Auburn council reviews manager, council budget proposals; tax levy sits at 5.53% in council draft

The Auburn City Council met April 10 for a workshop focused solely on the proposed FY 2026 municipal budget, where staff walked councilors through changes that produce a council-proposed tax levy increase of 5.53% and a list of supplemental requests totaling about $440,000.

Why it matters: the workshop narrowed differences between the city manager’s proposed budget and the council’s amendments, identified several department-level reductions and revenue offsets, and set a timetable for the school budget and further council decisions ahead of the May referendum schedule.

City Manager (title given as City Manager) told the council the packet before them represents the council’s proposed adjustments, not the manager’s submitted budget, and asked whether the changes reflected the direction councilors wanted. “Tonight, I think that, where what I would be looking for is, is this in the direction you wanna head?” the City Manager said.

The council-proposed summary shows municipal operating expenses rising about 3.08% (roughly $1.3 million) with new recreation programming costs of about $350,000 included in that total; the combined municipal and school non-tax revenues are shown and applied to determine each tax levy line. After adjusting debt breakout and revenue offsets the council proposal sits at a total tax levy increase of 5.53% (the earlier manager document showed roughly 8.44%). The packet separates municipal debt, school debt, and two public referenda (public safety building and new high school) so councilors can see how each component affects the levy.

Notable departmental changes and clarifications

- Finance: the council proposal reduces operating services by about $112,000 while adding $150,000 for a senior tax rebate program; one position will be converted from a city position to a contract-funded role. These items are included in the “Council Proposal” totals but are not part of the manager’s original submission.

- Communications and events: the council proposal trims about $38,000 by reducing events and advertising, moving the city’s Blues & Brews programming into the Balloon Festival weekend and eliminating Lobsterfest for the budget year. Sponsorship revenue assumptions were cut by $20,000.

- Business & community development: three vacant positions would be eliminated, reducing the local tax obligation by roughly $110,000 while shifting some federal-funded activities and adding $250,000 (currently unallocated) in the council proposal for homeless services.

- Recreation: council and staff moved recreational programming into the operating budget and built user-fee offsets into the proposal. The packet assumes a 20% offset of recreation costs from registration revenue, generating roughly $95,000 of additional revenue; some program fees would rise (examples cited: ~25–35% increases for programs that were below market). Staff said scholarships and a designated recreation special revenue account would continue to be used to aid access.

- Library: the library director requested a $50,000 reduction; the proposal reduces library funding by $50,000 with changes to hours and part-time staffing (Saturdays revised to 9 a.m.–1 p.m.). The City Manager said the council appropriation may be made contingent on the library board reviewing outside-user revenue and returning with adjustments by Sept. 30.

- Public safety: the council proposal removes manager-recommended supplemental funding for a full-year third ambulance (the pilot-era funding and a supplemental $135,500 plus its $75,000 projected revenue offset were eliminated). Separately, the proposal recommends a partial staffing change in fire weekend operations: if total on-duty staffing drops below 14 on some weekend shifts, an apparatus would be taken temporarily out of service and its personnel redistributed; the City Manager said the packet includes $50,000 to reflect limited weekend apparatus reductions (the chief had estimated $90,000 for a full estimate, but the council proposal contains $50,000). The City Manager noted mutual-aid arrangements (for example, calls to Lewiston) would continue if apparatus are out of service.

- Police: the animal-control duties provided currently by a sworn officer would move to a civilian position; a parking enforcement officer position remains frozen and would be funded out of a parking special revenue account. The council proposal contemplates raising the monthly permit fee (from $45 to $55) and increasing parking fines to produce additional revenue (roughly $50,000 each in estimates).

- Public Works & Solid Waste: the council proposal funds two, not three, equipment-operator positions for new striping work, which will delay some maintenance tasks; customer-service coverage for work orders will be reduced at times. The city also removed funding for new solid-waste bins ($183,000 earlier then reduced and removed), suspended the bulky-waste program, and retained support for organics drop sites but removed curbside organics funding in this round. Fuel contract prices came in lower than previously estimated and were adjusted accordingly.

Debt, transit and other revenue items

Councilors and staff removed a tax-increment-financing (TIF) offset from the debt-service line so the packet shows a clearer “true” debt-service total (TIF offset roughly $3.0–$3.2 million depending on the sheet). The Hilton Garden Inn sale paid off a loan that reduced debt service by about $160,000. LA Transit operating support was reduced by $26,000 in the new summary after a state contract adjustment.

Homeless services and supplementals

The council proposal holds $250,000 for homeless services but it is not yet allocated to a specific program or operator; staff explained the request was partly intended to support a possible emergency shelter in the Lewiston–Auburn region or, if a shelter does not stand up, to support an emergency warming center next winter. Councilors noted significant state grant funding has been announced for regional homelessness responses, but the scale and timing of local needs remain uncertain.

School budget and timetable

Councilors were reminded the school budget must be adopted at the council’s first May meeting to meet election and referendum timelines; the City Manager said the school public referendum elements are shown separately on the debt breakout. Several councilors asked to hear from the school superintendent at the next workshop so the council can evaluate any requested reductions and impacts before finalizing municipal decisions.

Process and vote threshold

Councilors asked whether the 5.53% council-proposed levy would require a five-vote supermajority. Staff clarified that the state law known as LD 1 (which previously tied vote thresholds to CPI) was repealed by the Legislature; however, the city’s local ordinance still requires a five-vote threshold in some circumstances, and at the current level councilors were told they would need five votes to adopt the final budget.

Next steps and timing

The City Manager told the council a master list of line-item changes will be provided at the next workshop and asked councilors to come prepared with any proposed substitutions or alternatives. The council set a follow-up workshop schedule (next Tuesday) and plans to hear from the school superintendent at the following workshop. Staff emphasized several items remain uncertain — notably waste-tipping fees and the final scope of any shelter funding — and those items may change the final levy.

Ending: Councilors praised staff’s work in narrowing differences and scheduled further deliberations; no formal vote was taken at the workshop.