One day after county officials announced a plan to redevelop the site of the former UPMC Braddock hospital building, borough council members said they are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea.

Describing the proposal presented on Tuesday by Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato as "outrageous and an insult" to Braddock residents, Council President Jesse Brown, Councilwoman Tina Doose and borough solicitor Lawrence Shields III said the plan -- as it stands -- is unacceptable.

"In no uncertain terms, Braddock Council unanimously rejects the plan," said Mr. Shields. Speaking at news conference on Wednesday along with several council members, he added that any plan that calls for demolishing the former hospital should be "taken off the table."

Instead, the council members said they would like the county to reopen talks with them and other community groups to start the process of a national search for a health care provider who would be willing to take over the building and run it as a hospital.

The announcement would appear to quash the proposal Mr. Onorato outlined on Tuesday. Mr. Onorato said he would only push the proposal forward if Braddock officials bought into the plan.

His spokesman, Kevin Evanto, said that in light of Braddock Council's position, "we cannot move forward with this plan. They have to be part of the plan and if they choose not to, then they are welcome to propose their own plan."

Under the county's proposal, UPMC would pay the cost to demolish hospital building and the site would be redeveloped as complex with housing for senior citizens, space for doctors' offices and classrooms for job training offered through the Community College of Allegheny County.

As part of the redevelopment proposal, Allegheny County would receive $3 million from UPMC, which would help leverage another $3 million from the state to be applied toward redevelopment.

The borough also would receive $90,000 a year for five years as payment in lieu of wage taxes that had been paid by UPMC employees who lived in the borough.

But Braddock Council members said Wednesday they would not accept the $450,000 in payments from UPMC.

"If the payments are part of this plan, yes. We will reject them because of their ties" to the proposed demolition of the former hospital, said Mr. Shields.

Braddock Mayor John Fetterman, who has been at odds with council on a range of municipality issues for years, said council's position on this redevelopment plan was "regrettable."

"It's a sad day for the residents of Braddock because there is no logical reason to reject this proposal," Mr. Fetterman said. "We would all like to see that building remain as a hospital, but there are no health care providers out there who want to operate it as a hospital."

Braddock residents and officials, Mr. Evanto added, had ample opportunity to review the county's redevelopment plans in a series of public meetings of a committee formed by Mr. Onorato that reviewed what could be done with the property

Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Brown, Ms. Doose and other residents were on that committee.

But longtime Braddock resident Pat Morgan, who as a member of the grass-roots campaign Save Our Community Hospitals sat on the committee, said that Mr. Onorato and county officials never specified all the details of the redevelopment plan.

"When [Mr. Onorato] talked about the plan, we thought some of those ideas were good ideas, but we didn't think it was final. We were under the impression that [Mr. Onorato] would be coming back to hold a bigger community meeting to explain the idea some more, but he never came back," said Ms. Morgan.

The borough council on Tuesday voted to override Mr. Fetterman's veto of a bill to raise taxes to make up for the revenue the borough would lose in wage taxes with the closure of the hospital.

The council had voted to raise property taxes by 1 mill to 11.7 mills last year, but Mr. Fetterman vetoed the increase, saying he wanted to see if the borough could find other ways to fill holes in its budget.

Council voted 5-0 to override the mayor's veto. Council members said they would rather live with a tax hike than go along with the plan to tear down the hospital building.

"If we let our access to health care go away because of this plan, then once again, Braddock will lose," said Ms. Doose.

But Mr. Fetterman countered that it is Braddock residents who will lose, mostly because of the borough council's decisions, especially their vote to raise taxes even as they turn down payments from UPMC.

"I know a good deal for Braddock when I see it. And now, because of council, the very residents who will suffer without a hospital will pay higher taxes," said Mr. Fetterman.

UPMC announced it was closing the hospital last year and shut the doors on Sunday because officials said the hospital did not draw enough patients from the community to stay open.

But Mr. Brown said that borough council members have not given up on the idea of pursuing a national health care provider to operate a hospital where UPMC is pulling out. And going forward, he added, the county ought to let the borough determine its destiny.

"Our citizens need to be totally informed and involved in the process. We're tired of outsiders coming to tell us what is best for our community," said Mr. Brown.

The county, he and Mr. Shields added, has not fully pursued all the hospital systems -- as many as 15 of them from around the country -- that are interested in running the facility.

But Mr. Evanto said that Jackson Clark Partners -- the Pittsburgh consulting group that the county hired to analyze its options in Braddock -- contacted all 15 hospital systems and a few others, and none of them were interested in operating a hospital in Braddock.

The county, Mr. Evanto continued, received three serious inquiries from health care companies and organizations that might have been interested in using the building, but none of them was interested in operating a hospital or emergency medical services or even using the whole building.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.