparency and public-led solutions for public dollars are the bare minimum of what we should be able to expect from our elected leadership and the city government is failing us in that way with this TRID proposal. No one in this room wants the city to stay small. No one in this room is comfortable with the economic crisis we're in. But I can say for myself and many people who showed up today that we are not okay with the idea of the new Pittsburgh that doesn't include a clear and meaningful vision for the foundational residents of this city. The Golden Triangle is important, but it is financially that we is a strong indicator of our region's economic health. But we are important to low wage workers, tenants, working people who keep the city running. We deserve to live dignified and share in many prospects. This city builds with our tax dollars. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephanie Gies, followed by Landon Keeler. Is Stephanie with us? Landon Keeler. Followed by Ren Finkel.

Hello, my name is Landon Keeler. I'm a resident of the Southside Flats neighborhood. I've been living here for about five years. I moved here from Dallas, Texas, because it was unaffordable. When I first moved here, a lot of people were rather surprised by that, and a lot of my family in Texas were rather surprised that a Midwestern, Northeastern, whatever you want to be, city could be affordable. But the truth of the matter is it's because of the transit. It's because of the sidewalks. I was amazed at the idea that a city could have public steps. But this proposal, much like many of the past, will not provide the results you are looking for. Not far from where I live is the Southside High School Development Project. I can't live there. It used to be a high school that people actually went to. When I worked at the Family Dollar on Wharton Square, they told me all about how South High used to be the place to be. but I'll never know anything about it because it's an apartment building that nobody I've ever met can afford to live in. I've also never seen anyone leave there. I don't know what its occupancy numbers look like, and I never will because it's privately owned. I want publicly owned affordable housing, housing that will exist not just the five years I've been here so far, but five years after that and the ten years The city has to be affordable for people like me to move here. We heard at the beginning of these speeches about the wave of people you're expecting to come here to help pay for this proposal. Well, I got a secret for you. The wealthy people of the south and of the northeast do not fear their coastlines eroding. They do not fear their house burning. They have many, and they have a lot of money. It's not to worry for them. They can continue to live where they live, And it is the working class, it is students, people who study at these schools who actually are interested. So the talks about a transit corridor and a development zone in Homewood is a much better thought. There is areas all around this beautiful city that I fall in love with. So in particular, Bob, I would want to know why This is a proposal that looks good to you. Does Carson Street look like the private public development projects of the last several decades have succeeded? Or do we need to look at other cities which have succeeded in building community-owned and community-run projects for transit, for housing, for a livable city for everybody? I came here to start going to school. I still go to school part-time, but I also work in downtown McKeesport. And let me tell you, it's looked better. I see homeless people every day, and it is the developers who make profit off of the houses people are supposed to live in that cause more and more homeless people to happen because they are displaced. Thank you.

Thank you. Ren Finkel followed by Stanford Lions.

Good morning. My name is Ren Finkel. I'm here today as a resident of Spring Hill in District one and an organizer with PPT to express my severe concern for the proposed trade implementation. This proposal is frankly insulting to come at a time where Spring Hill Elementary School is slated to be closed and where transit infrastructure near me is abysmal and dangerous. My wife and I have struggled with debt facing impossible student loans made more impossible by the rising cost of everything. For ourselves and our neighbors, there are urgent needs for financial and infrastructure improvements that aren't properly funded now. So why should the city borrow money and divert future tax revenue to fund private development? Not to mention that currently there are private investors challenging their commercial property assessments in order to pay less property taxes, which are some of the very taxes that would supposedly be used to pay back the city for this investment, which is to say pay back our tax dollars. The point of a trade is to revitalize public transit, but the proposal has vague language about transit improvements and intends for only about 20% of the resources to go towards any public infrastructure. Furthermore, what conditions are you planning on putting on the downtown developers to benefit the public in exchange for receiving millions of dollars of public subsidy? especially since this major tax proposal was, as many people said, made without any community input, possibly in violation of state law. Prioritizing funding now for downtown developers over the needs of and on the dime of all Pittsburgh communities is not efficient, fair, or democratic. Many years ago, I was a student at Point Park. Downtown was where I became the person I am today. I want to see downtown thrive. but the trade is not the path there. In a time when so many are struggling to afford food and housing, Pittsburgh literally cannot afford a proposal like this. Council Member Wilson, as a leader in my district, I hope you see how clear it is that the downtown trade does not at all address the needs of the residents in your district. Not now, not decades from now. Shady deals with private developers isn't a great look, and I encourage you all to think about what you want your legacy to be. Again, I urge you to vote no on this and instead to commit to creating revenue and implementation plans that actually serve the needs of your constituents. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Stanford Lions followed by Bill McDowell.

Whatever you decide to do, make sure you're doing it for the community. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you. That was Stanford Lions. Now, Bill McDowell, please. Bill with us. Our final registered speaker, and then we will move on, we will go back to, we'll move on to those who did not register, and then we will go back to those who registered but were not here when I called their name. So our final registered speaker for now is Dylan Bisescu.

My name is Dylan Bosescu. I'm a resident of the South Side in District 3. I want to welcome the people of our city today, particularly the young adults, like the woman who spoke earlier, and I second their thoughts about the TRID. This would be another sad step in selling off our city. I've been here this summer to talk about the weekend street lockdown on the South Side, and I can update you now on what my neighbors are saying. They are saying that this lockdown has become quiet, dead, and embarrassing. And they're right. It is embarrassing that Isabella Gonzalez, a 19-year-old army private, can die in our foreign war on the very same day she could not walk down our streets. And all of this, quiet, dead, embarrassing, this sin against specific faith for a curfew when officials admitted they have no idea how much foot traffic has changed to measure damage to businesses since last year as a result of their decisions. when they have admitted that they made no proactive plans for what young people ought to do, asking again not for a city striving for life, but for a city shepherding death, necrotic, quiet like the grave, just shuffling people around without reducing crime overall, as if we can solve our public safety problems when we brush these issues from one end of our streets to another. And all of this for even more fear-mongering about, and I quote, people from Homewood in a city where we all know exactly what that means. And all of this for what officials have said on the record is just the beginning, even though they have denied for now that they had any official plans to continue this lockdown next year. And all of this for them to beg people to wait, wait as if our eyes do not already see, as if our ears do not already hear, death, quiet, and embarrassment, as if justice delayed is anything other than justice denied. And all of this for what? Not for us, not for the adults against which it discriminates. End it.

Thank you. There being no further registered speakers, we will now take comments from those in the audience wishing to speak. You can approach the podium and you will have three minutes.

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

Yes. Can you say your name and neighborhood for the record, please? Thank you.

You're in West End, but I use a lot of other neighborhoods for a lot of other activities that I do. And that's my concern. is that those of us that go more than one place, that don't just stick to our neighborhoods, but go to other neighborhoods, and not just the downtown Pittsburgh, but other neighborhoods, like I go to the Strip District, I go to the community college, I went back to school, I went to community college in Allegheny County, and that's an extraordinarily difficult place to get to by bus. It takes three buses to get there each way. And I'm concerned that with what they're doing with downtown, they're going to make it harder to make connections because they're going to want to make it convenient for the rich people downtown, and they're going to make it harder to make connections from one bus to another. And they're going to make the services worse in the neighborhoods I choose to use, which are the Strip District and was the other one and the north side. I'm not as concerned about Oakland because I think because the universities are there, they're still going to get good service. I could be wrong. I really could be wrong about that. But I'm concerned that this proposal is going to make it more difficult for those of us that you know, do more alternative things like go to other neighborhoods, which doesn't seem to happen as much in Pittsburgh. But anyway, sorry. And as I said, very concerned about the rerouting of the buses downtown. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Council. My name is Temio Lusa. I live in the north side. I'm District 1. I want to try to make this short but sweet. Public money, public dollars, the taxes, these are for the benefit of the public. And Councilmember Wilson, in particular, who represents me, Do you think it is acceptable to support a major tax proposal that was developed with minimal public input, possibly in violation of Pennsylvania state law? I really hope the undemocratic process we're witnessing here was not motivated by developers making campaign contributions. Because in the words of Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary directly depends on him not understanding it.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, I suppose, council. Good afternoon. My name is GL Johnson. I live in Lower Lawrenceville. Good morning. I address council, but even more so, I address the people of Pittsburgh. Right here, we're looking to subsidize developers who have received over $600 million. in public subsidies over the past several years. That's over $2,000, almost $2,000 per Pittsburgh resident. And this is simply another huge giveaway to these big developers like Donald Trump was once. These are big developers who are not being required to create any public benefit. in exchange for these public funds. These are big developers who have no requirement to create affordable housing. These are big developers who are not being required to provide support to small businesses. These are big developers who are not being required to provide any sort of benefit to residents in our other 80-odd neighborhoods. Not even funding to help them get to this theoretically new, shiny downtown. And that is the real insult added to public injury. We call it TRID. The T supposedly stands for transit, and yet we are on a path currently to no longer have ongoing transit operations within less than half a decade. Ironically, the TRID sequesters even more future public revenue in a pot where unlike general county or even potentially city revenue, it necessarily cannot go to transit operations. Our state legislative delegation, including URA board member Lindsey Powell and our governor, are simply not dedicated enough or skilled enough at legislating to get Pittsburgh transit funding through a split partisan state legislature. And let's keep in mind, election observers still have our state Senate projected as likely Republican, likely to remain under split partisan control. If that holds, we won't have transit without robust funding from our three taxing bodies, funding sapped by this potential trade. There has been a bill proposed in Harrisburg over the last couple sessions to make the URA, the Urban Redevelopment Authority, an appointed body that would control whatever fraction of the money we can claw back, an elected body. If this trade passes, it'll go from nice to have to absolutely incumbent that we make the URA an elected body and a top priority. So before letting millions of dollars fall into a transit, heavier quotes, transit redevelopment investment district, maybe we spend some money on public transit, basic transit, and not sell out city revenues for 40 years. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Special Agent Sunshine, the missing child, Cerise Taylor. Thank you, Lord, for another beautiful day. Kind of cloudy. The lightning is close. In Jesus' name, I pray nobody gets hit that doesn't deserve it. Proverbs 21.7 says, the balance of the wicked will drag them away for they refuse to do what is right. Hmm, who's not here? President Lavelle? City clerk? Wow, that's amazing. I talked about oppression. And the reason I did is because I'm a missing child whose inheritance was stolen. So a lot of the money that comes through here is stolen from missing children like myself. And they spread it around and they give it to everybody and make it look like they're doing good for the people. And we're the ones suffering. I'm homeless, sleeping on concrete under a tent. Who said something about being under a tent? But praise God, I'm not getting wet. Thank you, Jesus. I am really covered by your blood. But here's how this is being done in internal affairs. They're in violation of a lot. U.S. Code Section 242, 1961. This is a RICO racketeering. trafficking, exploitation, sex and human trafficking, mind you, aggravated identity theft, U.S. Code Section 1028 , wire fraud, embezzlement, traffic currency, trafficking of currency, illegal movement of money. That's how they're moving the inheritance money that missing children like myself were left. Fourteenth Amendment violations. There are some violations. Here they are. X-rated misconduct while on duty. Satanic ritual abuse. Animal abuse connected to graves. They're grave robbers. They go in graves and dig up people and cut out their hearts for voodoo rituals. Amen. Illegal monitoring. Fourth Amendment violation. That's gang stalking. illegal surveillance equipment they're using to monitor people, track them, to set them up for being arrested to go to court for things they haven't done. Scapegoating, counterintelligence, marriage trafficking. Wow. Forced or arranged by fraud. I'm married by fraud. To whom? I have no idea. I'm dead twice on paper. Imagine that. And they had a funeral for me. Do I look dead to anybody? But somebody got insurance money for my death. Hallelujah. Thank you, Lord. I'm still here to stand before these liars and thieves. In Jesus' name, amen.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning. My name is Yvonne F. Brown. I live at 715 Mercer Street. That's the senior citizen home up on Bedford. There's 192 apartments. I first wanted to say that my daughter, Unique, is not coming. She is in the homeless shelter. Last week, I remember calling. She didn't come because she fell in the shower. And she went and told the employees about the water in the shower, and she explained, oh, we meant to get that up. When she called me today, she can't hardly breathe, and she's in pain, so she's going to the hospital. But first I wanted to say that I have been coming down, for some of you that may have not, may not know who I am, I have been coming down here for over 20-something years to speak to city council to bring to them any problems that we may have that you might be able to help us with. Now, I was listening on the radio today on WES, I was listening on the radio and they were talking about the nurses striking at McGee Women's Hospital. You know, there's a lot of times I come down and I tell you about the different things that happened. Well, let me tell you about what happened to my niece. My niece had two babies. The boy was OK, but the boy seemed to be OK. No, the girl, she had two. They were small babies. The girl was having problems. anyway let me explain she had two babies one baby died when she found out about it she thought it was the boy but it had been the girl but as she went to try to go to see about her babies they called the police on her they called the police they were trying to put her in jail she's trying to say she wants to see about her babies well my old my daughter came to pittsburgh And what she did was go to the hospital and demand that all the staff that deal with the pregnant, with my niece, be seen. And when the doctor, he was an elderly doctor, when he found out what happened to her, how they tried to put her in jail, he was shaking. And he had said, it stops with me. I will straighten this out. Do you understand, when we tell you there's things that are happening, why would my niece have to go to jail? She's trying to see about her babies. One baby did die, so she only has one son, and he's still living. You must understand that there's a lot of times we are treated differently. And I come down because there's a lot of people that can't come to tell you. If you don't know, you can't correct it. You understand that? I was taught by that by my father, because I have some time of good man. I'm sitting here. What's wrong? Nothing. He says, I can tell something's wrong. I can't correct it if you don't tell me. That's why I come to you. You can correct it. You are the elected officials.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Are there any further speakers? I will go back to see if any speakers have joined us. David Wienkoski. Bobby Sanford. Eva Mitchell. Eva Mitchell. Pamela Henderson? Sequoia Jeffries? Stephanie Gies? Bill McDowell? Seeing none, any further speakers? Okay, we will move on to the standing committee's agenda. Our first committee is the Finance and Law Committee, Deferred Papers, Bill 16.

Ordinance supplementing the Pittsburgh code of ordinances, title two fiscal article five special funds to add a new chapter 239 fleet vehicle fund to create a fleet vehicle fund to fully fund the city of Pittsburgh's fleet needs and establish the purposes for which monies in the fund may be used.

Is there a motion?

Excuse me. Motion to approve brief discussion.

Second.

Brief discussion?

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

Motion to hold for eight weeks. Second. Is there a second? Discussion? All those in favor of an eight-week hold for Bill 16, please say aye. Aye. Bill will be held for eight weeks. New Papers, Bill 731.

Resolution authorizing the issuance of a warrant in favor of James Heber and his attorneys Aug Murphy and Prakoski, P.C., in full and final settlement of litigation matter in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for an amount not to exceed $100,000 over one year.

Motion approved. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 731, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Bill 735.

Resolution transferring the amount of $20,793.73 within the 2026 operating budget from City Council District Supplies postage to the Department of Finance supplies postage to account for the cost of postage meter usage and stamps for the months of January through June.

Motion approved. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 735, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. That moves us to invoices. Is there a motion on invoices?

Motion approved. Second.

Discussion? I do want to note that we had a question about previous payments for invoices and those to the EMS agencies for the NFL draft. We did get an answer on that. They were eligible and reimbursable as part of the Visit Pittsburgh contribution. Any further discussion on invoices? Seeing none, all in favor of invoices, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative invoices are approved that moves us to p cards is there a motion on p cards.

Motion approved second.

I do want to note we have one charge that is for public works that is over $5,000 the rules will need to be waived this is a regular payment that the public works does need to make that can only be paid by card.

There should be the rules on the courts.

Second discussion. Seeing none all in favor of waving the rules, please say aye. All in favor of p cards as approved as waived police say aye. I p cards are approved that takes us to interdepartmental transfers was to prove. Seeing none all in favor of transfers, please say aye aye. Transfers are approved. That moves us to Public Safety and Wellness Committee, chaired by Councilman Coghill.

Bill 722, Resolution Authorizing, pursuant to Chapter 210 of the City Code, the Mayor and the Director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from Highmark Health in an amount of $4 million for the next five years for a total of $20 million. to purchase resources that medical first responders need with their primary initial focus on Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire Vehicles.

Motion to approve, Madam Chair. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 722, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. And I will ask that after 723, we move down to a complimentary bill at the end of the agenda.

Bill 723. Resolution authorizing pursuant to Chapter 210 of the City Code, the Mayor and Director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in the amount of $5 million per year for the next five years for a total of $25 million for emergency medical service vehicles and equipment.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion?

Discussion.

Councilperson Charland.

I believe Chief Gilman's here for this.

Good afternoon, Council. Dan Gilman, Chief of Staff to the Mayor.

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

absolutely so uh this money from upmc will be five million dollars a year for five years for a total of 25 million dollars in addition to that they will be giving the 10 million dollars i previously came to for 35 million dollars to go to ems equipment primary focus will be vehicles if we come to the point where we want to discuss other EMS equipment, we can do that. The focus will be vehicles don't actually just left a meeting. The first 13 vehicles are under production. We should have about eight of them by the end of the year and five more at the very beginning of Q1 next year. uh and i apologize i we probably should have called you up for the previous bill would you like to discuss that as well highmark is a five-year agreement of four million dollars a year for a total of 20 million uh that will be first responder vehicle with a focus on fire trucks as the primary interest area but again that's five years still we'll work with council and i should know each year this will come to council as part of the equipment leasing authority and budget process so though you're proving us accepting the money the expenditure each year will be approved by council

This is unprecedented and truly something that we need to celebrate. You know, I every mayor as long as I've known has tried to do something like this. And it really is a testament to your work and the work of Mayor O'Connor to get this, you know, to this point. We need it, we desperately need it and very thankful that we're able to approve this today.

I appreciate that, Councilman. It really is a historic amount of money, and I think it's important to note we've been very clear this is not a pilot agreement. These are partnership agreements. It also involves coming up on the agenda of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon. I don't remember if it's this week or if it's next week. We have a million dollars coming from the Nice Foundation coming in. We have the money from PNC Bank. We have the money from RK Mellon and Hillman Foundation. We had the money from PPG to help pay for the bridge overpass in downtown. It's for profit, not for profit foundation. The challenges, you know, everyone knows the challenges at home are tough. Economics are tough. Costs are going up. Gasoline prices are going up. We have headwinds against us. And the only way we will do this is if we all work together, local, state, federal, public and private to address these issues, to be able to invest in the issues that I know are important to to all nine of you.

Thank you, thank you, madam chair.

Thank you councilman Wilson followed by Council person gross or. We're going to call the House woman grass.

The amount cherish want to say thanks for all of your work on this it's truly incredible to see literally every week there's a new post just like you said all the different foundations and and you know organizations that are giving to the city, you know it's actually come YOU KNOW, TO COME FROM ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN ON COUNSEL, SO I GUESS THIS IS GOING ON SEVEN YEARS NOW, AND TO REALLY SEE LITTLE MOVEMENT UNTIL NOW HAS BEEN TRULY INCREDIBLE TO SEE SINCE THE O'CONNOR ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN OFFICE. AND GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN WITH THE FLEET, IT'S it's just you know something that we all talk about here we all need and i doubt one of us would say that we don't need the funds but to negotiate uh upwards of of the amount of money that's been given to the city all across the board even for the small amounts of um say small amount a million dollars you know whatever i'm seeing headlines i'm seeing headlines yeah i'm seeing headlines of tens of millions of dollars

uh just even even the smaller ones uh will make a difference uh in my community so thank you so much thank you councilman and i will reiterate which this body knows well the needs are incredibly dire uh and even with this money fire trucks are taking two to three years to get here uh we were able to to use some stock ambulances to to expedite that process Public works vehicles are taking a long time. I want to give great credit to our team down at Fleet, but also Sharon Warner and Sophia Shapiro in the mayor's office. They are literally, and Councilman Caldwell, you and I have talked about this for years. I mean, we were told a bunch of our equipment wouldn't be here till next year. They got on the phones and negotiated with the CEOs of the companies who have the contracts and said, unacceptable, we will have them this fall. And these vehicles are now coming in in the fall. You got to work the phones, you got to call the people, you got to push. and not take no for an answer and and they're uh between them uh and the the women at the fleet office have done unbelievable work in doing this but whether it's tiger uh equipment in public works that the councilman talked about yesterday it's spare firework fire department trucks it's the ambulance needs it's the snow removal it's the domey equipment it's the the equipment for uh river rescue i mean i could go on and on then the needs are dire right now

THE MONEY, BUT I ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE ADMINISTRATION OF, JUST LIKE YOU MENTIONED, OF ACTUALLY PURCHASING THE VEHICLES. YOU KNOW, WE WERE GETTING FROM HEADLINES OF PAPERWORK SITTING ON SOMEONE'S DESK FOR AN AMBULANCE THAT WE ALREADY AUTHORIZED HERE AT COUNCIL. THE FLEET ALREADY AUTHORIZED THAT. YOU KNOW, JUST ACTUALLY GETTING TO WORK EVERY DAY AND THE AMOUNT OF HOURS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS PUTTING IN JUST TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THAT IS GREAT. WE'RE NOT SEEING STORIES OF LIKE I SAID JUST THE LACK OF INTEREST TO ACTUALLY ADMINISTER GOVERNMENT AND PURCHASE THESE VEHICLES EVEN AFTER WE'VE UH YOU KNOW SIGNED OFF ON PURCHASING THEM SO TO GO FROM YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH BEFORE WHAT THIS COUNCIL'S BEEN THROUGH FOR AND SEEING THOSE HEADLINES ACTUALLY SEEING NOT ONLY THE VEHICLES PURCHASED ON TIME BUT ALSO THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT UH YOU'RE CREATING TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE THESE VEHICLES SO THANK YOU SO MUCH THANK YOU

Thank you. Council Member Warwick. Yeah. Thank you. I echo my fellow members. This is a very big deal to get get this funding from from these large nonprofits. One thing I wanted to ask and is, you know, I'm always a little hesitant of these types of gifts because they're specified, right? We can't just use it for what we need, which is sometimes frustrating. but we have to use it for what they are given to us to use so so you know in the case of the of the um ambulances for for example are we able to like hold on to dollars over the years even if we don't so that we're not buying you know stocking up on ambulances and then our ambulance money you know runs out

It's a very important and a great question. I met with Deputy Chief Trammell today on vehicles. He's actually traveling to Florida and Ohio to check in on our vehicles, to your point, to make sure we're on schedule and on time. After this first bunch that we're buying, which were the critical, we need these now, we need to be very thoughtful of how many we're ordering a year so that we don't just end up in this position five years where we bought a whole bunch and we have no money and they're all broken because they're now five-year-old, $100,000, 100,000-mile vehicles. So we are working with our partners on while the money comes in, what is the purchasing time? So we stagger and have a solid rotation of whatever, if it's four or six ambulances a year, we're doing that every year and not just buying a bunch at once.

Got it. Okay. Okay. Well, hopefully that is part of the terms that they are comfortable with of us buying as needed, you know, on our schedule. So thank you. And then just in terms of other... Are we seeing any gifts come in that we could direct toward refuse and other things, or are we just diverting the money that we would have spent on ambulances and such to those vehicles?

At the moment, there has not been any gift towards those, although I will say I'm in negotiations on another gift that would be also more for public works vehicles and a little more flexibility, so not this size, I wish. But I think we'll have another announcement soon on this front. But yes, it'll be more the latter, which is the money that council has been committing to go into vehicles now, hopefully, rather than having to fund these areas can really go into public works in Domi and PLI and the other areas that need the vehicles.

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

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

Okay, great.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gross. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief, thank you. I have kind of a similar line of questioning because this is obviously something that's on everyone's minds. So, but As much as you're able to say, remind us kind of what is the lawsuit, the class action lawsuit that the city has also joined into, which is specifically about, in my words, the like national monopoly of firetruck manufacturers and there's long timelines. And so remind us a little bit about that.

Yeah, I'm happy to. And I will say if council is interested in the executive session, we can get our outside council who's doing that to brief you much more eloquently than I can. Happy to facilitate that. But yeah, we did join a lawsuit with a number of other cities around the country filing a lawsuit that basically investors have bought and combined fire truck production companies to control pricing and timelines in a way that's been detrimental to the taxpayers in violation of federal law. And so we just filed that last week. We feel confident in the legal position we're in. I should also note we are not paying legal fees up front, so there is no risk to the taxpayers. only on victory with that come to fruition. But it is both the amount and the time we're looking at millions and millions of dollars per fire truck, a significant increase over four or five years ago in a delay now of roughly three years in general to get a truck. So to the council person's point about needing to look at leases with where we are, particularly in aerial ladder needs in the city, we're going to have to look at options other than just building because we're three years away from getting anything we buy right now.

Right. And so this is a national issue. I think Senator Elizabeth Warren has really drilled down on this. I think she specifically said it's kind of private equity. Buying up these manufacturers and doing the combining um, I have to fact check that but it's It's that of every city, right? I don't know how many cities have joined this lawsuit But that there's there's nowhere like we don't have options about where we're going to go and buy these trucks if they're fewer and fewer um options, so the monopoly of the in the industry is An inseparable part of this problem. So it kind of hurts that we have to dedicate this much money to just be operable for fire safety in the city. And so I'm glad that the administration joined that lawsuit. But I think it's worth repeating because sometimes it's just in the structure of the market. It's not that we were especially bad business people or something like that. This is a national problem affecting all cities in the same public safety equipment that we used to get at a much cheaper prices and much faster. SO IT'S A SHAME THAT WE HAVE TO THROW THAT MUCH TIME, RESOURCES, AND FUNDING AT IT. SO THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN MOSELEY.

THANK YOU. THANKS, CHIEF GILMAN, FOR BEING HERE TODAY. CAN YOU DETAIL THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS ACROSS CORPORATE NONPROFIT AND PHILANTHROPIC PARTNERS TO GET A FULL PICTURE OF THE ENTIRE DONATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED THIS YEAR?

So since Mayor O'Connor took over, we're just at about $70 million in contribution commitments to the city.

And is that- City and URA. And over how many years?

Five would be the longest term of any of that.

Okay, thank you. And again, to touch on the firetruck issue, understanding that the long lag time for lack of a better term, construction of those vehicles, um and and having to look um to leases um is there potential low hanging fruit because at least in conversations that I have and I'm a true layman you know when it comes to knowledge of the engineering of fire trucks um that certain fire trucks really aren't suitable for our topography that we couldn't just lease any vehicle so is there any like low-hanging fruit is there you know maybe cities of similar topography or places that we're particularly looking when we think about leasing those vehicles because my understanding was a lot of times our fire trucks had to be specifically engineered and built for Pittsburgh's topography.

There are definitely very unique specs that the administration and the union work together on for fire trucks and other vehicles. But fire trucks, to your point, are unique. Same with the rescue units in EMS. The size, the topography, the tight turns, the narrowness of the streets, the the high rise, the waterfront, all of those things impacted. I don't know the answer to cities we're looking at. I would ask. fleet and fire to get back to you on that but yes it is not these aren't things you buy off the shelf there isn't a company out there that just builds hundreds of firefight trucks and you come and buy them each one is individually designed inspect also because you need all of your trucks to be identical so that if you're working in hazelwood one night and then you're filling a ship to the brighton heights the next night that truck is the exact same truck when you run to it you know where everything is so these aren't things you buy off the shelf

Right. Thank you. And then my final question is, in lieu of the gifts that have been targeted to specific needs such as such as EMS and in other areas, being that there is gifts targeted to specific areas, are there specific areas that we're focusing on, you know, with the dollars that we have in lieu of the fact that we know that some areas are being targeted through those philanthropic gifts?

yeah i do think i think it was council person more what you said environmental services is certainly an absolute critical need that is an older fleet and one that obviously goes out every single day in all weather conditions and takes a real beating as a fleet and if those trucks aren't ready in the morning and every morning we have a number of trucks that aren't ready to go that stops us from finishing the routes in a day. So that I would say is a top, top priority. There's a number of specialty equipment in public works that our teams need. Bring back the Tiger, which is the machine that we use for a lot of the clean and lean and hillside cleaning. Really important street sweepers. That's a really important function. We're seeing a lot of street level and those also break a lot that is a complicated piece of machinery that we have go down a lot those we have looked at some leases uh the previous administration i believe started that process with street sweepers so some of those specialized pieces of equipment and then of course snow removal remains front of mind 12 months a year if you work for the city right well thank you chief gilman i defer back to the madam chair

Thank you. Councilman Coghill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Chief. And you seem to be always bringing good news to the table. And I appreciate that. You know, when Mayor O'Connor was on the campaign trail, I personally, as an elected official, felt the biggest issue was cooperation for the uncooperation with our major nonprofits. He campaigned on it, not only as an elected official, but as a private citizen of the city of Pittsburgh. He has far exceeded, and the administration, and I know you're a big part of all these contributions, have far exceeded my expectations, I will tell you. And I shudder to think where we would be without it, honestly. YOU KNOW, TO HAVE $70 MILLION COMMITTED IS THE DIFFERENCE OF US LAYING PEOPLE OFF OR NOT, I WOULD HAVE IMAGINED, OKAY? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE MADE THESE COSTS UP. AS FAR AS THE FIREFIGHTERS APPARATUS GOES, WE NEEDED TO DO THAT YESTERDAY. WE DIDN'T. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROJECTION. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A COUPLE YEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BY, WHETHER WE LEASE OR BUY USED OR WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO. But the out years look really, really good. And talk to me about, you know, first of all, we know we had many conversations at this table about the repairs and what we're playing trans-dev, you know, I think. Besides purchasing of new vehicles and getting them on a rotation, I think we're going to save millions and millions of dollars in the future over the next four to ten years in vehicle maintenance. I really do. I got to believe that's low-hanging fruit for us. That's going to change. I don't think we're going to need the mechanics that we need right now. Do you agree with that?

absolutely there's many aspects to this conversation uh we need the staffing thank you to your partnership and leadership in the budget reopening we got an additional position to work on fleet uh issues we need to think about the contract and how we bid it out uh it's a conversation i've had with a number of our union leaders on that we need to to rethink that process uh and honestly we need to make tough decisions um the cabinet meeting on monday morning our directors got an earful from me we're hundreds of vehicles over our cap right now we pay a penalty for that in in the process uh we when we buy a new vehicle something's got to come out we got to get rid of the old one and auction it out i will say we've auctioned more vehicles in the first six months of this year than i believe the last i think it is don't quote me on this three years combined uh we got to get those out we auction them that's money coming back into the city that goes into buying more vehicles take-home vehicles have gone up drastically in the last several years we need to make tough decisions on that because as employee takes it home that is gas and wear and tear on the vehicle in those off hours we need to look at of course many of our employees need those our police officers uh you know our leadership in public safety they're responding 24 7 to critical scenes where every second matters there's a need for it but we need to look at every single one and make those tough decisions WHEN THE MONEY IS TIGHT, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE APPROACH OF EVERY DOLLAR MATTERS. YOU AND I HAD A MEETING THE OTHER DAY WITH COUNCILPERSON STRASBURGER ON A POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS PROGRAM THAT'S NOT A HUGE SAVINGS, BUT I THINK YOU NAILED ON THE MEETING, $100 IS $100, $1,000 IS $1,000, WE'LL TAKE, THEN THAT'S THE APPROACH WE'RE TAKING WITH BLEEP. EVERY ASPECT OF THIS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE WE BUY OUR GAS, CONTROL OF THOSE GAS PRICES, USE OF VEHICLES WHEN GAS PRICES ARE HIGH, ALL OF IT ACROSS THE BOARD.

And to that point, you know, what gets overlooked now is the comp plan, right? That you went out and secured a donation to pay for to finish and to complete it. So it kind of gets lost in the shuffle because all these bigger and better donations coming in. But BUT, YEAH, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T BE MORE PLEASED WITH, YOU KNOW, I WENT FROM ELA BOARD MEETINGS WHERE WE'RE LIKE SCRATCHING OUR HEAD THINKING WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? AND WE GOT FIRE SAYING WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE AND WE'RE LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. TWO, LIKE WHAT DO WE ORDER FIRST? HOW FAST CAN WE GET THEM? AND TO THE CREDIT OF ELA STAFF, THEY DO AN INCREDIBLE JOB. SHARON'S BEEN DOING AN INCREDIBLE JOB AND THEY REALLY KNOW THEIR BUSINESS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGE THERE. EVERYTHING IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I FEEL LIKE THIS WILL NOT ONLY CHANGE THE FORECAST OF PITTSBURGH FINANCIALLY AS TO $70 MILLION, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST STARTING. MAYBE I'M GETTING SPOILED AND I'M EXPECTING MORE AND MORE. I said that after the $10 million, I remember being specific in an ELA board meeting, and I'm a co-sponsor of Councilwoman Warwick's designated fund, but that was before all the millions and millions of dollars came rolling in. I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I thought boy if we continue to get these donations we no longer need to think of that and i'm to that point i will tell you i feel secure that the relationships that have been built with the non-profits are strong and i really feel like the non-profits want to be a partner they love pittsburgh too they want to be here and i feel like your approach and the mayor's approach and treating them like a partner rather than like the enemy has created an enormous advantage for us in at least the vehicle in the fleet And it all makes sense. UPMC, you know, yeah, pay for the ambulances. We're transporting them to your facility, you know, so we can we can go up and down the board and focusing on fire for this last donation was, you know, that needed to happen. And I would tell you, everybody was uncomfortable about that, even after we got donations for ambulances and police and squad cars. So that was very important. All I can say is keep up the good work. You know, a lot. I don't know if the public knows, maybe being on the ELA board, I had an insight. But again, I don't know where we'd be without it. So the partnerships that you have created and UPMC, Highmark, they're proven to be good partners in the end when we treat them like a partner rather than an enemy.

I agree, Councilman, and I will say we're not done. I don't know if I want to set the bar at 70 million a year. That may not be the continue, but we already are close to announcing a separate partnership with UPMC on something else. So and Highmark, the same thing, you know, on these issues. So we don't consider this a one and done. That's why I said these this isn't a payment agreement and it's actually very technically a gift. agreement with the city contribution that you're approving. These are partnerships, and all these partnerships matter. I mean, the work we're doing on the fields, actually, you know, on Facebook this week, and obviously we had the big storms on Friday night, Saturday morning, I think it was, and I saw posts both from McGee and Councilperson Warwick and from Herschel and Councilperson Salinasho saying, like, the whole weekend tournament would have been washed out, and they were playing two hours after the rain stopped because the new Dura Edge material is a complete game changer for our fields. The scoreboards just got an update yesterday. Everything is on track for that. We're going to have, you know, these new scoreboards up in the city. All of these make a big difference in our communities, and we have to show we can deliver. I want to make that clear to Councilman Wilson with these gifts. My message back to our team is now we deliver. We buy on time. We use the dollars efficiently. You know, no one is going to come back to to give you more help you again when you didn't use it right the first time.

Right. Well, that's another area. I will tell you, you know, parks, you know, we have Philip or up there in Karakats volunteers for volunteers. You know, the work that we did up there was incredible. The before and after pictures you sent me, it was just like off the charts.

Brookline's come from there.

I know. Yeah. and from there into the little abel long park that the mayor and i kind of you know cracked open it's small parts with big parks uh your focus on parks has been uh absolutely wonderful one last thing i want to say is i think is very important in working with our non-profits as far as these vehicle purchases go is that um i even though I'm not in on those talks with you all but I feel like they want to contribute I feel like they want to be a partner this is not us twisting their arms saying look you need to pay up and us forcing the issue this I think is going to be a long-term partnership is that the way you view it as well

Absolutely. I want to be clear. All these partners have been incredible. While negotiating out the deal has ups and downs and good meetings and bad, it was always with a shared vision of what it meant to commit to the city and to the residents and to our public safety employees. That was never lost from the very forefront of a desire for partnership.

Yeah, that's important for long-term sustained relationship is that they're not there because we're coming with a paddle. They're there because they want to be part of the solution. They realized they knew the needs. And finally, we got an administration that's treating them with respect and we're getting it back. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. All in favor of Bill 723, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. We are now going to jump to Intergovernmental and Educational Affairs Committee to a complimentary bill, Bill 729, the last in your agenda.

Resolution authorizing pursuant to Chapter 210 of the City Code, the Mayor and the Director of the Department of Management and Budget to accept a donation from Carnegie Mellon University in the amount of $3 million split over the next five years for education and infrastructure initiatives.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Bill 729, please say aye. Aye. Affirmative recommendation. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Council.

That moves us to Land Use and Economic Development Committee, chaired by Councilman Wilson.

Bill 518. Mm-hmm. Ordinance establishing in East Carson Street Improvement District for the area shown on Exhibit A at the behest of the East Carson Street Business District Advisory Committee, property owners and business owners to be benefited with specific improvements to be undertaken including but not limited to financing of said improvements, method of assessing specific properties to be benefited, establishing a Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association to conduct administrative procedures for the Neighborhood Improvement District, providing for the establishment of a separate account for deposit and withdrawal of project funds, and providing the cost thereof.

Motion to approve.

Councilman, can I hold this one week? It was a motion, I wrote withdraw that motion, and motion to hold it a week. Second.

Discussion. Seeing none all in favor of a one week hold for bill 518. Please say aye. Aye.

Thank you.

Bill will be held. And just as a note, given that this is our last, this will actually effectively then be a sort of a five week hold. OUR LAST STANDING COMMITTEE BEFORE RECESS. I APOLOGIZE.

I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE.

I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. NEVERMIND. NEVERMIND. NEVERMIND. TAKE THAT BACK. TAKE THAT BACK. TAKE THAT BACK. ONE WEEK HOLD. ONE WEEK HOLD. ONE WEEK HOLD. ONE WEEK HOLD FOR 518. ONE WEEK HOLD FOR 518. ONE WEEK HOLD FOR 518. THEN MOVES US ON TO BILL 714. THEN MOVES US ON TO BILL 714.

Bill 7.14 ordinance amending and supplementing the Pittsburgh code of ordinances title 9 zoning code article 5 use regulations chapter 9.11 primary uses section 9.11.04 use standards subsection a 41 B 6 multi-suite residential in the UCE district is hereby amended to add a new subsection a 41 B 6 C. Motion to approve discussion.

Second. Discussion.

YES, I KNOW THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT IS VIRTUAL TODAY. I WAS CONTACTED ABOUT THE AMENDMENT UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT. All right. So the motion is to amend their second.

Second discussion. Further discussion. All in favor of amending bill. 7.14 please say aye aye. Bill has been amended further discussion on the bill as amended.

Second.

Discussion? All in favor of sending Bill 714 to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, please say aye. Aye. Bill will be sent to Planning Commission. New Papers, Bill 732.

Resolution providing for the designation as a historic site under Title 11 of the City Code of Ordinances that certain site known as Allegheny Arsenal Officers Quarters In wall segments located on multiple parcels 49E128, 49E136, 49E132, 49A3, 49A5, 49E124, 49E120, 49A1 in the lower Lawrenceville neighborhood in the 6th Ward, City of Pittsburgh. The owner of the property supports the nomination and there is no cost to the city.

Motion hold for cable cars public hearing second discussion.

Seeing none all in favor of holding bill 7.32 for kept cost public hearing please say aye aye bill will be held that moves us to recreation youth and senior services committee count chair by Council member Warwick.

If her papers bill 6.43 resolution authorizing the mayor, the director of the office of management and budget and the director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. to issue requests for proposal for social services programming at the Bergwin Recreation Center, and to enter into an agreement or agreements with qualified providers at a cost not to exceed $200,000.

A motion to approve a discussion?

Second.

Discussion? Yeah, so I just want to, so this is the bill pulling some funding from the Stop the Violence Fund in order to fund after school and summer programming at the Bergwin Rec Center, which has been recently renovated. I have worked with the administration and I'm very appreciative of all those conversations and also hearing from community members and such as we did a couple of weeks ago or last week. So I would like to amend by substitution. So this amendment takes out the language around RFPs It actually specifies more precisely what the money is for, right, that it is specifically for out of school time services, staff and supplies. And it also just provides more flexibility for the administration to do to get this done in the way that works best for city parks. I will say my preference, of course, is that we just staff this rec center, right? Like we like we staff like we staff any other rec center. But of course, that's that's a decision to be made by by the administration, the city parks team. But I just, you know, here we are making sure that they have the money to do it. So I'd like to motion to amend by substitution. Second. Discussion. Councilman Wilson.

Yeah, I was wondering would you be a minimal to amend this to say that we could do this for all our rec centers? We could do like unauthorized up to a specified amount, you know, based on the stop the violence trust fund annual plan to fund rec centers across the city. I'D BE OPEN TO TALKING ABOUT THAT FOR TUESDAY IF YOU'D LIKE BUT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT HERE AT THE TABLE WITHOUT BECAUSE I HAVE TWO I HAVE TWO THAT AREN'T YOU KNOW I THINK THIS IS A GREAT THING YEAH YOU KNOW I THINK THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY THINK ABOUT MORE GLOBALLY YEAH ABSOLUTELY I KNOW THAT THAT CONVERSATION HAS BEEN NOT THIS HASN'T BEEN THE BIGGEST FAN THAT STOPPED THE VIOLENCE MEETINGS IN TERMS OF HOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT SINCE IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE SPENT ON DIRECTLY GUN VIOLENCE AND PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY GUN VIOLENCE. SO, LOOK, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THIS ISN'T. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FUNDING OUR REC CENTERS WOULD BE.

SO, AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT, BUT THE AMOUNT, LIKE, I WAS VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS AMOUNT THAT IT WAS ONE CENTER, RIGHT? BUT ABSOLUTELY, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY IF YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.

Yeah, I mean, I'd like to amend it just right now just to open up that conversation. I can I can name my rec centers.

But that would mean that that would cut the $200,000 up between multiple rec centers.

That's why I'm saying we do unspecified amount based on, you know, stop the violence annual annual spending plan, which that's something with the vote on every year. So but I think that's a good conversation. Does that make sense? Like we can say, uh, I could do a word amendment now. It says stop the violence list from the stop the violence trust fund annual spending plan for staffing across rec centers in the city of Pittsburgh.

But that would mean that that would mean that maybe her burglar would only get one penny, right?

Exactly.

So 200,000 could go to any other, I actually did not grant an interrogatory, but if you would like to make a voice amendment, you're welcome to do so and see if it has the votes.

Well, I'll let the discussion happen. I might speak again, but I just think this is, you know, a great thing to open a conversation about spending money on, you know, our rec centers like this.

I agree. As long as it's in the stop the violence community. Absolutely. Councilperson Charlene.

Yeah. So I'll let the discussion play out, but I would also like to offer a voice amendment. It's where it says at Bergwin Recreation Center also include at Upper McKinley Rec Center. So I will call the, or when we vote, I will be offering that.

Understood. Any further discussion before? All right. I understand that there is potential for second round. Councilman Wilson.

I can just make the voice amendment now. Yeah, I would this be appropriate now. Yes, OK. I like to add line which that says from the southern bonds trust fund. You know spending plan for staffing so and so it's just a no spending plan. Supplies for school time services programming at recreation centers. That's at City Parks recreation centers. UP TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE ANNUAL SPENDING PLAN. SO THIS IS A VOICE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE $200,000 TO AN AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE SPENDING PLAN AND STRIKING

Bergman Recreation Center and specifying all eligible recreation centers.

Correct.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion. Councilwoman Gross.

Councilman, I really think you are talking about a different piece of legislation, which would be great. And then we could have a discussion. You might also be talking about an amendment to the Stop the Violence Plan. legislation, which we've done, I think, four or five times, which would also be great. And then we could have its own substantive conversation. I believe that there have been many weeks of conversation to arrive at this dollar amount in this language, which is why I'm supporting Councilwoman Warwick's original amendment by substitution without the voice amendments. Great idea, wrong place. So thank you.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS VOICE AMENDMENT, COUNCILPERSON CHARLAND.

YEAH, I REALIZE WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IS DOING HERE, AND I WILL NOT BE OFFERING ANOTHER VOICE AMENDMENT. AS I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT IN MY DISTRICT, IT'S IN COUNCILMAN SALNUTTER'S DISTRICT. REEM REC CENTER ALSO NEEDS TO BE FUNDED WITH THIS. SO I THINK COUNCILMAN LEAVING THIS OPEN IN THIS WAY IS APPROPRIATE AND HOW WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS THAT ARE SERVED BY THESE REC CENTERS ARE TAKEN CARE OF. SO I WILL NOT BE OFFERING THAT AMENDMENT. I'LL BE SUPPORTING YOURS.

Council member Warwick so I just want to clarify what we do at City Council is move money right move money to specific projects and that's what's happening here I am a hundred percent open to and and we can introduce it next Tuesday right is if you want to sit down with your rec center folks and with Eric Sloan at City Parks and find out how much it would cost to operate. If you have rec centers that are operating in the high need, stop the violence communities, I'm 100% there for that. But yeah, I mean, again, It's taken a number of weeks. The $200,000 specified here is very specific to what we know it will cost to do a year of programming. My hope is that we have this broader conversation in the budget season right for next year, and that also, and again, stop the violence, amendments to the stop the violence legislation overall. BUT, YEAH, SO I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF ANY AMENDMENTS TO THIS, JUST SORT OF ON THE FLY AT THE TABLE. YOU HAVE A SECOND ROUND.

I'M AMENDABLE. WE CAN DO UP TO A MILLION ACROSS, SINCE WE MOVED MONEY, WE CAN DO UP TO A MILLION ACROSS, I AGREE, REC CENTERS ACROSS THE CITY.

So again, I'm happy to have this conversation, but I want to ensure that I have at at least the 200,000 going to the Bergen rec center as as this allows right so just saying up to a million across all centers that actually doesn't secure the funding for my community.

And we can say including Bergen rec center, we can name some. If you want to. I think it's a good opportunity. I can't hear what you're saying.

I think, Councilman, that you are being a bully and that this is very inappropriate. But so I think you understand that I'm trying to get this 200,000 allocated to a rec center in my community. I understand that you may perhaps have a rec center in your community. I know Councilman Sharland has McKinley in his community. I know Councilwoman Salinetro has Reem and other programs. There are multiple programs across our communities in our high need communities that I think that we should be funding through the Stop the Violence Fund. And I am happy to have that conversation and put legislation on the table to make this possible. But, you know, this feels unnecessary and and is UNAPPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THE MICROPHONE BACK AND SAY A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, IT'S ALWAYS COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE TO VOICE AMEND. IT'S FINE. IN THE CASE OF SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO SEE COUNCIL MEMBERS WORK WITH ONE ANOTHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS AHEAD OF TIME. and agreed upon an amendment ahead of time rather than a voice vote, despite the fact that I do agree that if this is happening in one neighborhood, I think it should be available to other neighborhoods as well, despite the fact that counter, you know, countervailing evidence shows that like, we should like, we actually should be using the spending plan and coming up. So like I start with, we should come up with a spending plan and use it. I also understand that council member Warwick is using this as a bandaid for a very short term solution to a problem. And, and, um, that this is not going to be a solution in perpetuity. Um, so I, I just want to state, I supported the original amendment. Um, at this time, I'm not going to support the voice amendment because I thought it should have probably had been a conversation that came up ahead of time and, um, agreed upon on paper ahead of time. So that's going to be my vote. Um, and I just wanted to state that, but, uh, would recommend that that take place in the future or before Tuesday's vote. Any further discussion on the amended voice amendment? Seeing none, we will take a voice vote. You want the roll call? Roll call vote.

It's on the amendment.

This is on the voice amendment proposed by Councilman Wilson. Mr. Sharland.

Aye. Mr. Coggle.

Abstain.

Ms. Gross. No. Mr. LaValle.

No.

Mr. Mosley.

No.

Ms. Salinetra. No.

Ms. Salinetra.

Ms. Warwick? No. Mr. Wilson? Aye. Ms. Strasburger-Cheer? No. Eyes to no 6 1 abstention. Amendment fails.

Amendment fails. We have the original amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment as presented? Seeing none all in favor of amending Bill 643 as presented, please say aye. Aye. Any nose abstentions? Eyes have it. Any further discussion on Bill 643 as amended? Seeing council person, charlin yeah, I just think it's it's.

Holy unfair to you know to fund a program in one council members district without funding, you know other programs that are very similar. Voice Against Violence operates in Upper McKinley, running a rec program with literally zero dollars from the city. We're renovating the rec center for them. They've had to be very creative moving to libraries and the zoo and everywhere else because of that renovation. I'm in the exact same scenario and I do not understand why my programs are not valuable. Um, you know, in my district serving my community here. So, um, I will not be supporting this today because it it's not fair to the city. Thank you.

Thank you. Council member Warwick.

Yeah, so I do just want to sort of take a step back on the many weeks of conversation around this bill, which included both here at the table and in discussions just, you know, in the course of me trying to get support, where I said numerous times to Councilman Sharland that I would be more than happy to double the allocation in this bill and include McKinley Rec. So I just want that to be clear. We just tried to do that. I did not grant interrogatory. So, you know, I am, again, I will say again, I am 1000% supportive of all of our communities of all of these folks who are, you know, on the shoestring budgets, just, you know, supporting the children in our most vulnerable, vulnerable communities, having access to city dollars in order to help make those programs possible. I THINK IT IS, ANY DAY I WILL SIT DOWN, WE CAN SIT DOWN AFTER THIS MEETING. RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THAT THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT I HAVE BEEN OPEN TO AND I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF THIS BILL. AND I HAD TO, BUT I WAS BEING FOUGHT ON THIS BILL. AND THAT IS WHY I HAD TO BRING DOWN, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF PEOPLE FROM HAZELWOOD TO COME AND BASICALLY BEG CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS MONEY. SO I REALLY WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC. THAT NUMEROUS TIMES I SAID IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN YOUR COMMUNITY, LET'S EXPAND THIS BILL. let's add, let's make it 400 and add McKinley or whatever, I am open to all of it. So and we can still do it, right? The money is there. As of right now, I believe that there is some eight point, I don't know, 8.75 million or so in stop the by an unencumbered stop the violence. I believe I believe that's roughly the number. So there's absolutely there are absolutely funds to do this work. Anyway, that's all. Thank you. Councilman Wilson.

I hear the by and I'll be reaching out to members to put together more comprehensive after school while maybe it's not after school, but you know more comprehensive plan for you to rec centers in terms of funding staff to stop the violence.

Councilman Mosley.

Yeah, and as a member of the Stop the Violence, what is it, what do we call it, the committee? Stop the Violence Committee. I look forward to working with all of the members, I'm sure, as well as Councilman Wilson and Councilman LaVelle to figure out how do we align the needs of each council district, particularly, as Councilwoman Warwick says, the most at-risk communities. ALIGN THOSE WITH THE SPENDING PLAN. I THINK THAT'S A WORTHY, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, FOR US TO HAVE AS A BODY AS WELL AS TO STOP THE VIOLENCE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

COUNCILMEMBER GROSS.

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY BUDGET YEARS WHERE COUNCIL TALKED ABOUT THE PARKS AND REC BUDGET, RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHERE THIS MONEY WOULD GO TO, WOULD GO TO PARKS AND REC. And we've acknowledged that we're not spending enough on staffing in Parks and Rec. So just as a reminder, so I'm looking at my phone, but the annual expenditures for this year are projected at about $667 million citywide, right? That's just operating budget. And as a reminder, I think for I don't know how many years, Narelle, it was parks and rec was only 1%, 1% operating budget expenditures, right, for payroll. This year it's less than 1%. So we've done worse and not better. So let's keep that in front of us too. So again, I'm supportive of this conversation. I believe that we could double the expenditures in parks and rec and it would be money well spent. And so the parks and rec budget for this year i don't want to be wait am i looking at the wrong row no i'm looking at the right row is is 7.5 million dollars so it is just over one percent i was looking at the wrong column i want to make sure i'm not looking at the wrong columns here 7.5 but no no i'm going to take it back again sorry i'm scrolling on my tiny phone and i want to make sure i'm at the right column The 2026 budgeted expenditures for the whole city is $721 million this year, which is higher than what I said. And scrolling down in the same 2026 budget expenditures, yeah, we've got Parks and Rec at 7.5. So that's just barely a smidgen above 1%.

but we can do better.

We can do better. And it's only a couple million, a couple million more dollars would increase their whole payroll by 50%. We could have 50% more staffing in parks and rec. So let's keep that in front of us. Thank you all.

Thank you. All in favor. We're gonna keep moving all in favor of Okay, one more comment, please.

Yeah, I don't think I had comment. Did I? Okay, so I just want to be clear. I'll be supportive of this today. I think you worked hard. I believed the people that came down here fitting and responsible and we'll use that money wisely. But let me be transparent. I also believe in what Councilman William Wilson is proposing. I think it's good use of Stop the Violence Fund. It's it's an investment in our children and our youth centers, our rec centers. So you can make the argument across the city. So I look forward to coming up with a formula where we can fund whatever working with you Councilman Wilson for rec centers to give a boost in a shot in the arm to each and every one of them but but yeah, I'll be supportive today of your your your proposal. Thanks.

Yeah. All in favor of Bill 643. As amended, please say aye. No. Any nose? No. Oh, any extensions? Eyes have it. Affirmative recommendation. That moves us to Intergovernmental and Educational Affairs Committee, chaired by Councilman Mosley.

Bill 531, deferred paper. Resolution authorizing the adoption of the downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District Implementation Plan and Related Agreements, Council District 1.

Motion to approve. I believe much more than a brief discussion.

Second.

Discussion Councilman Mosley you have the floor.

Yeah, I would like to invite those who are here to join us to. Madam chair, I know we have an amendment that's going to be introduced as well as far as with the parliamentary procedure, how should we proceed.

It can go either way. We can have discussion about the bill, or you can propose an amendment now and then discuss prior to passage of the amendment.

Okay. Thank you for coming here today. Can you please introduce yourselves?

Thank you for having us. My name is Sushila Nimani-Stenger, Executive Director, URA. Catherine Murray, Director of Government Affairs and Strategic Initiatives, URA.

Thomas Link, Chief Development Officer URA.

Matt Singer, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor.

Thank you. And thank you for joining us today. This is the third time you've been here at the table, a third or fourth time now. Thank you for joining us today. And whoever, you know, wants to go first with the presentation, feel free to begin.

Well, first of all, I want to thank you for hosting a post agenda so that we could dive deep into this trade. I'll just give a really brief overview because most of you were at that post agenda. Oh, many of you were at that post agenda. And so just high level, this downtown trade that's being proposed is a trade backed bond. And it is an investment tool that we're proposing to help with revitalization of downtown in our post COVID environment. We know that this trade will spur activity and private investment downtown. It will complement the existing bus rapid transit district that is being advanced right now by the Port Authority. That is a $291 million public transit investment in our downtown area that connects downtown with Oakland, the second and third largest employment centers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It will also invest in public realm improvements and deepen affordability and quality housing options downtown. This is a balanced approach to economic development. We heard a lot of the public comment here at the post-agenda meeting that was hosted, and we're happy to advance any additional questions if my colleagues want to provide any additional overview or our colleague at the mayor's office.

Yeah, just to echo what the executive director said, we view the downtown trade as an essential part of revitalizing downtown and shoring up our tax base. A stronger tax base will help the city to afford its day-to-day essentials, whether that's fixing up parks across neighborhoods, whether that's buying new vehicles, whether that's paying employee salaries to go out and pick up the trash and put out fires. We really, really, really do depend on that downtown revenue. It accounts for about a quarter of our real estate tax that we take in, real estate tax. largely being the bulk itself of all the revenue that we take in council last year this year and surely into the future we'll have to continue making difficult budgetary decisions and without anything to increase the revenue that we can take in from our highest revenue source those decisions are likely only to get more and more difficult each and every year

If there's not a question related to existing TIF and TRID portfolio, I just do want to highlight that since 1993, the URA has been working in collaboration with the three taxing bodies, the city, county and school district, to help reclaim blighted industrial brownfield underutilized sites throughout the city. We have a very solid track record in our TIF and TRID portfolio. We take a very conservative approach to our analysis. And we only come to you when we know that there is a true need. And so what you'll see this year and in early 2027 are three tax diversions, three TIFs that are expiring. And we'll be announcing that at our September board meeting. But I do want you to I do just want to paint that picture to you. We have an active TIF and TRID portfolio Once these three retire and expire, then there will be nine left in the tax diversion portfolio. That is a really small number based on what we've had in previous years. We've had nearly 20 at a time. And so really what these tax diversion and value capture districts allow you all and your colleagues at the county and the school district to do is invest in our city We are a modern city in Pittsburgh, and it is appropriate for taxing bodies to make that investment. And I can provide you with the portfolio return and investment, which is essentially, you know, we'll be looking at the retirements of three PNC. That's the fifth and market PNC building, Pittsburgh Technology Center TIF, as well as the Bakery Square TIF. That's the original phase one TIF. If you can believe it, it has been 20 years. And so, you know, with those retirements, We are going we're you're going to be seeing a base value increase from those properties, it's basically a 12 times return in the base value to the new current assessed value. And so with all of these tips and trends, we propose a diversion of a percentage of incremental taxes. You always continue to receive the taxes that you receive today. We are not taking away or proposing a diversion in any existing taxes and then you know in addition to increasing the tax base. There is a strong return in housing production affordable housing production as well as jobs. I know you have questions and related amendments to cover.

You for their question questions Councilman mostly.

YES, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS KIND OF JUST WALKING THROUGH HOW THIS WORKS, HOW I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY, IF SOMEONE HAS A $50 MILLION BUILDING DOWNTOWN THAT MAYBE USED TO BE A $100 MILLION BUILDING, YOU KNOW, BEFORE COVID AND BEFORE THE COMMON LEVEL RATIO. THAT ALLOWED DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS TO REASSESS THAT COULD HAVE BROUGHT THE PROPERTY VALUE DOWN TO 50 MILLION. THEY PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM. I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO BE $5 MILLION WORTH OF INVESTMENT ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE TO QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM AND SAY THEY THEN DO FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION, DO A COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION. YOU KNOW, DOUBLING THE VALUE UPON REASSESSMENT BACK TO, YOU KNOW, 100 MILLION. THE BUILDING THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, BEING TAXED AT $50 MILLION WOULD BE TAXED AT $62.5 MILLION, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PURPOSES OF, FOR EASY MATH, FOR THE DISCUSSION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT, AND THEN THEY WOULD STILL BE PAYING the additional taxes on the 37.5 remaining value of the building. But then that would then get diverted from the city, county and school district coffers to the revolving loan fund. You know, my one question is, you know, you know, generally one, how much is the financial infusion to the project as far as TO ADD TO THE CAPITAL STACK, AND I KNOW IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EVERY PROJECT, BUT YOU GIVE A BALLPARK FIGURE OF HOW MUCH FUNDS THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE GETTING AND WOULD THEY BE PAYING THAT BACK OR IS THE DIVERSION OF THE TAXES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE PAID ON THE $100 MILLION BUILDING, IS THAT KIND OF CONSIDERED THE PAYBACK TO the infusion of dollars for their capital stack.

You want to answer that? Yeah, I'll start. So I guess on the first question, sort of ballpark figure on investment. I think probably the best way to is actual projects that we've recently seen. So there's a handful of developments that have happened downtown recently that is working with tools that frankly aren't funded at this point, like the downtown conversion program. I'll use a specific example, which is recently at groundbreakings and quite a bit of press, but the First to market Beacon's development at downtown, roughly about, I think it's like a $45 million development. A variety of tools went into that, including PHFA tax credits, equity debt, a variety of public financing sources. The URA specifically put in about $5 million, so to give a sense of like on a $40, $45 million capital stack, that sort of last sliver of gap financing was roughly $5 million. And that's 100% affordable senior living project. A market rate deal or mixed income rate deal I would say that candidly we did not invest in but other mission based lenders were able to raise funds to help invest in. the former gnc headquarters which was recently converted into a mixed income development roughly i think about a 50 or 55 million dollar total development project cost and i believe about six million sort of a piece of that capital stack to sort of fill a gap in the project so just to get a sense of scale the rest of the capital stack being private uh private debt equity um they may have historic tax credits too but i'm not entirely sure To your question as to the payback, so individual investments through a program into a real estate development project, the real estate development project itself would repay would be repay that investment separate from any diverted taxes that would be diverted through the TRID. So they would be separate mechanics. The base taxes, as the executive director mentioned, none of that's diverted. Any incremental real estate taxes, the diverted portion would be diverted to the TRID to help potentially serve as debt that's been borrowed to create the funds that are in turn investing directly into the real estate, which then have their own repayment mechanisms from the real estate financing itself.

Is that helpful?

Yeah, that's helpful. And then my next question is, you know, some of the criticism that this trade has received is that they folks feel like it's different than the East Liberty and the Manchester trade. Can you speak to that criticism and talk about what may be different about the downtown TRID, particularly for a layman like myself, who's gotten a huge education about TRIDs over the last six weeks and speak to why someone may say that this TRID proposal is different from those other two TRID proposal, which speaks to their opposition to this current TRID.

I'll start and then I know my colleagues will probably want to jump in because this is what we do all the time is we work with communities. We work with our partners, the private partners, public partners, nonprofit partners, and we determine what the best approach is for every neighborhood that we work in. And so what we do in East Liberty is very different than what we do in downtown because the needs are different. And so we could utilize a tool like TRID in East Liberty, Manchester, Chateau, And we're going to approach it downtown differently with that TRID instrument because it's an instrument that we use in order to take into consideration the current conditions of a neighborhood in order to help stabilize and strengthen that neighborhood. And so, yes, we have a handful of tools in our economic development toolbox, and they're not used in the same way in every neighborhood because every neighborhood is different.

And could you speak specifically to what, you know, just the East Liberty one, which I'm a little bit more familiar with. So, you know, so what would be the approach different from the East Liberty, even though we know that was what, was that 10 years ago now?

That was, I actually have that date in front of me.

It was about 2015 or 14.

Knowing that obviously the world was much different.

2013, we started that project. East Liberty phase one was 2013. That was the first operational TRID in the Commonwealth. And our partnership with the Port Authority was The URA took the lead on building the East Liberty Transit Station. We contracted that. We led the engineering review drawings with the Port Authority and undertook the contracting and bid that project out. And we used the East Liberty TRID, and that was our keystone project, the East Liberty Transit Center. And we utilized the TRID to leverage a federal TIGER grant. That was a $15 million TIGER grant. We put that application in three times. So in addition to funding the transit center, we also funded a number of offsite pedestrian improvements, the Penn Circle two-way conversion. We funded a number of safety improvements for pedestrians, including crosswalks, lighting. We also allocated a certain percentage in the phase two East Liberty trade to affordable housing, which you're quite familiar with. And that was directed from the, I believe it was the Penn Plaza incremental. There was a point I wanted to make and just slipped my mind. Oh, yeah. So so we did project and we had a sense of what the offsite infrastructure needs were in terms of transit multimodal. It was quite clear East Liberty Transit Center needed to be built. We worked with the Port Authority on it, and they now operate they operate that that that amenity, you know, because of trade. It was written this way at the state. It allows for flexibility and future forward thinking. And so Yes, there were there were some sidewalks and lighting projects that we knew were needed. But, you know, there were also projects that the LDI and other community partners became aware of as the trades life has as the trade has been in existence. And so it provides for flexibility in terms of, you know, no needs and future needs.

Mm hmm.

It allows us to think ahead.

Okay.

And act.

Yeah. And you had mentioned that, you know, depending on the neighborhood, there's different approaches. Was there was there a different approach you took for this current trade that may have been different? Thank you.

That was the piece that I was forgetting. Thank you. That may have been different.

Understanding that, you know, the world is much different in many in a whole variety of ways. Thank you. 1213 years ago.

Exactly. And so the approach that we need to take downtown in our and our partners opinion is that, you know, as Tom mentioned, he cited the downtown conversion projects that have moved forward. And all of those are pure affordable housing projects. And that is wonderful. And it required deep, deep subsidy to move those projects forward. But what we're not seeing are mixed income and market rate downtown conversion projects moving forward. And so what we're still left with is this current state of vertical blight in our downtown. And so what we know is that, you know, we don't tolerate blight in our neighborhoods. And we know that blight erodes the tax base and it erodes a community. And what we're hoping to do is move more projects forward, not just LIHTC deals and deals that have you know, access to PHFA products, but other projects that we know can move forward.

So you're saying currently and how many affordable housing projects are in the pipeline right now in downtown versus

Yeah, so we're tracking roughly, we think there's potentially up to maybe north of this now 1,000 plus units total that could come down. And this is over many years, right? But that could come down depending on how projects progress. We believe at least up to about a little north, maybe a little less, but 30% of those units could be affordable. Some of those projects could be 100% affordable. Some could be more 10, 20% affordable, especially those that are mixed income and probably would take advantage, frankly, of the LERDA program. So that's how we're tracking them, but just to give a sense of scale. Sitting here today, I mean, obviously real estate changes daily, but that's what we see today.

Affordable units make up about 18% of units downtown right now. And with our tread pipeline, what we're tracking for affordability, we think we'll be able to get that north of 20%, closer to 21%.

Right. Right. And as we spoke, I think we spoke numerous times in the past, you know, you know, six weeks. And as you know, I've you know, I'm obviously a you know, staunch advocate, you know, for affordable housing. I've brought up affordable housing, you know, many times if you could, you know, speak like to the public in those conversations where because I've mentioned and, you know, and I'll continue to mention that, you know, you know, my preference would be to see a similar fund like we have in the East Liberty trade. And when I in our most recent conversation, I guess a little over a week ago, When I brought that up again, can you speak to from your perspective of why you would take a different approach than creating the affordable housing fund that I would really like to see and still would like to see, obviously. But you had a different perspective when I brought that to you once again.

Yes, thank you. We're recommending a flexible tool that allows us to solve a myriad of problems and allows us to really engage with property owners to help them reposition their buildings and really eliminate that blight that exists and help stabilize the tax base. You know, one thing I'll mention is, you know, the housing bond money came up recently. And I just wanted to mention, number one, thank you for your support of that. That was a $30 million fund. I think all of it, the $30 million is fully committed. Yeah. And so, you know, there is a balance, and that balance includes committed. And so I just want to clarify that because I didn't know if I would have an opportunity later. So, like, as an example, Berg Place, that is a LIHTC deal funded with a 9%. You know, we have 2.45 million loan committed to Berg Place, and that's still included in the balance that some folks have articulated, but that is a committed amount. And so, I just wanted to point that out, that, you know, when we have funding tools that allow us to move housing and affordable housing forward, we do need to stay in those deals while they continue to finalize their capital stack and go to a closing. And so just circling back to your question, it's our recommendation in downtown with a economic development tool to help spur activity, stabilize the neighborhood and the community of downtown, which is our region center. We are recommending a tool that has flexibility.

Mm hmm. Yeah. Thank you. And in my I think my my final question for now, because I want to because I know there's a lot of questions and I'm sure there'll be multiple rounds as well that. DO YOU KNOW THERE HAS BEEN YOU KNOW CRITICISM ABOUT THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT YOU KNOW PROCESS FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRID SO IT'S A TWO-PART QUESTION ONE CAN CAN Y'ALL TALK ABOUT THE TYPICAL PROCESS FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT YOU KNOW FOR A TRID AND THEN HOW IT COMPARED TO THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AROUND THIS TRID AND THEN YOU KNOW I DEFER THE FLOOR BACK TO THE MADAM CHAIR AFTER YOUR RESPONSE

So we have started this process, as you all know, in January with our board and every board meeting is open to the public and we encourage public comment, public participation in our board meetings. So in the trade implementation plan, you'll see a series of meetings that we have taken some action on with our authorizing body at our board, and then briefings that we've had with various taxing bodies. We're very grateful to have the post-agenda discussion and the public hearing here as well. We have been briefing community groups. We have been posting this on our website. We have shared this with you all. I was here for all public comment with all of you today. There was a lot of question about our intent and our motivation behind it. Our motivation behind it is to strengthen downtown and to strengthen Pittsburgh as a whole. There's no malicious intent behind this. I agree with a lot of the policy choices that were being advocated for this morning as well. And we have followed a process and engaged the public thoroughly and will continue to do so. Right now, where we're at in the process here is still probably about the 50-yard line. We still will be coming back to you later this fall, maybe towards the end of the year with a funding plan. And we'll be coming before you when we are at the place where we take out a bond issuance as well. We're still going to be going to the county and to PPS for their sign-off and then also to PRT. We're in the thick of it right now, and we continue to prioritize hearing everyone's opinions on this and taking that all into consideration. And we're grateful that it has garnered so much attention and grateful for the discussion around it.

Thank you for your time today. I'll reserve the rest of my questions for multiple rounds that I'm sure I'll be experiencing very soon.

Thank you. Councilman Wilson.

Thank you chair so before you start us want to recognize that we all should have a free large packet of yellow papers on or the table here. That's an amendment that we make a motion for. And then I like to discuss that motion after so motion to amend. The bill to reflect what's in the packet for bill 5.31. And this this is a. So I'll just reserve to I can make comment second.

Discussion. So what I will do, because we already had some people register their interest in discussing the bill before the amendment, we'll start with you and then we'll go to those who were already in line.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you were talking about. I was going to make the amendment and then what was going to happen?

Then the discussion for the amendment will follow the order of those who had already indicated their interest in speaking. Oh, okay. Like we'll be discussing the amendment. Yeah.

I understand. Okay. Yes, so Bill Bill 531. Obviously everyone knows that's the the trip bill for downtown. The larger capture is expanded to the North Shore and then also to the Strip District. This this amendment does a few things. One, I just want to blanket statement about how how development typically we see development in Pittsburgh. We talk about good union jobs and and and how that that plays a part in development. LARGELY WORKING WITH THE TRADES AND ALL THE DIFFERENT TRADES THAT GO INTO THE PROJECT TO MAKE IT WORK. THAT'S LARGELY WHAT I THINK WE'RE ALL THINKING OF WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT HAPPEN WITH GOOD UNION JOBS. AND THEN THE BUILDING IS BUILT AND THEN WE ALL OR IT'S CONVERTED AND THEN WE ALL KIND OF YOU KNOW, NOT THAT WE DON'T THINK OF IT, BUT IT'S NOT AT THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MIND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. HERE, THAT REALLY BRINGS IT TO HEAD WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVICE WORKERS DOWNTOWN THAT DURING THIS TRANSITION HAS LOST JOBS BUT ALSO WE SEE THAT DEVELOPERS SEE POSSIBLY AN ANGLE TO CUT WORKERS OUT OF GOOD UNION JOBS AND PAYING JOBS OUT OF that development once it's converted or built. So, you know, this is once it's built after seeing those service workers continue to, you know, be able to have a job there. And for that transition to happen, this trade provides us of a great possibility AT HAND TO REALLY WEIGH IN HERE. AND I HAVE TO REALLY THANK THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR CONTINUING THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SERVICE WORKERS EMPLOYEE UNION, 32BJ. WE HEARD THEM SPEAK TODAY ABOUT THE NEED FOR FAMILY SUSTAINING JOBS AND REALLY TRAGIC STORY OF HOW REAL WORKERS ARE BEING AFFECTED The woman couldn't even read. She couldn't even tell her story. And this is a real thing that's happening. FOR YEARS WHEN WE HOLD WHEN THIS WHEN THIS CITY PREVIOUS MAYORS PREVIOUS COUNCILS HELD PROPERTY OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHENEVER THEY HIRE A CONTRACTOR THAT IS NOT THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZING THE PRIOR AGREEMENTS AND THEY'RE JUST YOU KNOW BRINGING IN PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING PAID LESS AND THEY'RE YOU KNOW THEIR LIGHTHOODS ARE AT RISK AND THEIR FAMILIES SO This trade provides us great opportunity for the bill amendment to require recipients of downtown trade financing to enter into labor peace agreements covering building service employees. Also clarify that downtown trade assistance of 100,000 or more constitutes a city subsidy and is subject to prevailing wage requirements. require applicants to submit plans for labor agreement labor engagement and mitigating the displacement of existing building service employees. There's also a further step to this amendment which does make a change to the map removes the area around 31st Street from the trade capture area and also there's an update that the written description of the boundary map. And also there is a date correction here to reflect the time the legislation has been held at the table, which I have to say, I think we're not only here, it's been some time for the public to see, but also from the beginning, I think we're over 100 days in the public's eye of this legislation. So with that, I would like to make further comment, but I'll reserve my other comments for later. Thank you. I just want to get this.

Thank you. We'll circle back around. And so currently we have Councilman Cockhill followed by Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And we will give everyone a chance to speak on the larger bill as well.

Thank you. Thank you. First, I want to tell you, thank you for the work you do. It really, you're a very important arm of government, Pittsburgh government for us. I will tell you, I was hesitant at first when I was approached about this. You know, we're being asked to forfeit you know, future taxpayer or future taxes in order for the long-term goal. You know, and I heard a lot of the speakers today as well. And, you know, first and foremost, you know, I want to be clear, you know, that every single job, every single project is different. I get the feeling that people have the sense that you're giving a developer $3 million in order to come here. But that involves, and please elaborate, you know, anything from, and I like the flexibility, you need flexibility for each and every project. Whether it's stabilizing the project, whether it's bridging a gap in funding, whether it's preparing a site, you know, every project I've found, and this comes from my experience in working with you on different projects, is everything's different. So you need to have flexibility as to how we can help whatever project it is. And I want to be clear, you know, if this were just to give away to developers, I would not be on board with it by any means. I'm banking on this is a financial commitment from us now for a great financial income in the future. And you remarked to it, Sushila, the TRIDs, ones that you have experienced and have come into fruition, have increased 12-fold. as to what we were collecting or what we would be collecting without the help on that. So so so for me, it's a financial question for me, right? It's it's it's great. I love a vibrant downtown. I think we need it. And in the end, you know, we're I'm betting we're betting on this, on the URA, on your projections and on who we also gives us leverage as to who we select and what project they have in order to have more skin in the game. We need to have that say so. I am curious as to the area of concern as to And I trust that it's the right area, but I'm just concerned, like, how did we get to that area? Do we have professionals kind of just, you know, look at this entire area and say, this is the most ripe for development. This is where we can start by revitalizing and making a big impact downtown.

Yeah, I'll take a first pass and I'll hand it over to my colleagues to talk about how we underwrite our project. So, number one, thank you, Councilman Wilson, for your amendment related to union jobs. You know, I mean, there are no service worker jobs.

if a building is empty.

And I'm not going to call out the specific buildings, but there are some building owners who have stopped cleaning their buildings because they are emptying them out. And so that's a problem, right? So this is this is a holistic problem that we have to solve. And so, yeah, I'll turn it over to my my colleague, Tom, to talk through our sorry, Chief Link, to talk through the process in which we undertake to underwrite a project for its need.

Tom Swine. Yeah, thank you very much for the question. Appreciate the engagement that I know it's been robust and we're happy to continue it. So the question of underwriting process. So when we and not just for downtown, but any, you know, for real estate financing, generally our role in the world for most for the vast majority of our programs and certainly would apply to programs through this trade. for providing financing for real estate development is the term of art is gap financing. So we're putting money in that's but for this money. This project cannot happen. How do we arrive at that test? We have a team of professional underwriters who receive applications. underwrite against appraised values, performas, understanding the rest of the capital stack to ensure that there is, in fact, a gap. But for the investment, the project wouldn't have happened. From a process perspective, typically, you know, we do underwriting at a staff level, almost like a bank does professional underwriting. There's specialties around low-income housing financing that we have a robust team that does that work to underwrite LIHTC deals and affordable deals. Working through our staff, professional staff review, we use third-party advisory committees to, at some basic level, check us to some degree. I mean, for many, many years, I did business lending at the URA, and it was really important to have a third-party committee of lenders and others who advise us as to whether or not we're looking at these deals appropriately. And then with a positive approval through that process, it comes to our URI board for that, for approvals. So that's how we look at these. I feel like I'm missing something, but that's how I generally think about it. That's fine.

I know what you're going to say. Please. We've been working together a long time. You have two city council members on our board.

Thank you.

As well as a mayor's office chair, plus a state rep, plus an SEIU representative. So you have a really good URA board that also sees every project that is underwritten by staff with a loan review committee made up of our lending banking partners before it even hits the URA board agenda for consideration and authorization.

Right. Okay. Well, again, for me, it's about dollars and cents. I truly believe that the URA is needed in this as a rule, and you need to be flushed with money to help projects, whatever that project may be. Yeah, short-term pain for us not to be collecting these taxes, but a very long-term gain for the city of Pittsburgh and generations long after us, you know, if a developer gets $3 million in subsidy from the URA, but produces a 250 unit apartment building, whether it's market or affordable, we're gaining a tax money forever on that. So again, I'm betting on you, you're confident that this will be, you know, positive net income for us in the end as you said for 12-fold on the projects you've already done. So I'm willing to take that chance. I'm willing to take that bet and mostly because I've seen you up close and projects you've done and I know firsthand that these projects would not happen and these places would be sitting there whether we're talking about a food desert, whether we're talking about senior affordable housing or affordable housing in general. I know that without the URA's involvement And the ability to come and make a project go or not make a project go is vital to it. And, you know, rather than a place sit there for 100 years empty, you know, we're going to be producing, whether it be retail, whether it be housing, you name it, we're going to be collecting taxes from it and we're going to be better off for it in the future. No question about it. Although I did hesitate at first, I will tell you, you know, at a time when we're struggling financially and we're like, oh, we're finally getting a few more UNITS ON A TAX ROLL, BUT I THINK IT'S A BET I'M WILLING TO TAKE, I WILL TELL YOU, AND I BELIEVE IN YOU, AND I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT PATH, AND I THINK TRULY IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH, I DO. SO ON TOP OF THAT, I WILL TELL YOU, AS COUNCILMAN WILSON MENTIONED, JOBS, THE BUILDING TRADES, SEIU, THE COUNTLESS JOBS THAT WILL BE PRODUCED And we're not figuring that in the future income that I'm counting on. But the countless jobs for our building trades that will be building these facilities is invaluable. And they all live in the community. They all live in Allegheny County. They're all contributing to the success of Pittsburgh or not. Yeah, so so it'll have my support. This one simple question. If we pass it here in the city of Pittsburgh, then you move on to the school district in the county. If the school district in the county say no way is the project dead? Or you have to have all three bodies? Is that right in order for this trip to go?

We would need to evaluate that.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, um, doesn't necessarily, I wouldn't consider it dead.

Got it.

Got it. Okay. Yeah. Something would have to be worked out, but yeah, I understand. So it's not dependent on all three bodies being in agreement at this point.

We are proposing a three taxing body investment tool and that's how we've, that's, that's what the analysis shows. We, um, I mean that, that's, that's a, that's a different alternative that we're not studying right now. we're, we're presenting this and we believe that this is the tool that I just wanted to make sure it doesn't kill it kill the deal.

That's that that's all good. So keep up the good work. I have confidence in it. I feel like you know, maybe not for my district and maybe not in the next three to five years. But eventually, you know, this is going to be a good thing. One last thing is, you know, the first initial is $200 million.

50.

Yeah, the first one would be up to roughly 50. That's what our analysis showed. OK, up to 50. And you would see that again, just to be clear. Well, that's right. Yeah.

So my point is, if successful, when successful, you'll come back to us for maybe another up to whatever it might be. We at that point, we'll be able to evaluate what you did. We'll be able to count housing units and retail and everything that's coming online. And you know, so yeah, it's a 40 year commitment, but you know, we don't have to fund it. And unless we see results and you'll be coming back to us for after the $50 million, the startup will say, right, you'll be coming back to us and you know, hopefully because it's the big success and we'll hopefully be anxious and eager to fund you because we see the long term forecast. So this is playing for the long term here. I think we need to do that as a city of Pittsburgh known downtown and the struggles that we have there. And we're counting on you. And we're betting on you. So thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilwoman Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will first speak to the amendments in front of us, since that's kind of the discussion round that we're on. And so I appreciate that when I had a meeting after our standing committee agenda, when this was first introduced, I pointed out that I didn't like the map because it was just a little picture in a packet. you know, a tiny, a tiny, literally like one inch picture that really I didn't think to find legal boundaries. And so I believe that that is corrected in the amendment by substitution that we were emailed last night. And I was trying to look at it on a tiny screen, but now this is the first time that we're actually getting it in paper. So can you direct me to like where the boundaries are described in the amendment by substitution that is in my hand? It's long. And it's been a long meeting. So that's also a picture. Yeah, that was just the original picture because this one goes up to 33rd Street. And we were told in the email and then I think in Mr. Wilson's original opening comments here that that boundary removed the area around 31st Street. But this map, this picture that you just handed me, which is larger goes up to 33rd Street.

So the legislation contains the implementation plan as an attachment. The implementation plan, the written description of the boundary begins on page eight.

I'm flipping flipping the page eight.

And while you're looking at that.

Study area and TRID boundary. And so that describes.

So that is the planning study portion of the attachment. The implementation plan is earlier in the packet.

Oh, sorry. The other part of the packet, page eight. Like the slides? The slide deck page eight? Before that. Before the slide deck page eight.

Mm-hmm.

If I may, I can read a written description that might be helpful right now. So as we discuss the legislation, the value capture area includes downtown Pittsburgh and extends to encompass a portion of the North Shore, generally bounded by the Manchester Chateau Trid boundary, Interstate 279 and Interstate 579. The area further includes a portion of the Strip District, generally bounded by the Allegheny River, 29th Street, Railroad Street, 32nd Street, 33rd Street, Liberty Avenue, the 20th Street Bridge, and Martin Luther King, East Busway Corridor, and Interstate 579.

So my copy that's in my hands on page eight says generally bounded by the Allegheny River, or it says, you know, extending from Point State Park and Fort Pitt Boulevard on the west to approximately 33rd Street and adjacent railroad, rail corridor to the east. So my, I think the council packet, DOESN'T READ THE SAME WAY AS WHAT YOU INTENDED. I DO BELIEVE YOU INTENDED. SO WHEN THIS FIRST CAME, THE FIRST TIME IT CAME TO STANDING COMMITTEE, I SAID YOU KEEP SAYING STRIP DISTRICT BUT SOME OF THESE PARCELS THAT I CAN SEE IN YOUR LITTLE SQUIGGLE MAP ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE POLISH HILL. SO BOTH PUT SOME TEXT IN PLACE THAT CLARIFIES IT, EITHER LIST PARCELS, I KNOW YOU CAN LIST PARCELS BECAUSE YOU LIST PARCELS OF where you intended, you know, where you think development is going to be. Or, you know, we do it various ways. We've done it with latitudes and longitudes. Sometimes we do it by street boundaries. Sometimes we do it by neighborhood. Like you could have easily just said, like, I'm bounded by the strip district neighborhood because that is an official boundary. Our city of Pittsburgh neighborhood boundaries are generally by census tract. So they follow census tract boundaries. So, for example, when we redistricted in 2022, Councilman Wilson got the entirety of the Strip District, which follows the census tract boundary, but in fact splits 6th Ward, 1st District in half. So it doesn't actually follow the voting precincts. It does follow the census tract. So I think there are just mistakes here. And then this map that you just handed me, again, goes all the way up to 33rd Street. But then there's a map on, I don't know what section of the thing this is. But this map is clearly different than the map you just handed me. Because it's just got this like hard line up at the top. So there's just inconsistencies throughout the amendment by substitution.

That version, so the attachment contains the implementation plan, the JLL analysis, and the planning study. I believe that that page, the first planning study, at which point would that document be published?

Okay, and I think we didn't have, so can you repeat that? Yeah, just repeat that. Your microphone is off.

So the attachment to legislation is the implementation study, excuse me, the implementation plan, the JLL analysis, as well as the planning study. the implementation plan because it's all packed together the implementation plan is what this legislation is approving the implementation plan and adopting it the implementation plan has that updated language has the updated map on it the planning study at the time the planning study was published the map still did not have that chunk around 31st street cut out i'm going to let you show me in my packet while i talk if you could find

Maybe I was still looking at the wrong page, even though I looked, you know, not the last page eight, not the middle page eight, but the earlier in the packet page eight. And it's still kind of read differently. So I want to be sure that what's in the legislative record is what you think you have. Right. If this is the amendment by substitution, it's supposed to be complete. It's the complete new legislation. That's not like old legislation where there's just an amendment to it. So if you want to show me that, that'd be great.

Yeah. This first part of the packet is the implementation plan. The implementation plan is being updated to reflect the new map. The map that you've been pointing to further back, this is from- This is the old one.

No, but I also read from the other page. So can you find me in the section? So the reason I said it is because the intent was to capture the Strip District, but it included what looked like parcels from Polish Hill. And so when we had the follow-up meetings, I think intent, was to, in this amendment by substitution, to remove the neighborhood Polish Hill parcels that were in there. So once you pass 28th Street, I believe, the parcels that are on your right outbound, so between Liberty Avenue and the railroad tracks or the East Busway, should not be included.

And we removed those parcels.

And so the intent is to remove those parcels. I'm not sure it's reflected because it kind of says it right there where I underlined. It says... GENERALLY ROUND ALL THE WAY APPROXIMATELY TO 33rd STREET ADJACENT RAIL CORRIDOR, WHICH IS POLISH HILL.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS AND OUR DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS. I WANTED TO JUST MAKE TWO NOTES. FROM THE ORIGINAL MAP THAT MR. SINGER SAID WAS INCLUDED IN ONE OF THE PLANNING STUDIES, THERE HAS BEEN TWO CHANGES BASED ON COUNCIL FEEDBACK OVER THE PAST SIX WEEKS. ONE WAS THE REMOVAL. of the Polish Hill parcels at your, and we were really glad that you raised that to us. We wanted to ensure that we were looking at that holistically and in line with neighborhood boundaries, as you suggested. And the other was a recent change around 31st Street in particular. So if there is any updates that we need to make to this, we certainly will in haste. And we are working to do that. But I just wanted to be clear that those were the only two changes that have been made over the past six weeks based on council input.

Okay. So we're you know, is this extra map because it does look like it reflects it on the picture. but I don't see how the text corresponds to the picture. So I think that's interesting. I see, so the 31st Street parcels you're talking about are the city-owned parcels that are the tow pound. So you also excluded those from the capture area. Interesting. Okay, so that's on the parcel. So yeah, if we can clarify these by next Tuesday, we can always, we have to have it in writing so we can, Again, I'm just seeing this on paper for the first time, so I wasn't able to double check that. But I do acknowledge that you agreed to those removals, and that's what we want to make sure isn't inconsistent or is worded correctly. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Also, to the amendment by substitution, I do want to say that... I believe the, it's been a long day, the kind of reflection of intent to ensure labor negotiations is how I'm phrasing that, right? Language is welcome. I wish that we were putting it not in this multi-decade future tax diversion language I think what I heard the councilman say was that it's like anything more than a hundred thousand dollar public investment would ensure the agreements which is great but you know why do we have to divert a hundred million dollars of future tax revenue to get a hundred thousand dollar investment in a few buildings downtown you want to answer that

Yeah, so the requirements on a city subsidy like that for that service worker prevailing wage that is in the city code that was adopted in 2023. This borrows the language from it in order to make precisely clear that money or financing granted through the trade is a public study subsidy like that, therefore triggering those requirements.

Okay, so we can just spend $100,000 and it would trigger the requirements under under ordinance that we already voted on three years ago.

This makes it clear that the TRID money itself.

Yes, but according to the ordinance, what is the threshold for public investment triggering labor negotiations?

$100,000.

So we could just spend $100,000 out of the operating budget or any capital budget in any of these projects, and it would require the same labor negotiating. We don't need to divert decades of future tax revenue to get the requirement of labor requirements. I'm sorry, that's what the... Assistant Chief of Staff to the Mayor just said on the public record, Councilman, who's laughing at the way I rephrased it.

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of my statement.

Oh, please do. Please clarify.

Correct. So I think there is a mix up here that you were saying that we can only require that, make those requirements if we have the TRID. That is not the case. The TRID exists separately from this.

No, I didn't say that. I said we don't actually have to do the TRID. You said the ordinance is already on the books.

THIS IS SAYING THAT THE TRID NOW FALLS UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT.

YOU ALSO SAID THE ORDINANCE EXISTS.

I'M SAYING THE LANGUAGE FROM IT.

SO THE LANGUAGE IS IN THE ORDINANCE. THERE'S AN ORDINANCE.

YES. AND THE ORDINANCE SAYS THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CLASSIFY TRID FINANCING AS A SUBSIDY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LABOR AGREEMENTS HERE FOR SERVICE WORKERS.

IT SAYS, WHAT DOES THE ORDINANCE SAY?

I CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU. You know what? I can just give you the whole copy.

You want me to read it? I'll read it. It's the prevailing wage. City of Pittsburgh service worker prevailing wage ordinance. Number 1-2010, version 2, effective February 18, 2010. Also updated in 2019, in March 2019, and in 2023. So it says that, there's a bunch of definitions. And then it says, The controller shall issue prevailing wage determinations at least every once every 12 months, et cetera, et cetera. I don't see any place where it says, OK. That's 100,000 square feet. Who enforces this?

Uh, so the URA enforces its own prevailing wage requirements for construction work for service worker, prevailing wage. A couple of years ago, the code was changed such that the office of equal opportunity within the city of Pittsburgh enforces service worker, prevailing wage.

Okay. So I'm assuming that this says, because this way it was summarized to me that if the city, if there's a hundred thousand dollars of like city investment in a project, Thank you. We're doing an online summary here. So if the city today if we never passed the trade if we all vote no today on the trade. But the city invest a $100,000 in a downtown project. Then there's a prevailing ways that employees work must work on the project 50 hours a year and then there are prevailing wage rates. So I'm not misrepresenting anyone's words, right? So even if city council votes no on this TRID, there's an ordinance on the books that says if there's $100,000 of public funds, like let's say we just take some money out of the operating budget or a capital budget and put $100,000 into a project, then they have to abide by prevailing wage. I don't think anyone... I don't think I'm misstating that. Okay. So what I'm asserted, what I believe I said was that even if we don't do this, we don't need the TRID to enforce our ordinance, right? So I think that's still true. I think that's the way I'm understanding it correctly.

If there is no TRID, there is nothing to enforce the requirement against.

So I'll continue. So I appreciate that the trade wouldn't be exempt from that ordinance. And so that's great. But I think these comments are a little bit more to the general concept of the trade. So I'll keep it short because we're talking about the amendment here. and I'll wait for the second round, so I can put my hand up for the second round already, or for the round about the amended bill, that you should ask, should we do this? I think the experts at the table have articulated that they can do it. I think that's what their job is, to figure out how to do things. I THINK IT'S FOR US TO DISCUSS AND TO LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD DO IT. AND I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT DISCUSSION WE HAVE TODAY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ON THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY? YES, COUNCILMEMBER WARWICK.

YEAH, SO JUST ON THE AMENDMENT AND SORT OF TO SOMEWHAT EXTEND ON COUNCILWOMAN GROSS'S COMMENTS. You know, we heard from Kim Smith, who worked 37 years, I think she said, in a building and then was just summarily fired, let go from that building, which is terrible. I have 32 BJ members in my district, right, who I see regularly, who I know very well, and I You know, I think these are interesting points that Councilman Gross makes. That's actually not something that I had thought of sort of in thinking about this and talking with the folks at 32BJ. I wonder also if the, and I'm not sure, but if the labor piece element could not be added to the prevailing wage ordinance to kind of cover this. And again, as Councilman Gross said, a much smaller investment We could make a much smaller investment into a downtown project to trigger. But I will say overall that It feels like a shame that, you know, our folks who are working in these buildings downtown are sort of, feel like an afterthought in this process, right? Feel like they sort of had to scramble and get something for, you know, for their workers as a part of this massive proposal that has been months in the making. And that the only way for them to sort of get even a little something is for this giant payout to the very companies that have been treating them so poorly. That's a shame. And I think that as this body, we can absolutely do better. For the amendment, obviously, we'll get into it. I'm not supportive of the overall trade, but for the amendment to have this in there, I'm certainly supportive of them. getting some help through you know in in this package should it pass overall but again I think as a body we can absolutely and we should absolutely do better for our downtown service workers thank you thank you further discussion round one on the amendment round two second round Councilman Wilson

Yeah, I just want to I'll be brief about the comments about the 100 K means really just to prevent something like, you know, small that would be, you know, I think even the greater ordinance is always just, you know, 100 K isn't going to bring downtown back, but it at least prevents, you know, some smaller projects from having to be a part of this language. So it tries to keep it moving and And then I guess I don't think we should use the word shame around assisting workers downtown in this time. I think it's really important that we recognize this is just how the process goes as we continually have the conversation, which in my general comments I want to make later about how people participate in their government. But I think this city's elected leaders have always had a good relationship with UM THEIR UNIONS AND THIS IS A PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE UM CONTINUOUSLY AS WE WORK THROUGH LEGISLATION SO I THINK IT'S A PRETTY BIG WIN FOR SERVICE WORKERS AND I WOULDN'T WANT THAT UH LANGUAGE LIKE SHAME TO CLOUD ANY OF THAT THANKS YOU FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT SECOND ROUND SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF UM AMENDING BILL 531 and the implementation plan.

And the implementation plan by substitution? I apologize, was that the motion?

You know, I have, my motion was just to amend. Okay. Because it is, it is.

The amendments are grounded in the text. It is bolded, right? Yeah, okay.

The amendments are bolded, but I've been here before where someone has suggested that the best route is to amend by substitution, so I would, I'll defer to you. Madam clerk with is the best. OK men by substitution.

OK so all those in favor of amending bill 5.31 by substitution, please say aye aye aye thank you. And then passes. Further discussion on the bill 5.31 as amended. Councilman Wilson I see and then I know Councilman gross and we will go from there.

Okay, thanks so thank you all from the table appreciate the initial to the interaction in terms of learning this because there has been you know quite the narrative been created and we had a council member go online and make a video saying that there were developer giveaways before they even knew that these were loans and so can you just once again confirm that these are loans to projects.

Yes.

Okay. How serious are those loans? Because it's also been insinuated that these are just fake loans.

How serious are the loans? IN MY PRACTICE, WHEN WE MAKE LOANS, WE ENTER INTO A VARIETY OF AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING MORTGAGE AGREEMENTS, SECURITY AGREEMENTS. SORRY. I'M DEFINING SERIOUS AS AGREEMENTS THAT BACK SERIOUSNESS. SO MORTGAGE AGREEMENTS, SECURITY AGREEMENTS, PAYMENT AGREEMENTS, THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE NEGOTIATED AND CODIFY THE INVESTMENTS AND THE REMEDIES THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE LOANS ARE REPAID.

All right and I know I may call before that there are zero defaults on loans of this type involving a TRID or a TIF.

So yeah borrowings against TIFs and TRIDs have a zero default.

yeah okay and so the just you know I just want to try to make more sense of this language that's been kind of energized here that this is some sort of giveaway because you know as we continue to look at downtown and the need to really make sure that people know that downtown matters And I don't think we're I agree with I don't think we're doing a good job telling that story. And I think we've had I've expressed that to everyone. And I know it's a balance because we don't want to say, you know, we have people who are really invested. We have a whole separate business, you know, entity that has the bid for downtown and the PDP and they're really promoted. We just have Picklesburg. We want people to come downtown. We don't want them to think that there are tumbleweeds going through the streets. But it is a story that we should tell. And for our residents to not really understand, especially since I've heard so many commenters say that, I'M REALLY HEARING THAT DOWNTOWN DOESN'T MATTER IN IN MOST OF THE COMMENTS AND SO I THINK IT'S BEST THAT YOU KNOW WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT DOWNTOWN MATTERS FOR OUR NOT ONLY OUR LARGER BUDGET BUT ALSO JUST HOW WE CONTINUE FORWARD I MEAN WE'RE TALK I REPRESENT DOWNTOWN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONVERTING THESE STRUCTURES WHERE THERE'S RESIDENTS AND I WOULD HAVE I would have to represent those residents so these are people live in Pittsburgh, the people that could come to Pittsburgh and live current residents that could take advantage of the affordable housing that will be downtown and I'm looking forward to that I know that this Council's been on the forefront of doing that with us with alert or the conversion funds for the URA. You know there's multiple ways that this Council has try to step up and make these conversions happen. and so we're seeing this once again that we need to continue to uh inject more resources into these these projects so that we can have uh for years to come more than 40 years you know more than four years we can actually have a downtown uh you know that is producing the amount of tax revenue that we expect We had a a bridge that just got blown up right outside of a tunnel I don't want to see that downtown. I'd rather not see buildings just continually, you know come down. And we're celebrating that I want to be on the opposite of that so that we're really going into the name of to the neighborhoods and delivering. I CAN SAY FOR MYSELF, BEING A CITY COUNCIL PERSON FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, IT'S BEEN INCREDIBLE TO WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD TO REALLY DELIVER ON PROJECTS AND WHAT I WASN'T SEEING IN PEOPLE THAT HAVE REACHED OUT WHO ARE AGAINST THIS TRID OR PEOPLE THAT I'M ACTUALLY WORKING WITH TO GET THOSE PROJECTS DONE. And I think it's important to recognize that Spring Hill was called out twice here for the lack of transit. I thought we should recognize the amount of the amount of investment that has taken place in Spring Hill. I think it's a great example and it's going to continue. So let's talk about the 200. And this is how wide my downtown matters. We were able to build sidewalks from a 200 unit apartment complex, affordable housing complex that was literally it's literally cut off and we built sidewalks to the new. We built a half mile sidewalk to the new park. And that park is being renovated for upwards of $6 million. And then we also connected that part of our neighborhood, the 200 units, to the only bus stop that we have in the neighborhood. And just recently, we also are starting to invest in the sidewalks in the major corridor where we have been seeing people walk on the street, even with strollers, and it's completely unacceptable. So in this coming month, you'll actually see traffic calming happen on that street and also on Aiton Street and also Rhine. And so it's been incredible to work with people in the neighborhood that are committed to that effort. And so I just think that it's something where I see what happens here with public comment and I wonder, how could we really show that downtown matters for our neighborhoods? And I think it's a good story to tell about all the good projects that are happening and continuing to happen. and not to act like government just turns its eye to these neighborhoods. And we're committed. When we put sidewalks in, there was never a sidewalk for this one bus stop. I never heard from any transit people about how we piggybacked off of one project in Spring Hill to actually so people weren't standing in dirt in a bus stop. No one came to me. That was just something that government stepped in and we did that. We continually want to know from the public where we're lacking so we can do better. I think it's also important to recognize something that I want to get to, but I don't know fully, which is the conversation around affordable housing. Has any of the affordable housing advocates reached out about any of these projects that are happening downtown, the affordable ones? Because from my understanding, this would take the affordable housing numbers from upwards of the whole downtown, if you count every unit, about 21% of those units would be affordable. Have you all been been contacted about how? Because these are those projects that were there in the pipeline for this trade that we're looking at? I think there's roughly five or six. Some are 100%. Well, have you all been contacted by any of these organizations?

No, we have not. Okay, so, but we have been in touch with our affordable housing partners.

Okay, great. And how does that? How does that happen?

And we have a we have ongoing relationships with them they they need they need tools to help move their projects forward and this downtown trade can help with that.

You said they have tools.

So who are the partners? They need tools. Oh, they need tools. Like Beacon. Beacon is a wonderful partner downtown. I think they have three projects coming out of the ground. Oh, okay. I guess I was talking about advocates that came.

Oh, advocates. Because they're saying there's no, this is a giveaway of developers. There's going to be luxury condos. But I'm hearing you all say we're going to produce more affordable housing downtown than any other neighborhood. I mean, I'm sorry. That's a pretty big statement. But, you know, where there is luxury condos.

I don't believe we've heard from advocates. I mean, except for listening to them in our meetings, your meetings. I don't want to speak for my colleagues.

Yeah, so I feel like the effort that I'm hearing from some of the for housing advocates that it's not a win unless they're able to write it, that if we actually just go and do it, if we go and do it, and we work with beacon, we work with other individuals, and we put in, you know, requirements in alerta, to say that you have to do X amount of affordable housing if you get a tax break. And then also in this, when we work with all the projects that are like tech, which are, you know, those are the only ones that are getting the money, but they still have a gap, right?

Is that correct to the live tech projects, live tech projects have required, they always have one, there's lots of gap finances required.

Do you think the housing advocates aren't aware of live tech? Like should

I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS, RIGHT, WHERE IT HAPPENS AT THE URA.

VERY PUBLIC PROCESS, YES. AND WE SEEK BOARD AUTHORIZATION TO HELP FILL THOSE FUNDING GAPS IN LIHTC PROJECTS AND THOSE GO TO OUR BOARD. And the half half advisory board and then the URA.

Okay. And for 40 years, this 40 year talking point, this is for the whole. Basically, it's for the ability in those 40 years to take out these bonds.

Right.

Every time you have to come back to the table for $50 million or $40 million.

It allows for multiple borrowings within the term of the trip, subject to authorization of borrowings.

Okay.

All right, good. Just one note on that. So the multiple borrowing rounds across four years, just for context. So now we've talked about multiple borrowings and 20-year stretches and coming back to council. for context for council members the general obligation bonds that council routinely votes on are also for the same 20-year terms this is not an abnormally long term it's a term that council's very very familiar with and votes to approve yeah almost uniformly every single time without fail okay great and then we also have a transit advocate did the transit advocate reach out about the transit piece of this yet no but we're in touch with the port authority oh okay

And we've heard their public comments in the meetings.

Were they involved with the Manchester Trid at all? I don't think so. I just think there's a big disconnect here where we are working with members of a union that are really trying to make sure that they have a seat at the table. And I really want to have that conversation of how we all get wins. But I really think it happens just like we've had some other conversations with NTTs who are getting a win here, or at least they're celebrating with us, that we could maybe try to have a better understanding. I'm a little bit perplexed here why those conversations haven't happened, not on you, you know, just in general, since this has been in the public for like 106 days.

I appreciate your support and encouragement on this. And I agree that there's a more clear story to tell than I think sometimes is being heard at this point in time. And I think that's a, you know, a good charge for all of us collectively. And just kind of as a refresher is kind of like, you know, what, why we're doing this and like why this really matters is, downtown represents approximately 25 of the city's total tax base. So since 2024, downtown real estate assessments have declined by 813 million, which represents a 42% decline and reduces annual real estate taxes, tax revenues by 7.9 million for the city of Pittsburgh. So without strategic investment, this current trend will continue. So this is a tool that we think will really help stabilize and strengthen and then ultimately increase our city's tax base at large that will benefit all neighborhoods. And so that that's really, you know, the intent behind it. And, you know, we, we talked a lot about affordability and how this TRID can play like, you know, a tool in a, you know, a line in a capital stack for, for light tech projects and affordable projects in particular. The URA has such a phenomenal track record of creating affordable housing units over the past several years, in particular, largely through the Pittsburgh Downtown Conversion Program and the Affordable Housing Bond, which Director Shoshila Numani-Stenger has said we've deployed those funds. We need to look at different tools. We need to be creative, and this is how we are proposing to do so. As we've talked about, and I really appreciate you highlighting the affordability issue in particular, as we said, of the units we're tracking right now, currently we're at 18% in terms of affordable units downtown, and with the investments that we're tracking in the TRID, we're hoping to take that total affordable percentage of downtown units to above 20, hopefully to 21%. So affordability is top of mind and we're practitioners with deep expertise in this and have a lot of partners that are long-term committed to these similar goals as detailed by Executive Director Nomani-Steinger.

Councilman, if I may build off some of the points that Catherine just made, I think it is worth noting that in building up that tax base, I think there's a bit of a misconception that we are giving away existing tax revenue, that we are that the trade is somehow going to mean that we start taking in if the trade was adopted by every taxing body tomorrow that we the city of pittsburgh start somehow taking in less revenue than we are today that's not how this works the the the diversion impacts incremental increases in that value the idea that this is guaranteed future revenue that was definitely 100 going to come in that's a that's a category error that's a major misunderstanding of what is going on downtown and The reason we believe that there will be money to fund the diversion, to be able to fund projects, to build more affordable housing, to support small businesses, to improve our public realm, to increase transit access, is because the TRID will spur that activity and that development. That is the money that's diverted. It's not the money that we're currently collecting today. Our revenues are not going to decline because of the TRID. I think that's been something that a lot of folks, I think, have misinterpreted and misunderstood. So I do think it is worth clarifying that.

yeah I feel like I feel bad everyone left because you know it would be great to try and have more of a moment where we're trying to understand like are you against the you know let me just say this before I say this last line I originally you know saving downtown was at the forefront then as i continue to listen to you know people criticize it it really felt like we were doing a really bad thing and the angle was that there this was just a giveaway developers for market rate housing or you know luxury condos and i'm hearing it's quite the opposite in this you in this in this plan here so you know i just don't know if like voting against this is voting against all these affordable housing projects that's laid out in the jlo report that's online to the public so You know. I don't know I feel like if I was in the world of waking up every day trying to figure out how to get more for housing in the city of Pittsburgh, I'll be calling you up and saying how do we fill this gap of this 100%. You know a 104 to 100 affordable units that's you know. How many are there 8080 units will be in one of the structures. I MEAN 60 70 80 INITS AND IT COULD BE MORE COULD BE LESS BUT YEAH I FEEL LIKE I'D BE DOING THAT YOU KNOW BUT APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS DONE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO NOT ONLY PROVIDE FOR YOU KNOW NEW RESIDENTS BETTER LIVING FOR DIFFERENT RESIDENTS YOU KNOW GOOD JOBS FOR WORKERS AND THEN ALSO FUTURE REVENUE THAT WE CAN COUNT ON THANK YOU

Councilman just really quickly on that I do again on behalf the administration want to thank you for your leadership in championing the worker protection so we can ensure this revitalization of downtown it isn't just for the buildings isn't just for the city's coffers for the people that keep those buildings running every single day so we can help protect family sustaining good union jobs. So thank you for that. Definitely. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

Councilwoman gross. Thank you, Madam Chair. So To start off about, I think where I ended my last comments, you know, we really need to be debating, you know, what we should do, all right, and not just that it's possible to do it. And so I really want us to think about what we heard. Let's just start off with what we heard at public comment today and the differences there. I appreciate that we were just touching upon the possibilities for affordable housing projects that may be looking for funding, right? And so they have some gaps in their financing. They don't have their financing all in place. It is a tough financial market for commercial real estate all across the country, not just in central business districts. I can tell you, right, with representing one part of the city that has probably seen more new construction than any other part of the city in the last 10 years. I used to have the strip, so now I don't have the strip. Councilman Wilson has that, so that's maybe no longer true. But there are stalled projects in other neighborhoods as well, not just downtown, right? And so this trade won't help us fund those projects in Oakland. This trade wouldn't help us fund those projects in the strip because we're taking money out of the strip, not putting money in the strip. This proposal won't help us fund the stalled projects on Bond Boulevard in Bloomfield or Friendship. So it's proposed to only invest in the stalled projects downtown. And so I think we heard the reasoning there that many, many times, so I'm gonna start with the reasoning of, so why should we do this? And we're told we should do this because the Central Business District, I'm not using the language of Golden Triangle, because I don't actually think those are the same boundaries, and I think the boundaries you're proposing are the Central Business District, is 25% of property tax revenue. Property tax revenue is only 25% of city revenue. So for the current budget year, we're expecting to see some $700 million in revenue for the operating budget. Property tax is expected citywide. Your house, my house, apartment buildings, Oakland, Hazelwood, West End, Banksville, all of it together will generate $171 million, only $171 million out of 700 million in revenue. So just curiously, when you look back at 25 years ago, it hasn't even increased that much, probably because we haven't had a reassessment in so many years, right? We're going on 13 years or something like that. probably should have increased more, but it didn't. So we need those reassessments because there's something like the Strip District and the State of the Strip reports that it's had two and a half billion dollars of new construction. over the last 10 years or so. So we hope that those are assessed properly. Hopefully that any abatements they got are nearing their end and aren't a 20-year abatement. Hopefully they're only 10-year abatements. And so we get the property tax value out of there. 25% of 25%, right? Bear with me, right? Property taxes are only 25% of our total budget. And central business district is only 25% of that. That means it's six and a quarter percent of our total city budget. So it's about 40 million. I checked in with the controller, right? So our projected revenue for this year is $700 million. And downtown right now, is generating about 40 million of that, about 42. So we're told that that has dropped by $8 million, some $7.9 million or so in the last, since COVID. And then when I had a meeting with the RA and I said, let's talk concrete numbers instead of these percentages, I was told that we could predict that it might drop another 4 million. So 4 million is like another half a percent of the city revenue. Right, and so I think what I'm hearing from emails I'm getting, not people who came out to public comment, but also emails to my office to not vote for this is that I think our residents are saying, you know, it's not worth it. I'm not sure it's worth it. Right, so sure, are there some business owners who are struggling to repurpose their buildings? Yeah, is there some gap financing needed? Yeah, but there's gap financing needed across the city. And this doesn't help with that. People want us to buy the school buildings that are closing in their neighborhoods. This doesn't help with that. People want us to reopen their pools or the rec centers. This doesn't help with that. You know, we heard a lot of great ideas for public investment today. And we hear this, you know, there are people who've been asking about this in community meetings, you know, for years now, right? Can we do more affordable housing, more accessible housing? Can we do more with community land trusts? This doesn't help with that. Can we do limited equity housing co-ops? Can you help us invest in our main streets, in our 90 neighborhoods, not just this one? And you could say like, oh, it's gonna divert funds. The plan actually says you're gonna divert the funds from the Strip and the North Shore and put that money in downtown. So those funds would go, they're not gonna receive funds. Those are projects that are just gonna happen. You're gambling that they're going to happen all the way up to 31st Street and almost wiggling around it up to 33rd Street. You're gonna bet on Wall Street that they're happening. They're gonna pledge that future tax revenue to borrowing. AND THEN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO THE ACTUAL PROJECTS. YOU WANT IT TO BE FLEXIBLE. YOU MADE THAT VERY CLEAR. YOU WANT IT TO BE FLEXIBLE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET 50 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT A TAXABLE BOND GETS BECAUSE WE JUST DID THAT. FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING FUNDED ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PROJECTS. I VOTED FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND. I PUBLICLY REGRETTED THAT IT TAX EXEMPT BOND BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN PROBABLY TEN MORE MILLION DOLLARS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE PUT $30 MILLION THAT'S COMMITTED, FULLY COMMITTED, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, FULLY COMMITTED INTO PROJECTS. BUT WE'RE PAYING $62.5 MILLION FOR IT OUT OF THE CITY OPERATING BUDGET. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GIVING UP $32.5 MILLION. WE GOT LESS THAN 50% RETURN ON THAT BOND. We're giving up $32.5 million over the next 20 years to Wall Street because the need for affordable housing was so urgent and so now. I don't know that that's true here. So the proposal is like, oh, look, there could be $200 million, it says it right there in the JLL report, of future projects who don't need the money, who will be giving the money. And so let's give 100 million of that to Wall Street in order to have the cash up front now. I don't know. I don't think so. I think that's a terrible idea. So, you know, invest in daycare, child care businesses, invest in more community health centers, invest in sidewalk repair, invest in city steps, invest in transit and paratransit around the city. That's what the general fund is for. And we're talking about taking money out of it. to borrow against it so we lose about half of it so that we can have it today and not later. And I'm not sure that there's that much of a crisis. When I asked at the table several weeks ago, well, okay, we understand the occupancy is really bad. I was told, no, it's not, it's 80%. Did you guys figure out if that's right or wrong? Because if it's at 80%, that's not a crisis. So is that still true? Is occupancy downtown 80%?

What's the question?

What is the occupancy rate downtown?

Oh, occupancy rate.

I'm sorry. I thought I said it clearly.

For office, I think the occurrence is 75% or so. That could include shadow leasing. I mean, there's a variety of data points, but that's what we track. I think the conference and PDP keep pretty good track of those data points.

I don't hear a crisis. I do hear that maybe there are some deals. that have some gap financing, like in Oakland, like in Southside, like in my district. And so, they're not really that different. And it certainly isn't 25%, I don't want anyone out there, it was stated very precisely, right, that the downtown central business district is 25% of property tax revenue. It's not 25% of city revenue. Just don't make that mistake. anyone here at the table or at the public. So we're talking 25% of 25% because property tax revenue is really less, a lot less of our city budget than it used to be 25 years ago. In fact, earned income is another 25% of city revenue. And so, yeah, does it suck that some of these business owners were granted reassessments to, you know, again, it's in Councilman Mosley's example, you know, they used to have $100 million building they were paying his property taxes on and now the courts have allowed them to for it to be like a $50 million building. And that is definitely a hit on our income, but it's in tiny percentages. And we don't want that to get worse, certainly. And interest rates will change. Financing will change. Money will probably loosen back up again one of these days. Money's tight. We can talk to anybody who's trying to build anything. Their money is more expensive right now, and that's why they have gaps. So I'm not sure we should. I also would like to hear from our guests at the table about the creation of this small value capture area, so that the proposal is that because there is a crisis downtown, which just doesn't look as much of a crisis to me as being painted, that we have to take REVENUE THAT SHOULD GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE $2.5 BILLION OF THE STRIP DISTRICT THAT MAY BE NEW REVENUE IN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. AND DIVERT AND BORROW AGAINST IT INTO THE FUTURE AND THEN INVEST IT TODAY DOWNTOWN. AND SO IT HAS, AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE, LIKE THIS REALLY BIG AREA OF THE CITY THAT HAS A LOT OF HOT DEVELOPMENT THAT IT WANTS TO divert 75% of future revenue from. Those are deals that they're sure is going to happen. They're so sure they're going to happen that they're going to gamble against it on Wall Street. But only invest in the small investment area. Chapter 7 of statute, of state law, says under the TRID Act, that my staff put in front of me here, investment area and the value capture area be coterminous, have the same boundaries. So explain.

In our initial evaluation with JLL, we believe that because of the strong market in the Strip District, it made a lot of sense to include Strip District parcels along with downtown parcels in the Value Capture District.

So you'd like to take money from one geographic area and invest it in a separate geographic area?

It's all one walkable community.

And if you would like to put it in conjunction with the formal establishment of the trade boundaries, a coterminous value capture area shall simultaneously be created to enable local municipalities, school districts of the county and the public transportation agency to share the increased tax increment. Statute says that the investment area and the value capture area be the same.

I don't think that that's true. I mean, if you look at the statute, the statute also the the spirit of the statute is meant to encourage walkability.

But it explicitly says that they be the same. So it doesn't matter what the spirit is because it explicitly says it in words.

YES, SPIRIT IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD. SO THE TRID STATE STATUTE EXPLICITLY STATES THAT TRID DISTRICTS AND TRID INVESTMENT SHOULD ENCOURAGE WALKABILITY AND SHOULD ADVANCE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S GREAT AS LONG AS YOU CAPTURE THE VALUE FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO INVEST IN THE WALKABILITY. SO THE INVESTMENT BOUNDARY for your proposal is the central business district. The state law says that the value capture area should be the downtown central business district.

So I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

So I know there are other members who want to speak and I know I'm only like the second one on this round. So I don't think there is the calamity that is presented. And I also think that The TRID law and state law says that you can't. So I did say earlier that I think you said you can. So I'm both saying we shouldn't and I'm also now saying we can't. I didn't realize I was saying we can't, but I don't believe we can. You could propose to capture value from the downtown central business district and invest in the downtown central business district and improve walkability, improve access to transit, invest, I would love you to see, invest in limited equity housing co-ops downtown, invest in childcare downtown, invest in sidewalks downtown, invest in land trusts downtown, and invest in healthcare centers downtown, invest in all the things that we hear are really important to people. and commit to it because none of those things are in your proposal. And I hear you saying that you want flexibility. But what I hear the public saying is like, actually, they would like to know what you intend to do with this. So I'll stop there, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Warwick.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gross. So, you know, the city is by all accounts in dire financial straits, right? And the Strip District is an area that is booming with new development, which of course means new revenue, right, in the coming years. And I think that if you asked any Pittsburgher on the street, right, and this is not left, right, center, you know, should we, know we're we're broke right now should we take out a loan with interest against the next 40 years of of these revenue increases in our most valuable area in order to inject that money into private development projects for our wealthiest land owners who've already actually gotten hundreds of millions of dollars of investment of public investment and you know with no commitment on paper that those funds will go to projects that include affordable housing. Only vague promises that a little bit of that money will go to public infrastructure, transit, and just general, any public benefit is murky at best. I feel like if you explain that to any Pittsburgher on the street, they'd say that it sounds like the taxpayers are getting ripped off because that's what it sounds like, right? It sounds like the taxpayers giving money to private developers for something that does not benefit them. And I know that these things are complicated and there's perhaps folks at this table that You know, well maybe the average Pittsburgher just like isn't smart enough to understand this, to like really get it and why it's so important that we do this because it's so complicated. But do you know who is smart enough to understand this? Is our city controller. And that's why she wrote us an email yesterday voicing her concerns about this TRID. And I'm just going to read just a couple. It's a pretty long email, so I suggest that members read it carefully. But she writes, the URA projects that in 2029, the city may see $2 million in TRID generated revenues. Notably, this would require every single project on the URA's proposed budget list, including those currently termed, quote, theoretical, to be completed and reassessed by 2029. The controller's office would be remiss not to highlight that several of the projects on this list would not actually contribute any additional tax revenue to the city due to their eligibility under the downtown LERDA. By contrast, the projects in the Strip District that we know will be completed by 2029 would bring $2.2 million of additional revenue without the TRID. With the TRID, these developments would provide the city with only $550,000. And then a little bit later, she says, The city and URA tried taking out debt for downtown redevelopment over 25 years ago in an attempt to improve the city's declining financial situation. It did not work then, and the decision was a component in our Act 47 status. It's important to note that this scenario is not exactly the same, but it is similar enough to warrant careful consideration. So That aside though, the revenue issue aside, the fact that we need revenue. We are not in a place right now at the City of Pittsburgh to just be giving money away to things that do not directly benefit the residents of this city. I also want to talk about blight, because we do talk a lot about blight at this table. We talk a lot about vacant and abandoned properties, and we talk a lot about the land bank, and we talk a lot about the need for demos. For $130, maybe $150 million over five years, the land bank could stabilize, or we could demo, stabilize where we can, demo if we can't, but stabilize every vacant and abandoned home in this city and then sell them. That would put those properties all back on the tax rolls. That would eliminate the blight. that would create the actual family friendly housing that Pittsburghers really want, right? This is not, you know, the people are not clamoring in Pittsburgh for one bedroom apartments, right? They really want single family homes. And on those sales, we could recoup, you know, 30 to 40% of the cost. And that would be every neighborhood from Hazelwood to the Hilltop, to the North side, to the West end, to Homewood and beyond. Right? So just to say, you know, if we weren't having these financial problems and we could just make this giant investment, that is an investment that we could actually make in the vacant and abandoned properties that are littering this city. Um, so the last thing that I'll just say, and this is, this is for the folks who came out today for all the speakers. And I know this has been a long day and a few of you have stayed. Um, thank you so much for coming out and for making your voices heard on this. And please keep showing up and please keep telling your friends and your neighbors and your community groups about this, because I really want to point out that Not a single of our city broadcast channels are here today. A packed city council meeting talking about $200 million of tax revenue, and WTAE is not here, and WPXI is not here, and KDKA is not here. And that is a travesty. So please make sure that we keep talking about this because it is so important. This is our city today and the tax dollars for the next two generations. So anyway, that's all for me. Thank you.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER FIRST ROUND ON THIS THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER FIRST ROUND ON THIS THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER FIRST ROUND ON THIS ROUND? ANY FURTHER FIRST ROUND ON THIS ROUND?

ROUND? ROUND? COUNCILMAN COGHILL. COUNCILMAN COGHILL. COUNCILMAN COGHILL. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. MAYBE WE WENT OVER THIS AT ONE I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. MAYBE WE WENT OVER THIS AT ONE I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. MAYBE WE WENT OVER THIS AT ONE POINT. MAYBE WE WENT OVER THIS AT ONE POINT. MAYBE WE WENT OVER THIS AT ONE POINT. I At what point does it switch over? There must be projects in the make right now, I'm sure, with units and retail and all that. Will it be anything that comes new online? Is that when it would start as far as the taxes go? Or would it have to be after we solidify everything and you are part of a project?

I can start. I mean, the plan has to get approved by all three tax inquiries. Once it's approved, there's a process of a cooperation agreement that the taxing bodies all agree to, and PRT in this case. The mechanism of the collection of taxes, once the plan is established by the taxing body, that sort of sets the date that the plan's in place. The incremental taxes then are when projects that meet the test of being pledged within this TRID are completed.

Even ones that are existing now? And aren't quite finished.

Unquote finished, right. Right. So as an example, one of the parcels in this trade plan is on the North Shore. So they're out of the ground. Once that project's completed, it'll be reassessed. And once it's reassessed, it'll have a new assessed value. The incremental real estate tax, excuse me, and I'm not close enough to this, would be against that incremental value. And that would be the mechanism for which those taxes are available and available to divert to the trade.

So once passed, if passed, then any projects that are in the make now, once they're complete, they would be part of the TRID. Because they're already inked, basically, doesn't exclude them from the taxpayer dollars being diverted to the TRID, correct?

Correct once the 3 taxing bodies approved and there's a related cooperation agreement and the the district is sent and the project is reassessed, that's when we can start to divert those pledged taxes to repay.

Regardless of whether they're being built right now. That's correct. Or being built after. That's correct. Once they're finished and online, providing it's approved. Correct. Okay. That was my question. I just want to reiterate a couple of things. First and foremost, I know Councilwoman Gross mentioned the bond that I did not vote for to 30%. million dollar bond that we're paying $32 million of interest. There's a reason I don't vote for that, because I didn't see, although noble cause affordable housing, and yes, we were able to put that money into many different pipelines, but I didn't see the return on that money for the city of Pittsburgh. I really don't, right? It's a great thing. It's wonderful that And I will say that this city has put more towards affordable housing than I would have ever imagined. So we have far done our part as far as that goes. But I didn't see a return on the money. And I would not be supporting this, again, if this is a business decision for me. It's short-term pain for long-term gain. And in the way of earned income tax of any retail or any jobs and any businesses that come online. Property tax, of course, for any of the housing and retail alike. Population. It could be give us a population boost in the long term, if successful. And jobs. I mean, you know, we're creating a bunch of jobs and we don't factor that into the finances, but the jobs that are created for our local unions that, you know, is a big part of this for me as far as consideration. So I'm banking on that we're going to get 12 fold, as you say, director, you know, eventually. And yes, does it mean we're not going to be able to collect taxes on new things coming in? Yeah, it does. But I'm betting on the long term, I think. trids have proven themselves in the places that we've used them effectively i don't think this is going to be any different i'm counting on a i'm counting on you know future income that we don't have future population jobs that will start immediately pretty much and um you know i think you've proven yourself um and the controller has you know issues with it or something i understand her concerns but the same time you know i'm looking for the future of the city of pittsburgh and i'm looking for financial stability and i'm looking for a revitalized downtown and we don't get there without this i i don't feel so this is the the first the beginning again we'll be able to evaluate before you come asking for more money hopefully we'll want to give you more because you'll show us the successes that you've had and what it's going to mean to our future So I just want the public to know and the speakers that came down today, I understand all their concerns. I have the same concerns. But again, this is an investment. This is not a $62 million bond that we're not getting anything in return on. So I'm counting on a return, 12-fold would be great. I think it could even be bigger and better if all goes right. FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF PITTSBURGH I THINK THEY'LL BE THANKFUL AND SAY LOOK BACK AT THIS AND SAY THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD IDEA HELPED REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN INCREASED THE POPULATION CREATED A LOT OF JOBS AND YOU KNOW UM INCREASED OUR TAX BASE SO OKAY AGAIN MY SUPPORT THANKS THANK YOU THANK YOU FURTHER DISCUSSION FIRST ROUND ON THIS PORTION OF FIRST ROUND OKAY SECOND ROUND COUNCILMAN WILSON ALL RIGHT THANKS I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE

I think once again, we're seeing a narrative trying to be created here without really asking you any questions. Since you all are the ones that would be facilitating this, this shred. Can you help me understand when we talk, when we hear language about like leaving this to Wall Street? We have multiple conversations about what happens whenever someone provides an application. Is that what you're doing? Are you working on Wall Street to figure out what projects are happening, or is this the end money?

I don't know what that means. You also mentioned fake loans.

I'm talking about the deals to make these projects happen.

Are you talking about how do we underwrite and our underwriting process for investment?

Tom, can you feel like if we provide fun? I don't know. I'm not like you're the expert. We're trying to figure out how we can mitigate the risk and definitely prevent the narrative that we're just just doing this about the seat of our pants.

You please explain what you're sure I'm making from an underwriting perspective. I can talk about that again. I The specific comment of gambling with Wall Street, I'm not sure how to address that. So from an underwriting perspective, and this is against any development we will look at in considering providing gap financing to commercial development, commercial real estate development and housing development, receive applications from projects that are seeking financing. WE HAVE A TEAM OF PROFESSIONAL UNDERWRITERS WHO HAVE EXPERTISE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS MARKET RATE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDERWRITE THE REQUESTS AGAINST THE NEED. WE RECEIVE APPRAISALS, PERFORMAS, THESE TYPES OF THINGS, EVIDENCE OF THE OTHER FINANCING, EVIDENCE OF VALUE. and what the capital stack is and underwrite whether or not there is in fact, I use the term of art sort of but for test, right? Like but for the request that the development is making, will this project not happen? So we underwrite against that. Once we've gone through that underwriting process, we use third party loan review committees as Sheila, our executive director described, which are made up of other lenders, other folks who have expertise in development and underwriting commercial real estate and housing finance. at some basic level to help check us, right, to make sure that we're kind of using sound underwriting standards and help us make decisions around recommendations to move forward with these investments in individual projects. Once it meets those two tests and individual recommendations, then it comes to our board. When I say our board, the URA's board of directors, and as Executive Director Namani Stenger mentioned, our board is a public board. It meets monthly as it constitutes today. Two members of city council are on our board as well as YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. SO IT'S A PUBLIC PROCESS. AND AT THAT POINT, THEN, WITH BOARD APPROVAL, IT'S AN APPROVED INVESTMENT INTO AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

WE CAN COVER THE BOND, TOO. SO WE GO TO MARKET FOR A BOND. DO YOU THINK IT'S A GAMBLE? DO YOU THINK WE'RE THROWING OUR CITY'S FUTURE AWAY TO WALL STREET IF WE We take the current bond interest rate and then convert that into loans for two or $3 million loans that you underwrite. And you're not like some banker, right? You live in the city of Pittsburgh, right? Yes, I do. I just want to make sure.

It's funny, I sat back there.

I want to make sure that you are a, you all live in the city, your current residence, you're feeling the struggle to.

Yeah, I mean, my taxes.

We all do. I have kids, as we've talked about, kids in high school, kids at Pitt. They like to have jobs in places.

Do you think, do I think we're gambling with,

You think we're gambling by going out for interest? Maybe I'll put this a different way.

So I won't personally be.

We'll probably know within the .0001 range of what we're going to get.

Assuming at the pleasure of this body, the pleasure of the school board, the pleasure of the county. And we get to a point where we're now going to underwrite and float DuBois. There's a team of professional underwriters that will work with us. It's not the people at this table sitting around making decisions on how to structure a bond. That will factor in what is the best structure of debt to ensure that it's— Hold on a second, hold on a second.

People that make—I'm just being frank here.

Professionals, yeah.

Work at the URA?

No, we will hire third parties.

Okay, the third parties.

Okay, I just wanna make sure through this for other folks, right? So as an example, I'll just give an example. There are other district wide investment areas across the Commonwealth. So as an example, Allentown has a investment zone that's a similar sort of Pittsburgh's not allowed to have these things. That's a whole nother different conversation with state law, where they're allowed to divert portions of local taxes to invest in their city, and they float debt all the time against their Chris. They utilize professional underwriters to monitor and analyze cash flow, decide, okay, if we structure debt in a specific way and we go to market in a certain way. There's timing issues around interest rates. I think you kind of got to this with the housing bond. There's ways to structure debt so that it is advantageous to allow for optionality to guarantors to get out of it earlier if things are going well, these types of things. I personally will not be doing that. The URA would hire third party professionals who do this across the country, really, with municipalities, with government agencies, with other redevelopment authorities to structure debt in a way that's both efficient from the borrower's perspective, right, like in terms of the interest rate, AND IS MINIMIZING THE RISK TO THE BORROWER OF DEFAULT. WE WOULD BRING THAT TO YOU. ONCE WE COME BACK. WE HAVE A SECOND VOTE. YOU WOULD LOOK AT IT. WE WOULD INVITE FRANKLY THE CITY FINANCE AND EVERYONE TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT.

THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS AROUND THE CONTROLLER'S LETTER. SO JUST SPECIFICALLY IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE 25 25 YEARS AGO THERE WAS A BOND RIGHT OR I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LANGUAGE BUT IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE THING BUT WERE YOU HERE 25 YEARS AGO I WAS NOT OKAY DID YOU WORK ON THE FINANCING OF THAT SINCE IT TOOK SEVERAL I WAS NOT HERE 25 YEARS AGO YEAH YEAH BUT WASN'T WHEN THOSE PROJECTS CONTINUED TO I MEAN 25 YEARS AGO I WAS NOT AT THE URA I WASN'T YEAH WAS THAT A FAILURE

There wasn't enough context for me to glean what the story was meant to accomplish. So there was an attempt to take out debt for downtown 25 years ago, but it potentially resulted in Act 47. I don't know all of the context related to that.

Yeah, that there wasn't much detail, especially with talking about project, like there wasn't, I don't think there were really much, it would have been nice to have like a whole other document to really see what the explanations on some of these were. But can you at least talk about what we did do? The they were there were there were funds like this that revolve make for you.

I'm going to speculate again. I'm not I don't know it's it sounds like talking about the Pittsburgh development plan potential but it says I'm not typically for downtown that the development for you about that out.

Yes, it's so vague.

I know you're something understand so sometime we're going to work prior to my prior to my

Injecting funds downtown. There was a bond issue with the Pittsburgh Development Fund that raised monies that turned multiple times, which made direct loans into projects across the state.

So what was that called? The bond that was returned multiple times? What's that?

Pittsburgh Development Fund.

Pittsburgh Development Fund. How much was that?

So I was not here, I believe the original barn was 60 million 60 million.

That was a citywide citywide bomb. So not specifically for downtown. So I we're we're guessing that that's what's being referenced, which I really don't like to get on the table. But I think so. Okay. Yeah, PDF fund is has been quite effective.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for their discussion.

So I'll just say I'm just going to talk. I'm not looking for any response here necessarily. I really appreciate the discussion. I do appreciate everyone who has come down to speak as well and who has emailed our offices and called our offices. You know, I'm looking at this through a bunch of different lenses and one of the lenses I'm looking this through is finance chair and just sitting in and the painful discussions we've had over the last couple of years as a body, right, as a council and the difficult decisions we've had to make. The gamble that I see given that we've seen a 7.9 million annual reduction for the city over the last two years because of plummeting property values, because not that I love it so much of our. So the way that I don't love the fact that are so much of our property values, our downtown property values determine our income or our revenue for the city. it's just the way that cities are set up in america and ours in particular relies very heavily on property taxes and commercial property taxes are dependent on vacancies or you know uh uh occupancies and um when occupancy plummets after covid Yeah, the landlords can, or the property owners downtown and across the city, wherever, where there are zero, you know, in some cases, zero office workers in those buildings can apply for tax refunds dating back to 2021. Do I like that? No. Are those property owners gonna be the same ones? No, they're largely selling off their buildings to new property owners. But the gamble for me is that we do nothing and we see a continuation of plummeting property values. Maybe there'll be a countywide reassessment. We don't have control over that. Maybe there will. Hopefully there will. Our city certainly needs it, but that's also not going to be the fix to our financial woes. No one can argue that the downtown portion of our city is an economic engine. It is. It's a property tax engine for the city that every single other neighborhood relies on. And I wish that weren't the case. I wish that we had a more diverse revenue stream into the city, but that's just the case. So this gamble in my mind is not doing anything, allowing our property values to continue to decrease, resulting in a decline in revenues that we are receiving as a city. not to mention the county and the school board, and that we have to make some very painful decisions, more painful than raising taxes, cutting services, cutting programs for kids and seniors, closing rec centers, Pausing dedicated funds like the Housing Opportunity Fund, which is so important, but we might not be able to afford, or the Stop the Violence Fund, which no one wants to pause. Pausing capital improvement programs or projects for pools and senior centers and rec centers and bridges. We'd have to make some really difficult decisions. In addition to all that we want downtown to succeed, it's another neighborhood. We want people to live there. We need a different kind of mix between commercial and office and affordable and market rate. All of that is true. And we want beautiful streets like Smithfield Street and Boulevard of the Allies to improve. But more important to me is actually the health of the neighborhoods that are had been disinvested in over the last few decades and would not have necessarily the ability to bounce back were it not for investment in them, part of which we will get from an investment in this program. So it's not the easiest program to talk about or to explain because it is so indirect and it does rely on actions from from entities that are not government and not the city. And it does rely on capitalism, which is like an uncomfortable truth of this whole matter. But but if we don't do anything, then then we know what's going to happen. And that is property taxes will continue to property values will continue to decline and we will not have the ability to invest in the rest of our neighborhoods, particularly the most vulnerable ones. So THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS TODAY AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO BE MADE HERE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I AM HAPPY TO TURN IT OVER TO ANYONE ELSE OR WE CAN CALL FOR VOTE SECOND ROUND. I THINK I SAW COUNCILMAN MOSELEY FIRST AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN GROSS.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. WHO HAVE REALLY CONTRIBUTED TO, I THINK, A VERY IMPORTANT DIALOGUE OVER THESE LAST FEW MONTHS AS WE'VE DELIBERATED OVER THIS. AND THIS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, REALLY A DIFFICULT DESTINATION FOR ME TO LAND ON. I'VE SEEN THE VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES THROUGHOUT the past several weeks and had many substantive conversations with the URA. I can't thank you enough for, you know, the amount of time that you've spent with me to help me wrap my head around as well as the mayor's office, particularly Chief Singer, you know, who has spent a lot of time with me as well. um to really wrap my head around this and um you know and i felt it was important to at least in my role you know provide as much of a public forum as i can um you know in in my role as well as respecting um you know councilman wilson the fact that this is his district that i called for the public hearing i called um you know for the post agenda and i have deep concern for the future of downtown. You know, someone who grew up here remembers when we had three movie theaters. And, you know, one of my favorite memories of life is going to see Empire Strikes Back at the Warner Theater on Fifth Avenue. And, you know, I wish the young people of Pittsburgh would have an opportunity, you know, to see a Star Wars movie on Fifth Avenue. um you know one day and and i and i and i you know i really hope that um you know this plan um you know it you know it is the right plan you know but um you know i do have also many of the deep concerns that you know folks have expressed not only here today but you know many of my constituents um and i've heard from a robust number of my constituents you know you know with their concerns as well as the concerns from the controller, as well as concerns that I have about the future of this as it goes through the other taxing bodies. I definitely worry about the amount of support um that that this plan which i truly hope you know um you know you know is successful um you know as it goes through the school board and and the county given their financial situation and the amount of political pressure that they're facing um to move forward that with that um and and i'm you know concerned about the workers that came here today as well and you know i do not want to see you know, the continued downward spiral of downtown property, understanding the important role that it plays in the economic vitality for this entire region. And obviously that that presentation that we had today from the woman from 32 BJ, you know, was was very captivating, you know, and and I understand our needs for revenue. And also, as someone who is, I always say, a recovering community organizer, I understand the importance about folks' criticism about the public process, as well as what those some consider as the taxpayers shouldering the risk, as opposed to the developers. You know, so I say all that to say that, you know, that that, you know, is very difficult, you know, for me to arrive at a place where, you know, I don't feel comfortable supporting this today. I will not be supporting this today, but I still, you know, stand with everyone here. I know everyone cares about the city and I don't question anybody's intentions here. You know, I know, you know, there's been some things said and, you know, I don't you know, cast aspersions on anyone at this table. I think everybody here at this table really cares about the city. I think everybody in this chamber cares about the city and all the stakeholders. And, you know, some may throw tomatoes at me, but I think, you know, many of the developers at the table care about the city. city, much like the workers and much like the citizens around the city from every neighborhood that care about the city. And me as someone who represents the neighborhoods from the farthest reaches of downtown, I think most of the neighborhoods I reach are as far from downtown as any corner of the city, I understand that our faiths are inextricably tied, as Martin Luther King once said. So I say all that to say that I'm not comfortable supporting this today. I'm going to continue my deliberations moving forward. But again, I cast no aspersions towards anybody at this table. I don't question the intentions of anybody at this table or anyone who's been a part of this process. And I want to find a way that we can continue to work together to find the revenue that we need to build our downtown and build a broader coalition moving forward. And I'm committed to that, to working with everyone. But but I do want to just, you know, be upfront. And it really is. I feel like this is more difficult than even the vote we made in December, to be honest. at least for me, so I will not be supporting this today, but I look forward to working with everyone to find a solution to this. I want to thank everyone for pouring into me over these last two months to really educating me about how this works, and I've been trying to be as honest as I can about educating people about what this means, but I just want to be honest and be very transparent with everybody that I will not be supporting this today, but it does not reflect how I feel about the intentions of this proposal or the intentions of those who are in support of this proposal.