Pittsburgh officials expect the city will have a 2026 spending plan by their New Year’s Eve deadline.

But Jake Pawlak, the architect of outgoing Mayor Ed Gainey’s budgets, is already exploring what would happen if they don’t.

“That has not happened in the modern era of the city,” Pawlak told reporters Friday, as officials continue squabbling over a spending plan. “I’m confident it won’t happen now.”

With stark divisions between the mayor’s office and council, though, nothing is guaranteed.

Pawlak said officials are trying to get a handle on what expenses the city would have to pay if a budget isn’t passed by City Council and it what it wouldn’t — or couldn’t — spend.

The city would still have to pay down its debts and remit wages to union workers, said Pawlak, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

“There are some areas of expenditure that would be in a bit of a limbo,” Pawlak said. “We’re analyzing those effects now.”

The goal, according to Pawlak, would be to find a way to manage with “as minimal disruptions as possible.”

Pawlak expressed confidence Pittsburgh won’t blow the budget deadline imposed by the city’s home rule charter: 11:59 p.m. on December 31.

Its exact language: “Council shall adopt by resolution an operating budget and a capital budget before the end of each fiscal year.”

The charter, essentially an operating manual for the city, does not spell out penalties for failing to meet the deadline.

City Council has scheduled a tentative 11:00 p.m. meeting that day, during which they will — if necessary — override a veto should Gainey toss out the spending plan council approves.

Peter McDevitt, council’s budget director, echoed Pawlak’s optimism about wrapping up the budget on time.

If that doesn’t happen, McDevitt said, at least some spending would likely screech to a halt.

“If spending limits aren’t set, they have nothing to spend,” he said.

Pawlak maintains the 2026 budget proposed by the Gainey administration is balanced and feasible. It would eliminate about 50 vacant positions, trim $3.5 million in non-personnel spending and avoid layoffs and a tax increase.

But council members have scoffed at that characterization.

They’ve said they don’t believe the budget is realistic and have pledged to reject it as is.

They’re exploring a range of options to remedy what they see as a glaring multimillion deficit under the Gainey plan.

At one extreme, a councilwoman suggested raising taxes by 30%. Other options include cutting spending further, laying off part-time workers or pausing the annual $10 million allocation to special funds that allocate money to address violence and aid affordable housing.

Pawlak called it “premature” to say whether Gainey would sign or veto whatever budget council passes before any votes are taken on amendments.

Councilwoman Erika Strassburger, D-Squirrel Hill, who chairs council’s finance committee, said she hasn’t started to look at worst-case scenarios.

Strassburger sounded a positive note on Friday.

“We will get it done,” she told TribLive.