For the past 10 years activist William Anderson has paid his neighbor to maintain a vacant lot in Homewood. The lot, which had long been an eyesore, is situated across from the young man's home and near Anderson's auto-body shop.

"Through the time he has grown up maintaining this lot, he has grown a sense of pride in his community because he takes care of this lot," Anderson said during the public comment portion of today's Pittsburgh City Council meeting.

Anderson has taken it upon himself to maintain several lots around his garage. And a new organization in the Hilltop community has been doing the same in their neighborhoods. Now they're calling on city council to support their efforts and to ensure they're not left out of development in their long-blighted neighborhoods.

"Businesses are beginning to spring up where blight once stood and the neighborhoods are buzzing with planning and potential investment," said Jamar Bey, president of the Hilltop Men's Group. "But there is another side to this story. It's a story of being disconnected and a feeling of exclusion."

In light of the new development being done in areas like Homewood and the Hilltop communities that include Beltzhoover, Allentown and Mount Oliver several of today's speakers called on city council to make sure that residents in these areas are included. They asked that local youths and young adults be given employment opportunities tied to projects emerging from the development.

"As parts of our city begin to thrive and become vibrant we would like to provide an opportunity for the forgotten and hopeless young men that walk up and down our streets and hang on it's corners to share in that new vitality as well," Bey said. "Our vision is to employ these struggling young men to clean up the community and teach them life skills that embed an entrepreneurial spirit in them that deters negative behaviors and violence."

The Hilltop Men's Group's program dubbed "Lots of Pride" will train participants to maintain overgrown lots and will include training on how to remove illegally dumped waste. Speakers today said they'd like to see similar programs scaled citywide.

"This isn't just about beautification, this is about safety," said Celeste Taylor, another community activist who spoke today. "This is about pride. This is about people wanting to live in a beautiful environment and be safe."

The speakers said increasing employment opportunities for Pittsburgh youths and young adults will reduce violence in their neighborhoods. According to the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, the victims and perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly African-American men ages 18-24.

"We feel part of the roots of violence is the absence of access to positive work opportunities and entrepreneurial opportunities," said Tim Stevens, chairman of the Black Political Empowerment Project and co-convener of the Coalition Against Violence. "I'm asking council that today we don't just have a conversation, but we follow up with council and their staff. How do we get this done so we take a gun out of the hands of our young people and put in a sickle to cut the grass? Take a gun out of the hands of our children and young people and put a hammer in their hands to help rebuild housing."

After members of the group spoke during public comment, Stevens says he received a "positive response" from members of council.

This week Pittsburgh City Council affirmatively recommended an agreement between the city's public safety department and Cover Your Assets Inc., a software company that helps manage secondary employment for police officers. The resolution would authorize the city to pay CYA $175,000 for another year of service beginning Nov. 1.

While council unanimously recommended the resolution, it did spark questions about secondary employment within the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The bureau manages jobs police officers perform outside of their daily work such as providing security at construction sites, bars and restaurants.

"The money is only going to the scheduling of the officers, but nothing is allocated to any kind of specific or specialized training of the officer to perhaps understand how to do secondary detail in a nightlife district or to do secondary detail in a construction site," said Council President Bruce Kraus. "I'm not sure how officers are given the proper training and equipment to do the secondary detail jobs that we provide for them." 

Secondary employment has been subject to criticism over the years, most notably when it was involved in a 2013 FBI probe that looked into operations at the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Critics have also claimed some officers were receiving preferential treatment by being given more off-duty employment opportunities than others.
 
"In our contract, officers have the right to secondary employment, but the department can define secondary employment so I'd like to have a better understanding of what secondary employment is defined as now and what it could possibly look like in the future," Kraus said. "We have a contract coming up, and what progress have we made to understanding what I believe to be a conflict of interest to have officers doing secondary detail at licensed establishments,be they alcohol gaming or adult entertainment?"

The new system with Cover Your Assets was put in place to address some of the prior criticism of secondary employment. But Councilor Dan Gilman said he's received complaints about the new system from community groups seeking to hire officers for their events.

"We had a number of incidents last year where no officers would show either because they hadn't signed up or got sick, or got held for overtime, all legitimate reasons. But then you're stuck, and it's five minutes before the event," said Gilman. "You don't have the safety you need for the public, and getting a hold of CYA was difficult."

These are issues the police bureau is working on, said Assistant Police Chief Thomas Stangrecki, who currently oversees the special events office in charge of secondary employment.

"There's a lot of work out there and needs for additional officers," Stangrecki said. "And a lot of times jobs aren't posted enough in advance for officers to look at them."

In 2013, after secondary employment received negative attention, administration of the special events office was changed. Stangrecki says officers who were handling secondary employment were transferred, and leadership was transferred to a supervisor who didn't have experience handling secondary employment.

"Regrettably there were some growing pains," Stangrecki said. "We've made a lot of progress along the way. The office is still changing, so we're constantly training new people. We're hoping to get some people who will be there for a while, to make sure details are filled and work through issues like whether to give a refund or not."

Kraus said he will arrange a briefing on the system and secondary employment prior to council's final vote on the resolution on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

"I fully recognize the need for a change from the past. It seems like this headed in the right direction. I also am very understanding that there are growing pains associated with it as new people learn new roles. But at $175,000, I also certainly expect a pretty good software package. That's more than many of the software packages in the city," Gilman said. "I'm certainly happy to support another year, but if this is the permanent solution, I'd like a more in-depth understanding. I think we share a common endgame, but I'm not 100 percent convinced that this is the best path to this end game."

As a supporter of secondary employment, Councilor Darlene Harris noted that the software system would not come at a cost to taxpayers because funding for the administration of off-duty jobs comes from fees billed to clients. For example, the city collects $4.38 per hour for every job and $25 per hour for police vehicle use.

"It's not coming out of taxpayer dollars anymore. It's coming from those who are utilizing our police force," said Harris. "I'm glad we got the program to the point where it's not costing tax payers anything and they are benefiting from it."

Despite efforts to delay its passage, today Pittsburgh City Council voted to approve a measure to reform campaign finance in city elections. The bill would set contribution limits in line with federal standards.

As has become customary in council chambers, Councilor Darlene Harris served as the lone dissenting voice against the legislation. At last week's preliminary vote, she said the new limits unfairly advantage incumbent councilors.

The new contribution limits would be $2,700 for individuals and $5,000 for political committees for each election. The bill also prohibits candidates from having more than one candidate committee.

Today's vote was necessary to ensure that the new campaign finance limits go into effect before the next election cycle that will begin after the Nov. 3 election.

"Look no bill is perfect, we come back and amend, people find loopholes," said Councilor Daniel Gilman, the bill's primary sponsor. "You can't ever let perfection be the enemy of the good. So while I respect people who disagree ... these are very good bills, and they're going to take us a long step forward to transparency, to holding government officials accountable and giving the public greater comfort. Furthermore, this city needs campaign finance limits. Money is out of control in politics."

Although Councilor Harris had not raised the issue at previous meetings since the bill was introduced, she says council should hold a public hearing on the bill before passing it.

"Something like this, I think the public should have a say so in, and I don't see why we have to rush it," Harris said. 

The bill passed with eight votes. Council also passed a measure to revamp the city's ethics board, which has been inactive fore several years.

Over the past decade Pittsburgh has been named the "Most Livable City" a handful of times by a handful of publications. While the designation was originally met with a great amount of fanfare in earlier years, recently the narrative has shifted.

In 2014, the last time Pittsburgh was named most livable, the city was also recognized out of the United States' 40 largest metropolitan regions  for having the highest poverty rate among African Americans ages 18-64.

"Our dream is to own a single family home," Calvin Glover, an employee at Allegheny General Hospital said at a Pittsburgh City Council meeting this week. "I'd like to be saving for my daughters college career and education, but I worry more about making ends meet than I do about those types of things ... I often hear about Pittsburgh being the most livable city but then I question, who did they ask when they made that determination."

The wage divide and a lack of affordable housing options are two areas of inequality currently being addressed by Councilors Ricky Burgess and Daniel Lavelle . At council's Oct. 7 meeting, they considered a set of legislation Burgess is calling a "City For All Agenda."

"Pittsburgh is neither livable nor affordable for low- and moderate-income residents in our city and their families," Burgess said. "According to my estimates there are about 90,000 citizens who are suffering, who for whatever reason are not participating in Pittsburgh's renaissance."

Burgess' legislation includes a resolution establishing a Wage Review Committee to look at the "impact of
increasing the wages of service workers and service employees in the City of Pittsburgh." Council gave the resolution preliminary approval. 

"We definitely feel the strain," said Jarrell Reeves, a housekeeping employee at UPMC Shadyside who attended the Oct. 7 meeting to speak on behalf of the resolution. "Basic groceries cost everyone the same whether they make $13 an hour, $23 or $3000 an hour. But groceries for my family eats up half of our paycheck."

Another piece of legislation sponsored by councilors Burgess and Lavelle would add "Source of Income" (for example, a housing voucher) as a protected class to the Pittsburgh code governing discrimination and unlawful housing practices. The goal would be to prevent housing discrimination against people with housing vouchers. A public hearing and special meeting are being scheduled.

Also in that vein were two resolutions related to affordable housing. One would establish an initiative  "to develop interim affordable housing strategies for the East End neighborhoods in the City of Pittsburgh at no cost to the City." The other would add "Affordable Housing Impact Statements" to the city's zoning code so that developers are required to define their intentions for affordable housing in new projects. 

Burgess and Lavelle's efforts are tied to concerns about the destruction of affordable housing complexes and lack of affordable housing in new developments. 

"I think this is a great subject that we have to talk about," said Councilor Corey O'Connor who referenced the HBO special San Francisco 2.0 about how booming development can exclude low-income residents.  "It was pretty powerful to see how communities started with tech companies starting to grow and then the residents there were slowly driven to another part of town."

Council also considered a resolution to allocate $35,000 to the city's Equal Opportunity Review Commission for software to better monitor contracting with minority- and women-owned businesses. 

"We're essentially a city of two," said Lavelle. "And in order to change that reality government is going to have to play a more significant case and I believe as we head down this path of trying to change that, the [Equal Opportunity Review Commission] is going to become even more significant in trying to right the wrongs and create a city that is more holistic in nature."

For the past two weeks, Pittsburgh City Councilor Darlene Harris has taken to Pittsburgh City Council's televised weekly meetings to voice frustration over unpaid invoices. The invoices in question are ones she submitted for donations to community groups. 

In a 20-minute tirade on Sept. 30, Harris accused Council President Bruce Kraus, who is responsible for signing the invoices, of withholding the donations for political reasons.

"The expenditures come to me every Monday, and I must sign off on them so what I want to make sure is that the funds are being used appropriately," says Kraus. "Where I draw the line is in receiving consideration for a donation. That should really be done with campaign money. So I have for the last two years worked with council members about what the rules are and what I am comfortable signing.”

Kraus is requesting a letter from each group saying that Councilor Harris will not receive consideration, such as having her name included on promotional materials, for her donations to these organizations. 

“She has chosen a very reckless public course of action. She believes she can bully me into some kind of retreat," says Kraus. "I won't sign it because its not right and its exactly why the system of checks and balances exists. I am supposed to use my discretion.”

Harris’ latest gripe regards three invoices for $100 each to the Achieving Greatness Inc., Women’s Walk for Peace and the Promise group. Two weeks ago the issue was also raised by Harris regarding a $500 donation for another community group.

"I think this is ridiculous. I don’t think we should have to give our life’s history to the president or kiss his butt to be able to hand out a donation to community organizations," Harris said. "I don’t ask anything in return from these organizations."
 
The funds would come from the $8,000 discretionary fund that each council office receives. At the meeting Harris said other councilors do not have their use of these funds as closely monitored, and she believes she is being singled out. 

"The mayor and other council members have their names on things,” Harris said. "I can never remember a council like this. I’ll get the president these letters, but I think this needs to stop or let’s get the mayor’s name off of everything, let’s get every council member’s name off everything." 

When City Controller Michael Lamb’s office audited city council's discretionary spending in May 2014, he questioned discretionary funds that were donated to parades in return for self-promotion.

"When we audited them, we always do question any spending that is geared toward self-promotion as opposed to community benefit," says Lamb. "It's public money. It should be spent for public purposes, but sometimes it's not always easy to be sure if it's for the public good or public promotion."

Despite his own questions about discretionary spending, he says he's never heard of councilors being required to prove discretionary funds aren't being used for self-promotion.
 
“I've never heard of that being the standard for anyone else. I know that we didn't suggest changing their rules," says Lamb. "We have concerns with all of their discretionary spending, and they all have had spending that we've questioned. In this case they seem to be holding Darlene to a higher standard." 

At today's Pittsburgh City Council meeting, Councilor Theresa Kail-Smith requested a post agenda and public hearing to discuss the Pittsburgh Initiative to Reduce Crime, or the Group Violence Intervention Strategy, as it has recently been re-branded. 

PIRC is based on the "Ceasefire" model developed by City University of New York professor David Kennedy, who first implemented the model in Boston. Cities where it has been implemented have seen homicides decrease by as much as 30 percent, according to a 2012 report.

The specter of PIRC was raised at council today when city councilors Daniel Lavelle and Ricky Burgess talked about their recent trip to  New York with Pittsburgh police officers who received training on the program.

"The model has now pretty much been recognized by the justice department as the lead way to reduce group-motivated gun violence," said Burgess, who was the first to sponsor legislation for the model.

But after ups and downs with the PIRC model over the years, Kail-Smith said she remains unconvinced of it's effectiveness.

"I'm extremely skeptical. I've heard this for six years," said Kail-Smith. "I've seen people making money hand over fist and I've seen bodies all over, people dying all over the place."

PIRC has never found even footing in Pittsburgh since it was first proposed in 2008. Insiders say there was little police buy-in when the program was launched, but some believed a new administration would change that. 

"I have had my share of reservations with the program over the years," said Council President Bruce Kraus. "But having said that I want to keep an open mind, and I want to hear from the new leadership we have in place."

It was initially retooled when Mayor Bill Peduto took office. And police Chief Cameron McLay has recently talked about plans to re-implement the original model.

But Kail-Smith wonders if resources wouldn't be better spent on other violence-reduction methods.

"Gun violence just doesn't happen, there's a lot that leads up to this," Kail-Smith said. "If it was the be all end all, why did it take us two years to get to the point where we're actually going to start looking at implementing this."

The post agenda and public hearing have not been scheduled yet.

On Sept. 9, a day weather forecasters claimed would be one of the last hot ones of the summer before temperatures drop, Pittsburgh City Council gave preliminary approval to a law that would protect animals left in cars during extreme temperatures.

The ordinance, proposed last week, would give public safety officials the authority "to enter a vehicle to protect the health and safety of an animal contained within." 

According to the bill's sponsor, District 1 Councilor Darlene Harris, Pittsburgh would be the first city in Pennsylvania to pass such legislation.

"It's estimated that hundreds of animals die each year by being left unattended in cars during hot and cold weather," said Harris. "Temperatures rise rapidly inside parked cars when it's in the shade or even when the windows are cracked." 

According to a study cited by Harris, after a car is parked for 10 minutes in 90 degree heat the temperature inside rises to 109. After 30 minutes the temperature inside goes up to 124 degrees.

"It just seemed to me that it would be common sense that an officer would be able to break into a car if an animal was in danger," said Council President Bruce Kraus. But he and others also wondered whether the city would be liable for damage to vehicles.

According to Mary Kennedy Withrow, shelter director and director of government affairs for the Western PA Humane Society, in Pittsburgh, while car owners would not be charged with a crime for leaving an animal in their car, they would be liable for any property damage.

Council also gave preliminary approval to an ordinance that would prohibit the capture of wild birds.

"Over the summer my office has received several complaints of pigeons regarding being trapped throughout the city," said Harris. "When police and animal control were called, we found it was only illegal to trap birds in city parks and since trapping isn't exactly considered cruelty there was nothing they could do."

Harris said the pigeons are sold to local gun clubs where they are shot for sport.

After a summer recess, Pittsburgh City Council returned today for it's regular meeting where councilors were met with sobering testimony from one city resident. Ramele Davis, from the Hill District, called on council to stand with her to help stem gun violence in light of the recent shootings that have shaken her and her neighbors.

"I'm getting scared to sleep in my house at night," Davis said. "This has got to stop. I can't live like this anymore."

Davis' testimony launched a conversation about recent shootings locally and nationally. So far this summer, there have been a dozen gun-related homicides in the city.

But it also renewed discussion of an abandoned city ordinance — Pittsburgh's lost and stolen gun legislation. Passed in 2008, the law allows law enforcement to fine gun owners who do not report their firearms lost or stolen. 

"We had sometime ago passed the lost and stolen gun legislation," District 1 Councilor Darlene Harris said at the meeting. "I was wondering do you know if that was implemented or not yet. I've had some questions on that." 

City Paper raised similar questions in May 2014, a few months into Mayor Peduto's first year in office. Throughout his campaign, Peduto said he would implement the ordinance as soon as he took office, but to date not a single person has been cited. Peduto told us at the time that he had no intention of enforcing the law out of fear of being sued.

Council President Bruce Kraus, said one of the reasons for this is a National Rifle Association-backed statewide bill, that gives gun owners the right to sue municipalities that have passed lost and stolen legislation even if it hadn't been enforced. According to Kraus, the Erie city council also passed similar lost and stolen gun legislation and has since repealed it in fear of being sued under the state law.

"The state wants to limit what we can do locally to protect our citizens," said Kraus who is attending a conference on gun violence in Erie this weekend. "I'm not willing to surrender that. I would argue that one of the many avenues we need to pursue is to hold our state legislature accountable for the decisions they make in Harrisburg."

But that law, Act 192, was struck down in June by the Commonwealth Court who ruled it unconstitutional. Kraus offered to initiate communication with the mayor's office about the status of enforcing the city ordinance. The city was one of 20 municipalities that sued to overturn Act 192, despite never enforcing its law to begin with.

"A 17-year-old kid is afraid to go outside for because the streets are flooded with guns," said Kraus "If we can find a way to keep the gun out of a young person's hand then the shooting can't take place." 

An individual cited under the city's lost and stolen ordinance would still be able to sue the city. But despite the certainty of many that the city would be sued, District 8 Councilor Ricky Burgess said Pittsburgh should implement it anyway.

"The day we enforce it is the day we get sued," said Burgess. "I'm at the point where lets make them sue us. People shouldn't be walking down the street with handguns. People shouldn't be walking down the street with AR14s and AK47s. These kids who are doing these crimes are better armed than police officers."

A little more than three weeks after it was introduced, Pittsburgh City Council, this morning, passed the much-anticipated and contentious paid sick days legislation.

Councilor Corey O'Connor, the chief sponsor of the bill, said that "technical amendments" that are "very minor to the original bill" were made over the weekend.

"We felt we touched upon all concerns," O'Connor said following a preliminary vote on the legislation. "So we have a good balanced bill to move on today."

The bill passed with seven in favor. Councilor Daniel Lavelle voted against the measure; Councilor Darlene Harris abstained.

The bill mandates that employees within the city earn one hour of sick time for every 35 hours worked. At work places with 15 or more employees, earned time will be capped at 40 hours, or eight days. Employees at places with fewer than 15 workers can begin accruing sick time at the same rate, but they can only accrue 24 hours of unpaid sick time within the first year of the ordnance. After that, they can begin earning paid sick time — up to 24 hours, or three days. If an employer allows more paid sick time, that will trump the ordinance. All employees will be allowed to use the time for their own illnesses or to care for a sick child or family member. New employees will need to wait 90 to begin using their paid sick time. Seasonal workers will be exempt, and tipped workers will earn the state minimum wage when taking a sick day.

"We are really moving a national agenda forward," said Councilor Natalia Rudiak, who voted in favor of the bill. "With conversations we have here in this chamber, we're part of a national movement to change the social contract in this country."

Not everyone agreed. Harris abstained for two reasons she said.

"I believe we have moved this bill too fast by comparison to us taking three years to finalize and uphold a noise ordinance," Harris said. "Philly took several years to [pass sick days legislation]. They spent months of research for this issue. If approved today, the bill would’ve been introduced and passed in a little over three weeks. I have questions on it yet. Who will police this in the city to make sure this law is done right in every business in the city? I don’t know how far we’re going to go out against what  the laws of the city are."

(The noise ordinance unanimously passed today.) What Harris is referring to is whether the home rule charter of the city gives the local government the power to regulate private businesses. 

Councilor Lavelle's office could not be reached for comment regarding his vote against the measure.

Several people who spoke at last week's public hearing on the bill also spoke during public comment of today's meeting.

"I’m here on behalf of the thousands of businesses located in the this city that have no idea you’re going to be passing a mandate on private businesses today," said Melissa Bova of the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association. "They are being blindsided with a measure that was introduced three-and-half-weeks ago."

But supporters still hailed the decision as a win for public health in the city.

"We’ve testified about how this is really a public-health struggle," said Barney Oursler of Pittsburgh UNITED, one of the groups that lobbied for the ordinance. "Council is really putting Pittsburgh on the map now as a world-class city. Protection of workers sets the kind of standards that attracts the best businesses and workers. For those of you who will vote today, we thank you."

Council will resume again after a one-month summer break.

A large crowd gathered in council chambers today to speak in support of or in opposition to a bill that would require employers to provide workers with mandatory sick time — a measure council wants to pass before it breaks for its summer recess.

"It's the clear intention of council to vote on Monday," Council President Bruce Kraus said after hearing public testimony. "I'm not going to mislead you and say it isn't."

Kraus along with councilors Corey O'Connor, Deb Gross and Darlene Harris were present for the public hearing. 

The paid sick time bill (2015-1825), sponsored by Councilor Corey O'Connor, would require all employers in Pittsburgh to pay workers for accrued sick time. After the first round of changes, the bill now states that workers at businesses with 15 or more employees would earn one hour of paid sick time for every 35 hours worked and, according to the bill, an employee should "at no point ... have access to more than 40 hours of paid sick time, unless the employer designates a higher amount." For places with fewer than 15 employees, paid sick time is capped at 24 hours, or three work days. Workers already employed could begin accruing sick  time as soon as the ordinance would pass; new employees would not be able to use accrued sick time until 90 days after they were hired.  Workers would be allowed to use the time for their own illness or to care for a family member.

Supporters called the bill "moral" and a "no brainer." 

"We are deeply concerned that single mothers and their young children make up 71 percent of households living in poverty in the Pittsburgh metro area," said Heather Arnet, executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwestern Pennsylvania, in her public testimony.  "This ordinance will help ensure that when that single mom gets a phone call at work that says that she is required to pick up her sick child at school immediately because he has a fever ... that mom will know that she can take care of her sick child, speeding up his recovery, and limiting his contact with others, while knowing her job is secure."

According to the bill, 40 percent of private sector workers in the city don't have paid sick time, and 77 percent of food and healthcare industry workers lack such benefits.

O'Connor told City Paper in early July that the bill is written as a public health measure.  "You don't want an employee coming in and infecting others," he said.

"Research from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center shows that access to paid sick leave in Pittsburgh can result in decreased transmission rates for influenza," the bill goes on to state.

But some small business owners and service-industry representatives who testified are worried about the cost of paid sick days, whether workers would abuse it and how quickly city council went from inception to a planned vote on the bill.  The legislation was introduced on July 7.

"The first place we heard about [the bill] was in the newspaper," said John Graf, of the North Side Chamber of Commerce. "This was a three, three-and-a-half -week process. Do not try to do it by the end of this session. In many cases, these are businesses that already offer paid sick time."

"I've not heard the justification for the 18-year-old who is in his first job. That makes that employee that much more expensive," Graf said in his testimony, referring to the argument for people to be allowed to stay home and care for their children.

Steve Shivak of the SMC Business Councils, based in Cranberry Township but which represents small businesses in Pittsburgh, told council members during his testimony that the bill lacked statistics and was written "without the city understanding finances of businesses."

"The root cause of an unhealthy workforce is not businesses," he said. "Instead, the bill puts the ownership of health on the businesses ... [and] awards bad behavior."

An employee's smoking, drinking, illegal drug use, and poor nutrition habits are not the problems of the business owner, Shivak said.

"We're not opposed to paid sick days, but this is paid time off, not paid sick time," testified Jeff Cohen, chairman of the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association. He gave the example of someone abusing the system and taking a paid sick day to go to Kennywood.

Supporters of the bill in the crowd coughed loudly to interrupt and protest his testimony; Kraus called the crowd to order.

"This demonization of the poor has got to stop," Bob Hartley, a city resident and supporter of the bill who testified, told CP after the meeting. "We should be more concerned  about people [in power] because they're the decision-makers.  Are they taking days off to go to Kennywood? Are they taking illegal drugs?"

Along with industry representatives, some small business owners also spoke out against the bill.

"For someone to tell me what I have to do before they know what I can afford scares me," said Heather Nally, owner of the Mt. Washington restaurant Micro Diner. "I would never fire someone for calling off sick." 

Nally, who has gone through 50 employees in three years, says she already offers benefits for her employees, including a retirement fund for which she matches 3 percent. She told CP after the meeting that if the bill passes, she hopes that the 90-day wait period for an employee to use sick time is extended.

At the end of the meeting, O'Connor said that council will "get a good balanced bill by Monday." 

Meanwhile, Harris expressed concern about the timeline of the bill.

"I can understand that if something's going through so fast, you don't even know what it is," Harris said. "If it's too soon and I can't get the answers I need, I will abstain on this bill."

City council will reconvene yesterday's meeting, which is technically in recess, on Monday at 9:30 a.m. to discuss amendments. Their regularly schedule meeting will take place at 10:00 a.m.