Oshkosh budget workshop: manager proposes $48.9 million levy, long‑range fund‑balance review urged

City Manager Mark Roloff presented the administration’s high‑level view of the proposed 2025 budget at a council workshop, saying the recommended property tax levy is $48.9 million, a 2.83% increase over 2024. He told council members the headline general fund change can look larger than it is because the city separated ambulance costs from the general fund to improve transparency for contracted municipalities.

Finance Director Julie Thomas walked council through reassessment impacts and the fund‑balance analysis. Thomas said residential property values rose faster than commercial values this year, a shift that helps explain why many homeowners face larger increases after the reassessment even though overall assessed value behavior varies by class. She provided illustrative comparisons and the finance team’s estimate that intergovernmental revenue will rise by roughly half a million dollars compared with 2024.

Why this matters: the administration said reclassifying some tax‑levy supported funds, and moving EMS out of the general fund, changes the ratio that reporters and rating agencies use to measure general fund reserve strength. Mark Roloff and Julie Thomas told the council that, dollar‑for‑dollar, the city still holds a sizable balance but that the percentage metric changes when special revenue and internal service funds are shown alongside the general fund.

Key figures presented to the council included the proposed levy of $48,900,000 (2.83% increase) and a finance analysis showing a roughly $18.5 million aggregate balance across funds the city examined and an illustrative minimum threshold of about $12.45 million under a modified formula the staff used. Thomas and Roloff said that leaves an approximate $6 million cushion above the guideline, but cautioned the council against overusing fund balance for recurring expenses.

Council members pressed for clarification on how the reclassifications affect Moody’s or other outside reviewers and on whether the presentation methodology would change the story told to creditors and residents. Thomas and Roloff said the intent is to present a clearer long‑term picture to the long‑range finance committee and recommended developing a consistent policy on which funds to include when reporting reserve ratios.

The session also previewed staff recommendations on using fund balance for one‑time versus ongoing costs: Thomas advised that one‑time capital or debt‑reduction uses are preferable to using reserves for recurring operating expenses because levy limits and ongoing personnel costs make it difficult to restore reserves once spent.

Council direction and next steps: staff recommended the long‑range finance committee review the proposed reporting approach and fund‑balance policy language before the council takes final levy action. The administration said it would provide follow‑up detail on any funds shown as “to be determined” in the CIP and on the debt service projections that will further affect reserve estimates.