Pittsburgh mulls skipping annual $10M earmark for anti-violence program

Pittsburgh City Council has promised nothing is off limits as it tries to fix what members claim is a broken budget.

On Tuesday council President R. Daniel Lavelle put his money where his mouth is.

The Hill District Democrat proposed deferring a $10 million payment next year to a program he champions: Stop the Violence.

That, he believes, should help the cash-starved city balance its budget.

The program, which fights gun violence, typically gets that much each year.

But it’s running a surplus. Records show it still had $10 million sitting around in September, enough to fund it for another year.

So Lavelle decided Stop the Violence doesn’t need another huge infusion of cash for 2026.

Lavelle has been a staunch advocate for the program, which he helped to launch. But as officials scramble to find savings in the 2026 budget, he suggested pausing — or at least drastically reducing — that allocation next year and instead drawing down on unspent money sitting in the fund.

His plan would be to provide new funding again in 2027.

Lavelle’s strategy is one of several tactics officials are contemplating to balance the budget amid financial challenges.

“I believe it’s fiscally prudent given that we still have dollars in that fund that have not been expended,” Lavelle said.

As of the end of September, the fund had nearly $10 million remaining, quarterly financial reports show.

Lavelle said he is working to get updated data on how much is in the fund now.

If it’s not enough to support the Stop the Violence program’s current operations, Lavelle indicated he would look to transfer a smaller amount, likely far short of the $10 million included in Mayor Ed Gainey’s budget proposal.

Council members have said all options are on the table as they work to hammer out a budget that a majority of them can approve.

The mayor’s budget was soundly rejected by council members who believe it is unrealistic and unbalanced and that it underestimates how much the city will need to spend on everything from utility bills to fleet upgrades.

Top officials in the Gainey administration have defended the budget as one that avoids layoffs and tax hikes while still funding core services.

Tax and/or cut

Councilwoman Barb Warwick, D-Greenfield, proposed a 30% tax hike.

Lavelle said he was not on board with that.

“Definitely I don’t believe 30% is necessary,” he said, adding that council members are still “crunching the numbers” to see how many cuts they can make without slashing core services.

Several council members have suggested pairing spending cuts with a more modest tax increase, a position Lavelle took Tuesday.

Other members have said they don’t want to see a tax hike at all and would rather look at slashing more spending or possibly laying off workers instead.

Council also delayed approving a $10 million allocation to the Housing Opportunity Fund until they have hashed out a budget.

Officials said they want to ensure that fund gets its full amount next year to provide rent assistance to low-income residents and help build and preserve affordable housing.

Lavelle had asked each department head to outline what they would ax if they had to cut 5% of their budgets next year.

Lavelle said the results — which he received Friday but has not yet distributed to all of his council colleagues — made “very clear” the city couldn’t make such drastic cuts without “severely” hindering city services.

Such cuts, he said, could mean the city can’t hire for important positions like a new bridge inspector. It could also mean limiting staffers to operate recreation centers or pools.

Cuts to the Department of Public Works, for example, would further hinder the city’s ability to respond to snow, which already is a challenge.