Commission approves appropriation ordinance releasing $141,834 RID payment to Silverback Landing after closing; debate over completion conditions

The City of Pittsburgh Commission voted to approve an appropriation ordinance on Oct. 14 that included a $141,834.26 disbursement to Silverback Landing LLC tied to a Residential Improvement District (RID). The motion passed 3-1 after prolonged public comment and an extended discussion among commissioners and staff about whether the development’s phase‑1 infrastructure requirements had been met before release of the funds.

Residents and at least one commissioner pressed the city for details before the vote. A public commenter asked: “On page 77 of the appropriations scheduled to be paid by the city in tonight's agenda, there's a line item to Silverback Landing LLC for a $141,834.26. What is this payment for?” (Commenter: Christie, Public Comment)

City staff said the money had been released at closing to Silverback Landing LLC and was tied to the closing process. Kim (city staff) explained that the $141,834.26 came from property tax funds set aside for development in the RID and that, at closing, Silverback provided documentation and a commitment from Evergy to finish remaining electrical infrastructure for the 15 lots that comprised the last portion of phase 1. “As part of the closing process ... the Bridal funds which is the 141,000 that you're referring to, was released on the date of closing once everything was received in order that we needed,” Kim said. She said the city received a signed commitment from Evergy and from the new developer that the remaining electrical infrastructure would be completed and that the closing documents and reimbursement paperwork were provided in order to permit the release.

Several commissioners and members of the public said they remained uncomfortable releasing RID funds before all physical work — such as an entrance package, crash gate and some road or sewer items — had been completed. Christie (public commenter) asked whether the city had received a certificate of substantial completion, an inspection report, third‑party verification, or an invoice/reimbursement schedule; she urged the commission to withhold payment until those documents were verified. Kim and other staff answered that the development agreement defined “substantial completion” for phase 1 as completion of the public facilities listed in the agreement (water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, streets, curbs/gutters, sidewalks and utilities including electric) and that the outstanding electrical work had been committed to by Evergy and the new developer as part of the closing.

Commissioner Chuck and others sought clarity about Exhibit C (the eligible costs list) versus the development agreement’s public facilities description. Kim and another staff member noted Exhibit C lists eligible costs for RID reimbursement but is not itself a contract that requires a developer to build every eligible item. “If he put in an entrance package he could have gotten reimbursed for that; he did not and that is not an approved eligible cost,” a staff member said, summarizing the city’s position that eligible items not completed simply cannot be reimbursed later unless the new developer elects to perform and qualify them.

Mayor Don Mayor and other commissioners emphasized that staff had worked in recent months to keep public funds local and to secure contractual commitments during the closing. One commissioner described the $141,834 as part of a broader funding stack necessary to close the sale to a local development team that had injected more than $2 million into the project. “I think we did a good job of holding it back to the person that didn't deserve it and have given it to the company and the group that does,” a commissioner said.

The motion to approve the appropriation ordinance was moved by Doc and seconded by Chuck. The vote tally recorded at the meeting was 3 in favor, 1 opposed; the minutes record the motion as carried. The city clerk’s agenda item text tied the appropriation to the release of HUD expenditures when funds are received and noted the RID disbursement as part of the ordinance.

Discussion vs. decision: commissioners and staff distinguished between the development agreement’s definition of phase‑1 substantial completion and the Exhibit C eligible costs list. Staff said the legal condition that prevented earlier disbursement had been the lack of a commitment for the last electrical infrastructure; that commitment was provided at closing via a contract between Evergy and Silverback Landing LLC. Commissioners who objected said they would have preferred the city to hold the RID disbursement until the physical electrical work and other optional amenities were finished and inspected. No further formal direction to staff was made in the meeting beyond approving the appropriation ordinance.

What remains to be seen: staff said the city will inspect Evergy’s work and work with the new developer to ensure completion; some commissioners asked that the development contract be made public to reduce confusion about promises made in earlier years. Staff said they would follow up on those requests within the limits of confidentiality and applicable procurement and personnel rules.

Votes and formal action: the appropriation ordinance (item I on the agenda) was approved by a 3–1 vote. The approval included the RID disbursement of $141,834.26 to Silverback Landing LLC as part of closing activity.

Proper names and contractual references used in the discussion include the development agreement between P and L Development and Silverback Landing LLC, Exhibit C (eligible cost list), and Evergy (utility contractor). The city’s staff and commissioners repeatedly referenced those documents and parties during deliberations.

Why it matters: the item drew sustained public attention because it involves taxpayer‑funded RID reimbursements, long‑running development commitments dating back to earlier agreements, and the question of how the city enforces phased infrastructure completion before releasing public funds. The debate raised transparency and process questions the commission said it would continue to monitor.

Ending: The commission approved the appropriation ordinance containing the RID disbursement. Staff said they will monitor completion of the Evergy work and follow up with inspections and documentation; residents and at least one commissioner called for greater public clarity on the development agreement and reimbursement conditions going forward.