Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City asks resident input on $6.5 million general-fund gap through online "Balancing Act" tool
Summary
City staff on Feb. 24 walked the Connected City Advisory Board through an online budget-prioritization tool known as 'Balancing Act,' and asked residents to fill out the exercise as the city addresses an approximately $6.5 million structural gap in the general fund.
City staff on Feb. 24 walked the Connected City Advisory Board through an online budget-prioritization tool known as "Balancing Act," and asked residents to fill out the exercise as the city addresses an approximately $6.5 million structural gap in the general fund.
The tool asks respondents to set service levels across categories (for example, ADA transition work, facilities maintenance, project inspections and levy maintenance) and assigns dollar values to changes in priority. Staff said results will be shared in aggregate with the governing body to inform budget and CIP discussions.
Melissa, a city staff member who led the demonstration, told the board: "The city is leaning more heavily into using this method with its residents to figure out sort of where to place priorities within our budget. In this particular instance, this year, we're going in with a deficit of 6,500,000.0 in our general fund." She said the tool maps each service-level choice to a dollar value and that the city is using the public responses as a data input for the commission’s upcoming budget retreat.
Board members and attendees pressed for details about some specific categories. Staff explained the ADA transition category in the tool is intended to track the city’s long-running ADA compliance work and that the city is still completing work the law requires; the levy-maintenance category reflects federal standards and Army Corps oversight for levee systems. Staff said some service levels have to remain at minimums for legal compliance and insurability while others are intended to show where the community would accept a lower or higher level of service.
Participants raised a question about the response deadline. Melissa said respondents should try to submit by mid-March to inform the retreat, but another attendee said the tool was open only through Feb. 20; staff acknowledged confusion and said aggregated responses will be included with materials for the governing-body retreat once collected. The board was also told the first public-facing version of the tool focuses on general-fund priorities; utility enterprise funds (water/wastewater) and rate-setting topics will be addressed separately in future outreach.
Staff noted specific operational constraints in several categories: levy maintenance must meet federal minimums to preserve national flood insurance eligibility for residents; project inspection staffing affects long-term asset performance; and school crossing-guard budgets are constrained by an ongoing shortage of available substitutes and hourly workers, limiting the city’s ability to scale that service even if funding increases.
Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded two routine procedural votes: approval of the minutes (motion approved unanimous) and a motion to adjourn (motion approved unanimous).
Ending: Staff asked board members and residents to use the Balancing Act tool and to share it with neighbors; staff will aggregate responses and present them to the governing body at its retreat to inform the FY2026 budget process.
