Auburn council reviews FY‑26 budget as tax‑levy climb nears 10%; councilors push for cuts, clearer rec accounting

Auburn, Maine — The Auburn City Council spent a multi‑hour workshop reviewing the city manager’s FY‑26 budget proposal, which staff said currently equates to about a 9.94% tax‑levy increase (rounded to 10%). City Manager Phil told the council the package as presented puts the council “at a 9.94% tax levy increase” and that the council had previously set a 5% levy‑increase target to guide cuts and revenue changes.

Why it matters: Councilors said they want a clearer set of tradeoffs before the council approves a final number. About half of the proposed increase is driven by debt service tied to recently approved and planned capital projects, and councilors and staff debated where to find roughly $2.6 million to lower the levy toward the 5% target without cutting core public‑safety services.

City Manager Phil told the council the current difference between the manager’s proposed budget and the council’s working column includes nearly $820,000 in supplemental items the council has discussed; after offsetting companion revenues the net levy effect is described by staff as 9.94%.

Budget drivers and immediate choices Staff and councilors repeatedly returned to three budget drivers: higher debt service for planned public‑safety projects (South Main Street fire station, Marrow Road work and a new public‑safety building), collective‑bargaining and step increases for public‑safety employees, and expanded services or reclassifications that shifted staff across departmental budgets.

Phil summarized the council’s task bluntly: “The exercise, the first exercise is to talk about trying to get that down to 5%.” Councilors said that goal will require both trimming discretionary items and examining longer‑term, structurally‑embedded costs.

Third ambulance and EMS capacity The council placed the proposed third ambulance — a supplemental item in the council column — on the list for discussion. Council materials list the incremental cost for a full year at $135,500 with an expected revenue offset from billing of about $75,000; staff said when partial months already budgeted are included the net levy impact is smaller.

Councilors, the mayor and the city manager framed the ambulance request as a capacity and overtime‑relief item rather than a pure revenue play. Chief Chase and staff described how additional ambulance hours would reduce overtime and give the department relief during peak demand; staff emphasized that if budgeted hours are cut proportionally the billing revenue would fall by roughly the same proportion.

Fire, EMS staffing and insurance ratings Councilors also questioned how minimum staffing rules for fire apparatus interact with the city’s Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating and property insurance costs. Staff summarized recent practice: Auburn’s on‑duty minimum per apparatus has been three personnel (below the NFPA four‑per‑apparatus guidance in some contexts) and minimum staffing rules affect how many apparatus the city can staff simultaneously. Staff warned that changes in staffing models can change the city’s ISO rating and, in turn, insurance premiums for property owners.

Public works, overtime and winter operations Public‑works staff described several budget increases that reflect restored or reallocated personnel (including three equipment operators the council approved to support an in‑house striping program). Overtime for winter maintenance was noted as a volatile item — last year’s actual overtime approached $278,000 — and staff said overtime rises when vacancies force other employees to cover shifts. Public‑works staff also described the city’s shift to a self‑made salt brine mixture as a cost‑saving operational change while noting the per‑ton cost of road salt has risen.

Consolidations, shifts and one‑time revenue offsets Multiple departments showed big percentage increases that staff said were largely transfers of positions and services into new department headers: for example, tax clerks were moved to the City Clerk’s office (driving a 60% increase in that department’s salary line but a corresponding reduction under finance), and a new Public Services department consolidated roles previously in public works, economic development and the city manager’s office; staff said many apparent increases are internal transfers rather than pure new cost.

Recreation, special‑revenue programs and the drop‑in center Councilors pressed for clearer accounting in the recreation (10‑30) lines, where program revenues are held in special‑revenue funds while staff salaries remain in the general fund. Staff said they will reformat the rec budget so program revenues and the staff time that supports them appear together for the council’s review. Councilors asked how scholarships and other subsidies (rec scholarships of roughly $2,000 to $18,000 exist, plus CDBG support for some programs) will be maintained if general fund pressure increases.

The meeting also included discussion of the city’s Mill Street “drop‑in center” (homeless‑services facility). Staff said the city’s capital outlays for renovating that property have used HUD and ARPA funding; staff and councilors stressed that most operating support will ultimately need confirmation from the program partners and funders. Councilors and staff repeatedly said requests from outside groups (for example, Cadence/Caden’s Kitchen asked for operating support) lack sufficient detail; staff recommended evaluating such requests after more complete proposals are submitted.

Transit, Norway Savings Bank Arena, Ingersoll and enterprise accounting The council reviewed a new LA‑transit contract that raises the local contribution (staff described the contract and a shift to more on‑demand service). Staff also reminded the council that Norway Savings Bank Arena and the Ingersoll turf facility operate as enterprise accounts and that Norway’s operating profit has been used to service debt tied to that facility; staff said the current accounting separates operating profit from the underlying debt service and recommended consolidated P&L reporting for transparency.

Possible next steps and council options Councilors offered multiple sets of options: 1) reduce or delay specific supplemental operating items (bulky waste, some event funding, Twin Cities swim team and other non‑municipal requests), 2) seek modest fee increases (parking, permit/plan fees and certain rec fees) to raise revenue, 3) ask departments to find vacancy or efficiency savings (freeze long‑vacant positions, reclassify some sworn work to civilian roles where feasible), or 4) accept a higher levy and use fund balance as a one‑time offset (staff warned that relying on fund balance reduces future flexibility).

Councilor Platt said she treats the school budget as “a department” to be prioritized alongside police, fire and public works; other councilors said the council should give the school board a target (for example, an illustrative $500,000 cut) and ask the superintendent and board to return with a proposal showing where reductions would fall.

What the council asked staff to return with - A recoded recreation budget that shows program revenues and personnel costs together so the council can assess which programs subsidize others. - Line‑by‑line detail for finance, public services and public‑works transfers so councilors can see which percentage increases are pure transfers versus net new cost. - Clarified costs and revenue offsets for the third ambulance (the $135,500 annual cost with $75,000 of billing revenue cited by staff) and the likely overtime impact under different staffing scenarios. - Breakouts of school building repair allocations by facility and an update from the superintendent at a future regular meeting on facilities and consolidation plans.

Councilors ended the workshop with broad agreement on the need for more detailed follow‑up before committing to a final levy figure; staff said they will schedule additional budget workshops and will produce a revised manager’s packet that reflects the council’s guidance.

The council did not take any formal votes at the workshop.