City officials asked pointed questions Wednesday at a meeting about a forthcoming ballot initiative that asks residents if they want to pay more in property taxes to fund city parks.
What was billed as a wide-ranging meeting to scrutinize the longstanding partnership between the city and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy focused almost exclusively on the nonprofit’s campaign to pass the ballot referendum, which has the support of Mayor Bill Peduto.
Voters will be asked if they want to fund the city’s 165 parks with a 0.5 mill property tax levy -— $50 on every $100,000 of assessed real estate value -— beginning in 2020 that will be used “to improve, maintain, create and operate public parks; improve park safety; equitably fund parks in underserved neighborhoods throughout Pittsburgh.”
The conservancy estimates that the tax would bring in $10 million annually to mainly fund smaller neighborhood parks, which would be prioritized based on an equity score, according to the nonprofit.
The five council members present — Theresa Kail-Smith, who convened the meeting, along with Darlene Harris, Deb Gross, Corey O’Connor and Erika Strassburger — spent half of the nearly two-hour fact-finding session directing questions at Dan Gilman, the mayor’s chief of staff.
Chief among their concerns were the potential burden on homeowners, particularly those on fixed incomes; how the spending and decision-making would break down between the city and conservancy; the manner in which the ballot initiative was rolled out; and the optics of asking taxpayers to contribute more when large nonprofit landowners in the city -— UPMC, Highmark, the universities, the Catholic diocese and more -— are not paying property taxes.
“This will be on the homeowner,” Ms. Harris said. “Their Social Security isn’t going up. What are they going to choose [to give up]? Will they have to choose their prescription medicines? ... Would it be food that’s taken out of their mouth? I just don’t know how this is going to be justified.”
Mr. Gilman said that “the idea that all of the sudden the corporations and nonprofit community is just going to start writing checks” is not likely.
He said that with myriad concerns facing the city -— specifically public safety expenses and landslide issues — “the reality is without the additional revenue, the [smaller] parks are not going to see the dollars.”
The council members and Controller Michael Lamb, who also attended, expressed varying degrees of concern regarding communication with the public surrounding the ballot initiative — ranging from the TV commercials funded by the conservancy to who collected the roughly 29,000 signatures to get the question on the ballot.
Ms. Kail-Smith said she had “serious concerns” over the “rushed” campaign roll-out.
“Who was the company [that collected signatures]? Ms. Harris asked Parks Conservancy President and CEO Jayne Miller. ... Who was the person who got them all together? Is his last name Preston?” said Ms. Harris, referring to the local political consultant Matt Merriman-Preston.
Ms. Miller said he was involved but that her organization actually worked with a different group.
Turning to Mr. Gilman, Ms. Harris asked whether Mr. Merriman-Preston was the mayor’s campaign chairman.
“I don’t know who [the mayor’s] campaign chairman is,” Mr. Gilman said.
Mr. Merriman-Preston, of Ampersand Consulting, submitted the 1,800 pages of signatures at the Allegheny County Elections Division office on Aug. 6. Mr. Merriman-Preston, a consultant who worked on the conservancy’s behalf, also worked as a political strategist on Mr. Peduto’s mayoral campaigns.
Mr. Lamb characterized the campaign for signatures as “misinformation on misinformation” and that the conservancy’s claim that a current privately funded TV ad campaign is not related to the the ballot initiative is “strained legalese. ... How is that fair?”
He said raising taxes is “a real problem for me” when the city is generating a surplus.
But city parks face a $400 million backlog in repairs and a $13 million shortfall in annual routine maintenance, according to the conservancy and the city’s Department of Public Works. The conservancy plans to leverage any incoming tax revenue with private dollars.
“I do not believe the city has resources to bring an additional $20 million to the table [annually],” Ms. Miller said in response to criticism after the meeting. “Two generations of Pittsburghers have suffered from not having access to quality parks. They really do make a difference in people’s lives.”
At the council table Wednesday, Ms. Miller cited positive health effects, community connections and improved air quality as reasons parks are “integral.”
Money could be used to add more laborer jobs, Mr. Gilman said. (Currently, 69 full-time Public Works employees work in the city’s five regional parks -— Emerald View, Frick, Highland, Riverview and Schenley -— and 33 full-time employees cover the remaining 160 smaller parks.)
Ms. Harris asked Mr. Gilman how much of the city’s recent increase in tax revenues has gone to parks projects. He said he didn’t have that information in front of him but could get it for her.
She replied, “I wish you would have come here with a lot more answers.”
If voters say yes to the measure, a public board would decide how to divvy up a portion of the tax revenue, while the rest would go to Public Works operations, according to information the mayor’s office provided in August.
“What would that look like?” Ms. Strassburger asked.
“I don’t know at this point,” Mr. Gilman said. “I would envision some sort of agreement before council.”
Any future agreements would be subject to council approval.
“I believe in the power of parks,” Ms. Strassburger said. “This asks the most privileged to help those with the least. But I recognize that not every homeowner is privileged. I also recognize this [would be] another strike against Pittsburgh for first-time home buyers. I’m going to have to continue to look at the numbers. ... I do wish this process would have been a little bit different.”
Ashley Murray: 412-263-1750, amurray@post-gazette.com or @Ashley__Murray
Correction: This story has been changed to correct and clarify two exchanges from the meeting: The discussion of Mr. Merriman-Preston also involved Ms. Miller; Ms. Harris’ wish for more information from Mr. Gilman had to do with park spending, not the mayor’s campaign.
First Published: September 11, 2019, 11:41 p.m.