Pittsburgh Council votes to terminate two planning contracts after debate and reconsideration

Pittsburgh City Council voted on Dec. 22 to terminate two consulting contracts tied to the citycomprehensive plan after an extended debate about deliverables, cost, and whether the council has authority to cancel the agreements.

Council members discussed concerns about the planning process and contractor payments, with several members saying the product delivered so far did not meet expectations. Councilperson Gross said her staff reviewed comparable cities and "we could not find a city that paid more than $2 per capita to consultants," adding that the city had already paid "an enormous amount" and urging clawbacks where possible. Councilwoman Warwick said it was "very disappointing" that neighborhoods had not been engaged and called the rollout a bad look for city planning.

The package, advanced by the committee on finance and law, sought to terminate contracts with two consulting teams (identified in committee materials as Saseke and Common Cause Consultants, and HR&A Advisors and Urban AC LLC) under the Home Rule Charter authority cited in the committee report. Members repeatedly asked whether the council had a written legal opinion on the authority to unilaterally cancel the contracts; the clerk and council president confirmed a written legal opinion had not been requested before the vote, and members said they would seek one following the meeting.

An initial roll-call produced six ayes and three nos on the termination bills. Later in the meeting Councilmember Moseley moved to reconsider Bill 24-82; Moseley recused himself on the reconsideration vote due to an affiliation he disclosed with Onehood Media. On the retake, with the recusal recorded, the measure passed with six ayes and two nos. The council recorded the recusal in the roll-call but did not specify in the motion text further enforcement steps; staff and the Department of Law were asked during the meeting to provide written guidance on legal consequences and next steps.

Council members said they hoped to recover funds already paid to consultants and to ensure future planning work includes stronger neighborhood engagement. The council did not adopt new replacement planning vendors or a revised process during the meeting; members indicated those items would be for the next administration or for future committee deliberations.

The council also flagged that final outcomes could depend on mayoral action and potential legal challenges: if the mayor does not sign or if the administration pursues a different path, the contract status could change or be subject to further review.

The motion to reconsider and the final roll-call were taken under "motions and resolutions," and the clerk recorded the recusal language on the record. Council President Lavelle announced the outcome and next procedural notes following the vote.