'Grim picture': Pittsburgh council meets in private to hear options for tax hike, budget cuts

Pittsburgh City Council members met Tuesday behind closed doors to hear a presentation about ways to fix a gaping hole in the 2026 budget.

Council Budget Director Peter McDevitt showed council options including tax increases at various levels, scaled-down pay raises for nonunion workers and cuts to the city’s workforce.

“It paints a pretty grim picture,” Councilman Anthony Coghill, D-Beechview, said of the “sobering and depressing” possibilities.

A copy of McDevitt’s presentation obtained by TribLive shows that McDevitt told council members getting to a balanced budget will require a “buffet of options” to increase revenues and curb spending.

That could include reducing the 3% pay increases non-union employees are expected to get next year and eliminating vacant positions beyond the roughly 50 empty spots already cut in Mayor Ed Gainey’s version of the budget.

The mayor pitched a $680 million spending plan with no tax hike or layoffs.

But council members are unanimous that the budget is unrealistic. Officials have raised concerns that it fails to account for millions of dollars of expenses, including overtime pay for first responders and utility bills.

Cuts, cuts and more cuts

McDevitt has estimated the mayor’s budget – which the administration insists is balanced – actually has a deficit of more than $20 million.

According to McDevitt, Pittsburgh could save nearly $1.7 million next year if the city eliminated the 3% pay bump non-union workers are set to get. Reducing that to a 1% raise would save the city over $1.1 million, according to his calculations.

Another option presented to council members: eliminating more vacant positions or part-time workers.

Cutting the city’s part-time workforce in half, according to McDevitt’s presentation, would save the city over $1.6 million next year.

Eliminating a slew of additional unfilled positions – ranging from a construction foreman to a paralegal – would save nearly $3 million.

Council members were told that trimming non-personnel costs across all departments by 5% — something Council President R. Daniel Lavelle has asked department heads to contemplate – would result in more than $3.6 million in savings.

The tax hike option

The budget director also outlined for council various tax increase options.

Councilwoman Barb Warwick, D-Greenfield, has proposed a 30% tax hike. That would raise nearly $45 million in additional tax revenue next year.

A 20% tax increase, according to McDevitt’s presentation, would bring in more than $28 million. Even a 10% hike would generate nearly $12 million in additional revenue, the presentation showed.

Councilwoman Erika Strassburger, D-Squirrel Hill, who chairs council’s finance committee, said all of those options are “viable,” though none are pleasant.

“All of these are going to be seen as hostile or difficult or challenging for various populations for various reasons, but everything was on the table as an exercise to see what is possible,” she said.

Coghill has repeatedly said he will not support a tax increase. He said he felt Pittsburgh has been “irresponsible” with taxpayer dollars in recent years and believes the city should look to make cuts, raid its trust funds and renegotiate contracts before asking taxpayers to pony up more cash.

“The only way I would support raising taxes is when I know we’ve exhausted every effort,” Coghill said.

Councilman Khari Mosley, D-Point Breeze, said officials have to identify the “best compromise” between tax hikes or cuts.

“My takeaway was that we have a number of tough choices,” Mosley said.

“All I can really say is that everything is still on the table,” Councilman Bob Charland, D-South Side, added

Lack of transparency

Officials barred the public, including the press, from the budget presentation.

Council members told TribLive they did not ask questions or deliberate to ensure they did not violate Pennsylvania’s open records law.

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, criticized the lack of transparency.

“From a purely legal standpoint, if there is no deliberation, the Sunshine Act does not apply,” she said.

“Even if what they did is legal under the act, it creates the appearance of impropriety. It discourages public participation. It creates a barrier of access to information people need to understand how their money will be spent, and how much of it, by the government.”