Pittsburgh City Council can nullify the November ballot referendum that called for a 0.5 mill property tax increase to fund city park improvements, but members polled on Wednesday said they would likely approve the levy early next year.

Council must approve the tax in order for it to go into effect, according to a recent opinion issued by the city Law Department.

Four members — Anthony Coghill, Deb Gross, Darlene Harris and Theresa Kail-Smith — have voiced opposition to the levy, noting a low voter turnout during the election and an intense advertising campaign in support of the referendum spearheaded by the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy.

“What we’re trying to do is address what the voters want and to make sure at the same time that public dollars are used in the way that the public was promised,” Kail-Smith said. “I think think there’s definitely going to be a conversation as to who receives that funding if it is enacted.”

The tax increase would cost property owners $50 for every $100,000 of assessed value and is expected to raise about $10 million annually. The Parks Conservancy and Mayor Bill Peduto, who supported the referendum, have said city parks face a $400 million funding gap in deferred maintenance and improvements and an annual $13 million shortfall in maintenance funds each year for the city’s 165 parks.

The tax money would be held in a trust fund to be used exclusively for park maintenance, capital projects, repairs and programming. In the campaign for the ballot referendum, the conservancy said that the new stream of tax money would make it easier to raise extra, matching funds for the parks. At present the conservancy, founded in 1996, raises about $8 million a year.

Council members have raised concerns about public tax dollars being used for projects initiated by a private nonprofit and said they want control of the funding.

“I have zero intention, minus zero intention, of handing over $10 million of the taxpayers’ money to any non-elected group of people,” said Councilman Ricky Burgess. “I guarantee you that’s not going to happen.”

Burgess said he does not oppose the referendum.

“I think the council respects the will of the people, so we are not going to do something that overturns the will and wishes of the majority of voters in the city of Pittsburgh,” he said. “I feel fairly confident that we will establish a trust fund, we will establish the tax and we will put the money into that fund.” The referendum was approved by 51.9% of the voters.

Coghill agreed that council doesn’t intend to torpedo the tax, “even though the whole thing stinks to high heaven,” but said he wants to make sure the funding remains in city control and is distributed equitably across council districts. He and several other council members suggested that council seek the advice of an attorney independent of the Law Department.

“Being that the administration is behind this effort, I just feel we need an independent attorney to help us navigate through it,” Coghill said.

Burgess said council would control how the money is spent and have serious discussions about distributions to outside organizations and how they comply with city mandates on the hiring of minorities and women for park projects.

He said that some park improvements could be completed by city departments at lesser cost, adding that he wants to see an annual report on how the money was used its specific impact.

“I look forward to working collaboratively over the next year with the Mayor’s Office to create projects and processes that are transparent and effective and efficient and provides for a better park system for residents of the city,” he said.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)