This story was originally published by NEXTpittsburgh, a news partner of PublicSource. NEXTpittsburgh features the people, projects and places advancing the region and the innovative and cool things happening here. Sign up to get their free newsletter.
Pittsburgh City Council is debating the fate of the city’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan. When it was introduced in February 2024, contracts for associated work totaled nearly $6 million.
On Nov. 14, Councilor Anthony Coghill put forth resolutions that would claw back remaining funds from two contracts associated with the comprehensive plan.
We’re local reporters who tell local stories.
Subscribe now to our free newsletter to get important Pittsburgh stories from Public Source reporters sent to your inbox three times a week.
Conversation about the effort to ensure a positive future for the city has been terse.
At council’s Nov. 24 meeting, members voted to table further discussion — and spending — associated with the comprehensive plan’s external contracts until Thursday, Dec. 4.
Director of City Planning Jamil Bey, along with other planning officials, will meet with the council to provide a status report on the plan ahead of a decision.
Coghill said the contract terminations were in no way a reflection of work done by the planning department or its contractors.
He added that his intent is not to scrap the plan. On the contrary, he wants it “to be adopted by council unanimously.”
“The intent was just simply to re-evaluate exactly where we are with the plan, as to how much monies are left, how much are owed and how much will be remaining, and also more engagement with Council,” Coghill said.
Should no outlying expenses associated with the contracts arise, the city stands to regain $2.3 million, which many council members — including Coghill — acknowledged as vital, as Pittsburgh’s financial struggles persist.
What is the 2050 Comprehensive Plan?
The plan has been in development since 2023 — before current Bey held his current job — and is meant to address segregation-based land use policies, the health consequences associated with Pittsburgh’s industrial past, zoning discrepancies and more in an attempt to prime the city for growth, sustainability and equity.
A comprehensive plan is meant to serve as a collection of guiding principles for the city, similar to the neighborhood plans currently or previously observed by many city locales such as Manchester Chateau and Hazelwood.
“We’ve been managing decline for a long time without a plan, and so this was an opportunity for us to assert our values, our interests and capture what is the city? What do we want to be? Who do we want to be?” Bey told NEXTpittsburgh in August.
While many mayoral administrations throughout history have started the comprehensive planning process, none of them were ever officially implemented into city planning processes.
Why is funding being questioned?
Council has never exactly been all in on the comprehensive plan. On Feb. 6, 2024, council approved a $3.25 million contract for the plan’s technical development and a $2.65 million contract for resident engagement.
Pittsburgh’s bill is abnormally high compared to other cities. Cincinnati, which has almost the same population as Pittsburgh, spent $500,000 from the city’s budget between 2009 and 2010 on its comprehensive plan while also putting a $2.4 million grant toward the effort ahead of its 2012 implementation. Chicago — approximately nine times larger than Pittsburgh — spent $4 million on its comprehensive plan in 2022.
The technical contract passed with a 6-3 vote (with “no”s from Coghill, Deborah Gross and Theresa Kail-Smith) and the engagement contract with a 5-3 vote (the same three no votes and Khari Mosley abstained).
During a Nov. 10, post-agenda council meeting, city planning officials presented a progress report, of sorts, to council ahead of the holiday season and new mayoral administration, where many council members questioned the efficacy of the engagement contract.
They said they weren’t aware of events happening in their own districts until days beforehand and worried that much of the information collected applied to any city in the U.S. and didn’t address Pittsburgh-specific needs.
In the meeting’s initial moments, council seemed skeptical of the spending, but willing to let it persist.
Pittsburgh City Councilor Anthony Coghill, left, shakes the hand of Councilor Bob Charland after voicing support for Charland’s inclusionary zoning bill during a meeting of the City Planning Commission, on Jan. 28. (Photo by Stephanie Strasburg/Pittsburgh’s Public Source)
“I have a tremendous amount of respect and confidence in you, Dr. Bey, and I appreciate our many conversations in the past,” Coghill said. “I look forward to seeing it complete. I would be lying if I told you I felt like it was worth $6 million. I just don’t, especially at a time when we’re struggling to keep vehicles on the street.”
Shortly after, Coghill asked how much had been spent so far.
“I’m not looking to pull it back; I’m just asking,” he added.
Bey and City Planning officials could not immediately provide an exact figure, but Coghill has since told other local outlets the amount is $2 million or more.
The Nov. 10 meeting became less amicable.
The planning process often engaged Pittsburgh’s Registered Community Organizations, which essentially give community groups a seat at the governing table. In recent years, changing or eliminating the Registered Community Organization program has been a recurring theme of Kail-Smith’s term.
Councilor Bobby Wilson presented an email that Bey had sent to Registered Community Organization leaders.
“Dear community partners,” he read Bey’s email. “Many of you have likely heard Council Member Theresa Kail-Smith has introduced legislation to eliminate the Registered Community Organization program — one of several programs she and her allies have advanced to ‘make Pittsburgh great again.’”
“I just find this pretty unacceptable,” Wilson later said. “I question the whole thing that’s going on here based on this.”
While Kail-Smith later clarified that she and Bey had spoken about the comments privately, underlying hostility colored the rest of the meeting.
“This has been a more difficult meeting than I maybe anticipated,” said Councilor Barb Warwick before any remarks on the plan.
After this point, many council members reiterated that the engagement process had not been as successful as it should have been. Coghill once again asked how much of the $6 million remained, before introducing the idea of taking some of that money back.
“I would love to see the will as trying to claw back $200,000 — something to buy a vehicle, something we’re in desperate need of,” he said. “These are the essentials, I feel. I don’t feel a plan is essential.”
On Nov. 14, he raised legislation to terminate both the technical and engagement contracts.
In the time since, Coghill has told other local media outlets that should the legislation be passed, progress on the plan would be paused and the city would attempt to move the work in-house.
Should the resolutions die, the contract work for resident engagement, outreach and the plan’s technical development would persist. Previously, the plan was expected to be complete in the summer of 2026.
Coghill did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
What are stakeholders saying?
At the Nov. 18, council meeting at which Coghill’s legislation was introduced, city residents presented myriad views on the comprehensive plan.
Allentown resident and musician Phat Man Dee made reference to a 2019 Pittsburgh Gender Equity Commission study that found the city “unlivable” especially for Black women.
An interactive 2050 Comprehensive Plan poster asked Green Building Innovation Expo attendees to place stickers on Pittsburgh’s most necessary “urgent transitions.” By the end of the expo, comprehensive plan leaders can quickly see which issues matter most to residents. (Photo by Roman Hladio/NEXTPittsburgh)
“We have never had a citywide comprehensive plan that has ever worked to engage all of its citizens,” Man Dee said. “This plan was created by the Gainey administration; it is the first and it’s three-quarters of the way done. Ironically, it was built largely by Black women collectively organizing, so I do not understand why the City Council is trying to cancel it.”
Another resident, Amy Zaiss, thanked Coghill for his effort to bring the work in-house and said the contractors are not fulfilling their “statement of work.”
“I am working-class myself and I’ve been less than enthusiastic about the way the process has played out,” Zaiss said. “As someone who’s really involved in my … neighborhood, I was unaware of any of the events that happened, and we heard several council members say basically the same thing at the post-agenda.”
LaTrenda Sherrill is principal of Common Cause Consultants — one of the groups brought on to lead the plan’s engagement process. Sherrill fears that contract terminations will mean a so-called “Summer of Engagement” essentially wasted city residents’ time and will leave the perspectives they shared on the cutting room floor.
“All summer long, residents engaged deeply in this process. They made tough choices and learned about technical planning processes — no-build zones, managed retreat, greater density — building the capacity for everyday residents to have these critical conversations,” Sherrill wrote in an email to NEXTpittsburgh. “It’s a shame that all of those voices are now at risk of being dismissed.”
In an email to NEXTpittsburgh, Christine Mondor — co-chair of the plan’s strategic committee and principal of sustainable architecture firm evolveEA — questions whether throwing out a comprehensive plan on the cusp of its completion will once again become part of Pittsburgh’s legacy.
Mondor chaired the planning commission from 2014 to 2023. During that time, the commission continuously sought to engage the community, understand its needs and measure the impacts they made. A comprehensive plan, she continues, provides that data.
“The plan that was passed is expensive, and so we should expect a lot from it,” Mondor wrote. “It’s encouraging to see council staying engaged and asking important questions. We all need to be involved to make sure it delivers.
“With that in mind, walking away in the middle of the race does not seem like a good investment.”
Roman Hladio is a reporter for NEXTpittsburgh. He wants to hear the stories created in Pittsburgh. When not reporting, he plays difficult video games that make him upset and attempts to make delicious meals out of mismatched leftovers.
RELATED STORIES
Keep stories like this coming with a MATCHED gift.
Have you learned something new today? Consider supporting our work with a donation. Until Dec. 31, our generous local match pool supporters will match your new monthly donation 12 times or double your one-time gift.
We take pride in serving our community by delivering accurate, timely, and impactful journalism without paywalls, but with rising costs for the resources needed to produce our top-quality journalism, every reader contribution matters. It takes a lot of resources to produce this work, from compensating our staff, to the technology that brings it to you, to fact-checking every line, and much more.
Your donation to our nonprofit newsroom helps ensure that everyone in Allegheny County can stay informed about the decisions and events that impact their lives. Thank you for your support!