Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stayton presents $95 million biennial budget; grants and SDCs drive large increases
Summary
City Manager Julia Hedrick and Finance Director James Brand presented a proposed two‑year budget that totals about $95 million, largely because of projected grants and system development charge (SDC) revenues; staff cautioned several revenues are estimates and some grants are not yet awarded.
City Manager Julia Hedrick presented the proposed biennial budget to the Stayton Budget Committee, saying, "This budget is the community's budget," and urging committee review before adoption.
The budget document before the committee totals roughly $95,000,000 in resources and requirements for the two‑year period, Finance Director James Brand said during his overview, noting the increase from prior biennia is driven mainly by anticipated grants and system development charges. "Grants are changing quite a bit in percentage," Brand said, and staff flagged three grant awards included in the budget that have not yet been awarded.
Nut graf: The proposal balances resources and requirements but relies on revenue assumptions that staff described as contingent. Committee members were repeatedly told that, while planned revenues include grants and large SDC receipts, those amounts are estimates and may require future supplemental budgets or adjustments if the awards or growth do not materialize.
Key facts
- The proposed biennial budget totals about $95 million; beginning fund balances are shown at roughly $17.4 million with an ending projected balance near $14.8 million. - The proposed general fund for the biennium is about $13.6 million (roughly $6.8 million per year), and total projected revenues across funds are roughly $63.8 million with total spending shown as about $62.1 million. - Staff estimated state shared revenues included in the proposal at about $2.2 million; Finance Director Brand told the committee that pending state legislation on the gas tax could increase the city's state gas tax allocation by a substantial percentage, adding "between $750,000 and a million dollars" in a best‑case scenario, but staff used the lower, currently certain estimate in the budget.
Revenue assumptions and risks
Hedrick and Brand emphasized several line items are contingent or projected. The budget includes: assumptions about library, parks and pool levies (for planning purposes, the draft assumes the library levy at $0.56 per $1,000 assessed value, parks at $0.60 and the pool levy at $0.50 per $1,000); projected utility rate increases tied to an FCS Group rate study (roughly 3% increases); and large SDC receipts contingent on development occurring as forecast by Community and Economic Development. Brand warned that if the grants or SDCs do not materialize, staff would return with budget adjustments and that it would be poor practice to spend contingent grant revenues before they are firmly in hand.
Process notes
As required by state law, the committee held a public hearing on the proposed uses of state revenue sharing funds; City staff reported no in‑person or remote testimony and the hearing was closed without public comment.
Ending
Staff asked the Budget Committee to scrutinize assumptions and provide direction; Hedrick closed by reaffirming the budget is a staff recommendation to be examined and revised through the committee process. The committee will continue review in subsequent sessions where members can ask for line‑level clarifications and pose motions after staff returns with any requested follow‑ups.
