Parks group presents spending plan to city council

Pittsburgh City Council members brought skepticism to the table Tuesday as Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy staff presented the nonprofit’s proposal for how the new parks tax revenue should be spent.

During the nearly three-hour meeting convened by Councilman Ricky Burgess — who wanted to solely focus on the nonprofit’s “parks plan” — fellow council members poked conservancy representatives with questions about the nonprofit’s ballot referendum campaign and whether matching funds are guaranteed, with one member calling the process a “farce.”

Mr. Burgess has proposed adopting the conservancy’s plan as a road map for the new city revenue that will be raised by a half-mill tax hike voters narrowly passed in November. Property owners will now pay an additional $50 on every $100,000 of assessed real estate value to fund the city’s 165 parks.

The city has not yet begun collecting the tax, as three pieces of legislation related to establishing and implementing the tax wind their way through council’s legislative process.

Using a more than 50-slide presentation, conservancy CEO and President Jayne Miller, board member Daniel Booker, and two Philadelphia-based urban design professionals walked council through a multiyear spending plan that calls for the majority of funds to be used for parks upkeep and programming citywide.

The tax increase is expected to pull in an additional $10 million annually and matching private funds that the conservancy has promised.

The nonprofit’s plan, which Ms. Miller said was created in “full partnership” with the city, outlines that over the next six years, 48% would go toward funding citywide parks maintenance, including hiring up to 45 new employees to do trash pickup, tree care and minor repairs; 25% would go to rehabilitating sidewalks, lighting and critical repairs; and 5% would go to programming for youth and seniors.

The conservancy wants to divvy up the remaining 22% for capital projects to be chosen by an equity scoring formula that takes into account income levels, health data, environmental factors and

walking distances.

That list of prioritized projects — parks in Homewood, Beltzhoover and Spring Hill top the list — is “one piece of the whole pie,” said Mindy Watts of the Philly-based Interface Studio, which developed the plan.

Even with the additional money, Ms. Miller estimates that it will take the city 25 years just to catch up on the $13 million annual backlog in maintenance and $400 million overall repair deficit.

The “equitable” distribution of the funds became a hot-button issue in council after council members

Anthony Coghill and Deb Gross introduced a bill that, among several things, would have stipulated the funds be divided equally by council district. Council has since gone back to square one.

Historically, the conservancy had been focused on the city’s regional parks — Emerald View, Frick, Highland, Schenley and Riverview — which already receive Allegheny Regional Asset District tax funding, Mr. Booker said.

“Most parks don’t get any RAD money, and we felt an obligation to begin to focus on those parks. It was the neighborhood and community parks that were the centerpiece of the plan,” he said.

But Mr. Coghill, Ms. Gross and council President Theresa Kail-Smith continued to doubt the need for the tax hike and the more than $800,000 campaign that got it on the ballot, according to conservancy figures.

“You painted a picture as our parks are in such ill condition . ... According to your own website, they [the California-based Trust for Public Land] rank our parks No. 23 [in the U.S.],” Ms. Kail-Smith said, calling the campaign a “farce,” “marketing plan” and “cash cow” for the conservancy.

Ms. Gross said she was dissatisfied with the “summarized data” presented, saying that “different advocates ... come up with different answers. I respect that you’re here advocating for your issue, but that doesn’t mean it’s everybody’s issue and nor that you included everybody in your plan.”

She said she will await the city controller’s forthcoming audit on the dozens of previous cooperative agreements between the city and the conservancy to decide whether the city should adopt the conservancy’s plan.

Councilwoman Erika Strassburger expressed concern about the “downside to being laser focused on data -driven results” that the conservancy and Interface Studio employed but also that she doesn’t think council has the resources or expertise to produce such a “granular” plan. She mulled the idea that the plan could be a “starting point” of a “much more open budget process” that council ultimately controls.

Mr. Burgess remained steadfast in his support of the conservancy’s plan. With the tax now on the books, he said he wants to focus on “how” the money is spent.

“If we really looked at the dollars we’re spending right now, they’re not being spent equitably,” he said. “Aren’t parks indicators of the quality of life?”

“Absolutely,” Ms. Miller answered.

“Aren’t parks related to property values?” he asked. “Yes,” she said.

Ms. Kail-Smith said she will again try to convene members with the administration to hash out a compromise.

A public hearing on the tax and council’s enabling legislation to establish the trust fund will be held March 5.