Pittsburgh councilman seeks partial clawback of $6M master plan

Councilman Anthony Coghill wants to claw back some of money Pittsburgh intended to spend on a costly 25-year master plan after council last week lambasted the pricey process.

The $6 million comprehensive plan is meant to guide zoning and development through 2050.

Coghill told TribLive he does not want to cancel the comprehensive plan altogether. He plans to introduce legislation Tuesday that would halt ongoing contracts, but Coghill said his hope is that the work could move in-house to save money without terminating the effort entirely.

Council was divided last year when the body authorized a $2.6 million contract with Pittsburgh-based Common Cause Consultants to cover community engagement and a $3.2 million deal with HR&A Advisors to prepare the plan’s technical elements.

As Pittsburgh faces financial challenges, opponents questioned whether it was wise to spend so much on a planning document that many criticized as vague. Some council members also said tangible results seemed murky and there is no guarantee the city would implement any of the recommendations the plan produces.

Several council members during a tense meeting last week criticized ongoing community engagement efforts, which several members said they haven’t seen in the neighborhoods they represent.

Coghill estimated the city may be able to claw back about $2 million that is still unspent. But he said he needs to talk with planning officials to understand if any of that money is already owed for work that has been completed or if there are certain expenses that the city could not handle internally.

“I want to finish the plan, but I want to give them what is absolutely necessary and not a dime more,” Coghill said.

Olga George, a spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Gainey, said the Department of City Planning and the consultants the city hired last year have already spent months working on the plan. They have also received input from tens of thousands of residents, George said.

“It also risks serious damage to the city’s reputation as an entity to do business with, calling into question the city’s commitment to honoring contracts it has entered into,” she said in a prepared statement.

“Nullifying this effort sends a clear message: that residents’ voices, time, and expertise can be disregarded at any moment and that only a narrow group should influence the city’s future. Our community deserves better than abrupt reversals and exclusionary decision-making.”