Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Estate Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs transfer of 2608 Penn Ave. (former OMI building) to URA; council members request legal review
Summary
The standing committee recommended conveying the city’s interest in 2608 Penn Avenue to the Urban Redevelopment Authority for $1 contingent on a cooperation agreement. Members pressed for a law-department opinion on whether the property requires a different process (such as orphan's court) because of prior dedications or deed restrictions.
The Standing Committees meeting on June 4 recommended that the city convey any interest it holds in Block 25p, Lots 11 and 12 (2608 Penn Avenue, the former OMI building in the Strip District, Council District 1) to the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh for consideration of $1, contingent upon a cooperation agreement that sets out rights and responsibilities for the disposition to a third party. The resolution as drafted authorizes a quitclaim deed and a cooperation agreement between the city and the URA.
Committee members and staff spent more than an hour discussing the property’s history, the appropriate legal process for disposing of a city-owned building, and the URA’s intended role. Councilwoman Gross raised questions about whether the conveyance should follow the statutory process used for some previously transferred properties, including whether the Dedicated and Donated Property Act or other deed restrictions would require a court filing. A legislative affairs manager explained that the difference between earlier library properties and other city property often depends on how the city originally acquired the land: "The difference between the former some of our former library properties and some of our other properties is not the building itself, but the way that the city acquired them," the manager said.
Peter McTavitt, the city’s budget director and former asset-management analyst, told the committee the OMI building has sat vacant for many years and would require substantial investment to return to use. "It would take millions of dollars because we looked at it for different uses of the city might have or other nonprofits might have," he said, describing structural and maintenance needs.
Several council members acknowledged competing priorities: some said the city should hold certain assets when feasible, while others said the cost of continued ownership and the building’s long vacancy support a disposition route that could prompt redevelopment. Council President Lavelle said the URA disposition process lets the city weigh public benefits in selecting a purchaser and noted the proposed cooperation structure usually provides the city 20% of net proceeds (the URA retains the remainder) under the example coop language discussed on the floor.
Several members asked law staff to review deeds and to advise whether additional steps (such as orphan's-court proceedings or a dedicated-public-use review) are required before final disposition. The law department agreed to prioritize getting a written opinion; a timeline of follow-up was discussed and members asked for an update prior to the full-council final vote. The committee moved the resolution forward with an affirmative recommendation; recorded committee action was "affirmative recommendation" with one no vote and two abstentions recorded in committee.
