City Council members question raising taxes for parks

Several members of Pittsburgh City Council expressed apprehension Tuesday about a ballot initiative to raise property taxes to rehab city parks.

The Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, with support from Mayor Bill Peduto, is collecting signatures in an effort to put a question on the November ballot. Residents would be asked if they are willing to pay a half mill more in property tax to help fund a $ 400 million backlog in capital projects and a $ 13 million annual shortfall in regular maintenance for the city’s 165 parks. The city and the conservancy would partner in using the tax funds, according to both parties.

Councilwoman Theresa KailSmith called for a fact- finding meeting on the partnership between the conservancy and the city and said the rollout of the parks ballot referendum was “very concerning to me.”

“There needs to be some level of transparency regarding this process and some of our other [ nonprofit] partnerships. I don’t think it should be up to the public to sustain nonprofit organizations. They need to raise their own funds,” Ms. Kail- Smith said.

The conservancy launched the second phase of its community listening tour Monday, beginning with a news media preview in West End Park where conservancy CEO Jayne Miller presented findings from a community survey and led a tour of the worn- out equipment, broken asphalt paths and sewer problems in the park.

If the ballot measure passes, the conservancy would raise about $ 10 million a year, and it has a six- year

plan to spend roughly $ 47 million over six years to fund maintenance, rehabilitation, capital projects and programming, according to Monday’s presentation. The conservancy plans to combine the tax money with foundation funding.

“Get the [ money] from the foundations first, see if that works well,” Ms. Kail- Smith said Tuesday morning in council chambers.

Council members Darlene Harris, Anthony Coghill and the Rev. Ricky Burgess also expressed concern.

“Whenever we divert tax dollars away from the oversight of the city, I become a little concerned,” Rev. Burgess said, adding that he has not made up his mind on the issue.

“I think elected officials have a much broader understanding of our city and its needs,” he said. “Many times community groups are thinking in terms of a single issue, or single project or single activity they’re passionate about, or a single constituency.”

Mr. Coghill said he is against the initiative and urged residents to vote no.

The fact- finding meeting has not been scheduled.