Council holds $1.8 million master‑plan bill for proposed public safety training campus after wide public opposition

Pittsburgh City Council's standing committees on Wednesday, July 16, held for seven weeks a resolution (Bill 2025‑1967) authorizing up to $1,800,000 for a master plan for a proposed Public Safety Training Campus after more than two hours of public comment, largely in opposition. Councilwoman Emily Gross moved the hold; members approved it by voice vote.

The bill would authorize the mayor and the Department of Public Works to contract with a planning firm to prepare a master plan and associated studies for the site. Dozens of residents and community advocates urged council to reject or substantially rewrite the proposal, saying the plan as described in public documents resembles a “cop city” training campus rather than a mixed public‑safety facility prioritized for fire, EMS and community uses.

The speakers’ concerns centered on scale, cost and the proposed uses. “I am 1 of many Pittsburghers who were injured in 2020 during the protests by the Pittsburgh police. I do not want my tax dollars used to train the police to do that to people more efficiently,” said Eliana Beagle, a District 9 resident. Other speakers cited the $1.8 million initial planning price tag and projected later construction costs they said could exceed $90 million to $100 million.

Several speakers identified specific features in publicly available requests for qualifications — including an indoor firing range, K‑9 facilities and a design element nicknamed “Hogan’s Alley” — and said those elements mirror tactical training used by federal and other law‑enforcement agencies. “If cops get a dedicated indoor pool before our river rescue team does, something has gone really badly wrong with our priorities,” said Dr. Phoebe Cook of Regent Square.

Council members said they wanted more time to review the record, to firm up conditions and to explore alternatives. Councilwoman Warwick, who chaired the public discussion, said she was “very sympathetic to all the concerns about a police training facility.” Councilwoman Gross said her office and staff had uncovered additional questions in the past two weeks about the listed master‑planning vendor’s practices and the limits of the federal conveyance that placed conditions on the property. “I don't think we should be contracting at all,” Gross said in committee, citing research her office had compiled about the vendor’s prior work.

Councilman Darek Mosley, whose district includes the site, said the matter required more public engagement and exploration of options that would prioritize fire, EMS and community‑based public safety partners such as violence‑intervention groups. “There’s a lot of different things we need to look at,” Mosley said, including whether portions of the site could be reserved exclusively for non‑police uses.

Action at the committee level: Councilwoman Gross moved to hold the bill for seven weeks to allow additional review and public engagement; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. No final appropriation or contract authority was approved at the meeting.

The record of public comment and the committee discussion also included repeated requests that council write binding restrictions into any contract or ordinance if the city proceeds, limiting uses such as militarized tactical training, permanent evidence warehouses, or other functions residents described as widening police infrastructure. Several speakers urged council to reapply for alternative federal conveyance categories (for example public housing or recreational use) or seek more explicit, binding language that would prioritize EMS, fire training and community access.

Committee staff and members said they will continue research and outreach and expect to return the item for consideration after the hold period.