Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses planning staff on $6M consulting bill, participation counts and possible savings
Summary
Multiple council members questioned the $6 million consultant contracts for PGH2050, asked for precise accounting of spent vs. unspent funds, and suggested scaling back or redirecting remaining money to neighborhood outreach or urgent municipal needs.
Council members used the Nov. 10 post-agenda briefing to press planning officials for a clear accounting of consultant costs for the PGH2050 comprehensive plan and to question whether the expenditure represents good value for money.
"6,000,000 was allocated originally," Councilman Wilson said during questioning about spending. Staff replied that about $5.9 million had been allocated to date for consultant work but could not provide an immediate line-item breakdown. Several council members said they wanted a detailed report on how much remains unspent, which deliverables remain outstanding and what scope of work is covered by contracts with HRNA, Common Cause, Sasaki, Urban American City and others.
Councilwoman Gross cited out-of-city comparisons to underscore the fiscal concern: she pointed to Cincinnati's plan (about $500,000 in 2012) and said, "I cannot fathom why we're spending $20 per person on a comprehensive plan." Gross said she and others voted against the allocation when the contracts were approved, and she pressed staff on what legal or practical powers the plan would carry.
Multiple council members proposed a range of options to redirect remaining funds toward neighborhood outreach and near-term needs: Councilman Coghill and others suggested clawing back portions of unspent funds to purchase city equipment, while Councilwoman Warwick proposed neighborhood-focused two-hour planning sessions and door-knocking to reach harder-to-reach residents with an $11,000 neighborhood funding estimate.
Planning staff acknowledged some payments are contractual obligations for work already completed but said remaining Phase 4 and Phase 5 work (scenario vetting and plan development) requires additional payments. Staff offered to provide council with the contracts, deliverables, and a recommended list of tasks that could be scaled back if council seeks to recoup funds.
No formal fiscal decision was taken at the meeting. Council members asked staff to return with a precise accounting of: (1) how much has been spent; (2) what work is already paid for; and (3) how much remains available and for which deliverables. Several members indicated they would support recouping at least some funds if contracts permit.
The exchange underscored a broader tension on the council: several members said the city faces urgent fiscal needs and questioned whether large planning consultancies should take priority over immediate operational demands.
