Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mechanical Amusement Devices Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilman Anthony Coghill outlines plan for mechanical amusement devices tax in public hearing
Summary
Pittsburgh City Council held a June 23, 2026 public hearing on Bill 0544 to create Chapter 774 of the Pittsburgh Code establishing a mechanical amusement devices tax and licensing program. Sponsor Anthony Coghill said the proposal is an alternative to a property tax increase, could yield an estimated $2–3 million, and is contingent on potential state action.
Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing June 23, 2026, on Bill 0544, an ordinance to add Chapter 774 to the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances to establish a mechanical amusement devices tax and licensing program, Councilman Anthony Coghill said.
Coghill said the measure is intended as an alternative revenue source to avoid raising property taxes and described the proposal as the product of more than a year of research. "This was just another way of kind of thinking outside the box to create another revenue source for the city of Pittsburgh," he said.
The sponsor told the hearing the proposal follows a recent state Supreme Court determination that the city's so-called "skill(s) games" are gambling devices. Coghill said the state legislature has up to four months to consider statewide regulation or taxation, and lawmakers have discussed varying approaches, including a flat fee or tax rates that some have proposed at roughly 52 percent or at lower rates such as 35 percent. "Not knowing of course what the state was going to do, we decided to continue down the path that we've started on over a year ago," he said.
Coghill acknowledged key implementation questions remain. He said the city does not yet have a firm count of how many devices exist within municipal boundaries and that staff are meeting weekly with the administration and departmental officials, including PLI and finance, to determine how the city would collect the tax and administer licenses. He estimated the city could budget a surplus "we hope two to three million dollars" if the tax were implemented locally and the state did not supersede the ordinance.
There was no public testimony: the clerk confirmed no registered speakers were present in person or online, and no one had signed up to speak. With no registered speakers, Coghill said he was the only council member present to comment and declared the public hearing business exhausted. The hearing closed without a vote on Bill 0544.
Next steps: Coghill said staff will continue implementation planning with relevant departments while monitoring any state action that could preempt local authority. The hearing record provides no timetable for a council vote.
