Search

Violence prevention funds to be redirected to city trucks, $6m planning contracts in jeopardy, and out-of-state property buyers to be blocked–Tell council what you think

Updates

  • Council has agreed to move forward with the $10 million 2026 Housing Opportunity Fund allocations. This legislation is separate from council approving the $10 million transfer, which is still to be determined.

This Week’s Top Agenda Items

  • Stop the Violence money may be used for city trucks
  • City property sales to out-of-state buyers rejected           
  • Council, mayor dispute ability to terminate the comprehensive plan contracts

City Council

Stop the Violence money may be used for city trucks.

The Stop the Violence Fund drew scrutiny earlier this year for its $15 million balance. On Dec. 16, council's president proposed cutting the city's 2026 contribution in half, sending $4 million to the city's vehicle fleet. He said there'd still be enough money to continue all services. Contributions would resume with the 2027 budget.

Written by Amy Whipple

A proposed reduction in this year's Stop the Violence funding had community members speaking out for the program.

At the Dec. 16 general meeting, Council President R. Daniel Lavelle of the Upper Hill District introduced legislation that would cut the contribution to the Stop the Violence Fund in half for 2026.

The fund came under scrutiny earlier this year for its $15 million balance.

Under his proposal the Stop the Violence Fund would receive $5 million. As for the rest, $4 million would be spent on the city’s fleet and $1 million would fund the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s small business development program.

“Even with a pause, there would still be enough money in the 2026 budget to continue all our services,” he said.

The annual contribution will resume with the 2027 budget.

At the Dec. 17 committee meeting, Council agreed to a related $6 million, two-year contract with The Center that CARES. CARES provides violence intervention and prevention services for the Office of Community Health and Safety’s REACH program. 

Outreach workers partner with Pittsburgh Police and Pittsburgh Public Schools to address violence in some city high schools and related communities. The program uses a public health approach.

Council Member Kail-Smith of Westwood said that, at a recent event in Elliott, a REACH team member stopped three fights. “Immediately the kids responded,” she said.

City Council

City property sales to out-of-state buyers rejected.

Out-of-state companies can buy city property at auction, and council wants a way to stop that. On Dec. 17, council denied four tax sales to buyers from Florida, Virginia, and Texas. A council member called mass buying by such companies the biggest threat to affordable housing. Bidding has no residency limits, but council can reject any sale for any reason.

Written by Amy Whipple

City council is looking for a mechanism to stop out-of-state limited liability companies (LLCs) purchasing property at auction.

Council denied four tax sales at its Dec. 17 committee meeting. They include properties in Garfield, Troy Hill and the Hill District by LLCs out of Florida and Virginia and a real estate agent from Texas.

Council Member Anthony Coghill of Beechview said, “For me, it’s the biggest threat to affordable housing at this point.” He believes mass purchasing by LLCs in his district effectively controls rent prices and sales markets.

According to Director of Finance Jennifer Gula, sometimes individual purchasers stand in for LLCs, though all purchasers have to state the planned use for the property. “I can’t stop them from buying property,” she said, “but it was absolutely a misrepresentation of who they were and what they were actually doing.”

While at auction there are no residency restrictions on who can bid on properties and the preliminary sale has to go to the highest bidder, council gives final approval and can reject sales for any reason.

Council Member Barb Warwick of Greenfield expressed concern about purchasers either sitting on properties in emerging neighborhoods or otherwise not using the property as intended.

City Council

Council, mayor dispute ability to terminate the comprehensive plan contracts.

So far, $4 million of $6 million in consulting contracts for the city's comprehensive plan has been spent. Now, council has given preliminary approval to end them, which the bill says would save more than $2 million. However, the Planning Department disputed council's authority, saying termination rests with the mayor. The final vote is set for Dec. 22.

Written by Amy Whipple

Now that the city has already spent $4 million of a $6 million contract to create a comprehensive plan, city council has given preliminary approval to terminate “ineffective and ineffectual” contracts with three consulting firms.

A press release from the Planning Department disputed city council’s authority to terminate the contract.

The legislation states termination will save taxpayers more than $2 million.

The city intended to use the comprehensive plan to guide future development, among other things, over the next 20 years, according to Engage Pittsburgh.

In Feb. 2024, council authorized the two contracts with three consulting firms—Sasaki and Common Cause Consultants, HR&A Advisors and Urban AC—to help create the plan. The contracts totaled $6 million.

The contracts are not available in the city’s public contract portal. Any potential termination fees are not included in the legislation and did not come up in council discussion.

Council Member Anthony Coghill of Beechview, who spearheaded the effort and did not vote in favor of the original contracts, said the consultants have not delivered a level of results to justify the cost. He would like to determine if the remainder of the plan could be completed in-house.

The termination requires the companies to turn over all related communication and documents. It also authorizes the controller to audit the finances and performance of the Department of City Planning.

A statement released by the Planning Department said, “While City Council has the authority to authorize contracts, the negotiation, execution, administration, and termination of those contracts rest with the Mayor and the executive branch.”

 Council’s preliminary approval for ending the comprehensive plan contracts was not unanimous. The vote split seven to two for the Sasaki contract and seven to three for the HR&A contract, Coghill opposed both of those contracts. The final vote is scheduled for the Dec. 22 legislative meeting.