Pittsburgh council proposes control of funding generated by parks tax

Revenue from Pittsburgh’s controversial parks tax would be split evenly each year among the city’s nine council districts for park improvements under legislation proposed Tuesday by two city council members.

The legislation sponsored by Anthony Coghill and Deb Gross received mixed reviews as other council members voiced concerns about an equitable funding distribution and the makeup of a task force proposed to determine how the funding process should work.

Council members previously expressed concern that public tax money would be administered by the nonprofit Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy.

Coghill said the legislation would ensure that “taxpayer dollars are not for sale.”

“What that means is no private corporation or private 501(c)(3)s will be able to exploit our taxpayer dollars,” he said. “We have to send a message now. I feel like we open a floodgate if this money doesn’t stay in public hands.”

Councilman Ricky Burgess said an equal distribution of money would “eliminate equity” because parks in poor neighborhoods have a greater need than those in more affluent communities.

“If you divide it up into nine equal shares, you will absolutely make it not equitable,” he said. “The campaign was based on building parks in communities of color, in communities of low income, and to take back those dollars and to redistribute them so that middle-class and wealthier communities get an equal distribution of those resources is absolutely against the spirit of tax. I’ll stand every day against that.”

City voters last year approved a 0.5 mill property tax increase to fund park improvements citywide. 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 money will be deposited into a trust fund and used exclusively for park improvements.

The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, which spearheaded the initiative that was supported by Mayor Bill Peduto, said city parks face a $400 million funding gap in deferred maintenance and an annual $13 million shortfall in maintenance funds each year. The conservancy said it planned to raise matching funding each year.

The conservancy declined to comment on the proposed legislation.

Under the legislation, the $10 million would be evenly distributed for projects in each council district and each project would be subject to a council vote. Up to 5% can be used for city administration costs. Money can also be used to hire additional city employees, according to the legislation.

The city would be in charge of executing all contracts arising from park projects, and contractors hired for park work must abide by the city’s prevailing wage rule, according to the legislation. In the event that prevailing wage is inapplicable, the company must pay workers at least $15 per hour.

Burgess and Councilman Bruce Kraus also expressed concerns that the task force proposed by Council President Theresa Kail-Smith would include only three council members.

“I’m just a little concerned about how all members’ voices are heard if only certain members are meeting,” Kraus said. “It’s extremely important that every member has an equal voice and an equal opportunity in those decisions.”

Kail-Smith, who opposed the tax from the beginning, said her main purpose is to maintain council control of the money.

“If it were up to me, honestly, I wouldn’t even collect the tax,” she said.

Coghill described the legislation as a work in progress.

“Everything is open,” he said. “We wanted to get something on the floor today to start the conversation. If members have a problem with it we can amend, we can adjust.”