Council committee approves $1.8 million master-plan study for proposed public-safety campus after weeks of public protest

Pittsburgh’s Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday advanced a resolution to pay up to $1.8 million for a master plan to study use of the former VA campus as a public-safety training campus, after council members added amendments intended to limit certain federal and militarized uses.

The committee voted to approve the bill as amended with one abstention. Councilwoman Deb Gross introduced the amendment, which the administration said would be reflected in the planning contract; the amendment includes clauses barring design work to plan facilities to co-locate with federal law‑enforcement or foreign security services and language directing the study to prioritize fire, EMS, public-works and volunteer emergency‑response uses.

The vote follows weeks of sustained public comment that drew scores of residents to the standing committee session to oppose a proposed campus many speakers described as a “Cop City.” Speakers called for the city to use the site for housing, emergency‑medical and disaster‑response capacity, or other community priorities rather than expanded police training facilities.

Why it matters: the master plan is the next formal deliverable required by a 2017 federal conveyance and General Services Administration process; city officials warned that missing the study deadline could jeopardize the city’s ability to retain the property. The contract approved by the committee would pay a selected architecture/engineering firm to evaluate the site’s buildings, utilities and constraints and to propose phased options and community access plans; subsequent construction costs remain separately budgeted (city materials referenced an $86 million construction estimate in existing capital projections).

Public comment and the amendment

More than two dozen public speakers addressed the proposal during the meeting’s public-comment period. Commenters opposing the campus said the project would deepen police militarization and divert funds from transit, housing and social services. Harvey Holtz of East Liberty said recent national examples of militarized police training undermined trust; other speakers, including doctors, EMS workers, community organizers and residents of neighborhoods near the proposed site, pressed the council to prioritize fire and EMS needs or use the land for housing and homelessness services.

Several speakers cited material in the city’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and other public documents to argue the campus as originally scoped would house many more police than EMS and fire personnel; for example, a speaker summarized numbers in the RFQ by saying the RFQ requested space for “264 police personnel” but far fewer ambulance and fire staff. Opponents also highlighted the project’s estimated price tag and pressed council members to direct funds toward transit, housing and food security.

Council response and added limits

Councilwoman Deb Gross, who moved the amendment, said the language she proposed embeds many of the community’s principal concerns into the planning contract. She read sections into the record that, among other items, require the master plan to:

- prioritize training, storage and other space for fire, EMS, public works and volunteer emergency-response organizations; - include, “to the greatest extent possible,” community access to outdoor facilities and classroom space where safe and practicable; and - exclude planning for facilities intended to coordinate with federal law‑enforcement or foreign militaries or to simulate urban warfare or occupy civilian neighborhoods.

Deputy Mayor Jake Pollack and Public Safety Director Lee Schmidt told the committee that the study would identify how much of the large federal parcel is usable (officials estimate much of the property is steep hillside) and that the study would also propose phasing so fire and EMS priorities could be addressed early. Schmidt emphasized the city’s existing needs for training space, vehicle and equipment storage, and rescue‑specialty training that currently require renting outside facilities.

Votes and next steps

The committee approved the bill as amended; the motion carried with one abstention. The passed action authorizes city staff to contract for the master-plan study (not construction). City officials said the study would be presented to council and undergo public review before any construction decisions, and that the amendment language requires (and the administration supports) a structured public process after study completion.

What remains unsettled

Speakers and some council members pushed for additional, specific guarantees: regular public engagement during design, explicit guardrails on future federal collaborations, and clearer, itemized phasing commitments. Several commenters said the amendment was a partial victory but demanded binding, enforceable guarantees in later implementation documents. City officials said those topics could be addressed in subsequent design and contract phases and reiterated the need to satisfy federal deadlines in order to keep control of the property.

Clarifying details

- The contract authorized by the committee is for the master plan and has a not‑to‑exceed amount of $1,800,000. - The city has included an $86,000,000 estimate for later construction in its current capital plan; officials said the number could change after the study. - Speakers cited RFQ figures read into the record by commenters: the RFQ asked for planning capacity to serve hundreds of sworn police trainees (a number commenters summarized as roughly 264 police), while listing substantially lower numbers for EMS and fire staff in initial RFQ language (commenters quoted figures such as 23 EMS, 13 fire). City officials and speakers disputed whether those RFQ numbers fairly represented final program needs.

Speakers quoted in the meeting

- Deb Gross, Councilwoman (mover of the amendment): read amendment language including, “There shall not be facilities to coordinate or co‑locate with federal law enforcement.” - Tim Gaber, Strip District business owner: “This will be a recipe for disaster, gridlock, chaos ... It will be less safe.” - Dr. Phoebe Cook, volunteer first responder: cited the RFQ numbers and said, “Unless you actually back that up by modifying the charge … the public knows that this is a COP city.”

Ending

The committee’s approval of the planning contract moves the project into a formal study and design phase with written limits inserted by council amendment; it does not authorize construction. The master plan and the council’s chosen guardrails will return to public view when the consultant’s report is completed and will be accompanied by additional opportunities for public comment and formal council votes before any building work begins.