Budget workshop outlines proposed 2025-26 budget, phase‑2 salary study and staffing additions

At a budget workshop in August 2025, city staff presented draft numbers for the 2025‑26 budget, including a proposed roughly $305,000 phase‑2 implementation of a prior salary study that staff said would amount to about a 5% across‑the‑board increase in general‑fund employee wages. Tammy, a finance staff member, and other department staff outlined revenue estimates, proposed transfers to program funds, capital project funding and staffing changes, and set a public hearing and ordinance adoption for Sept. 22.

The budget matters because it proposes recurring wage changes and program transfers that affect core services and projects across the city, including public safety, library operations and transportation projects. The presentation also flagged higher projected costs for health insurance, utilities and property insurance that could affect fiscal flexibility.

City staff summarized the package as fund‑by‑fund highlights and the largest proposed items. “We made a determination or a goal to go ahead and have the phase 2 of that study to go ahead and be implemented, which is approximately a $305,000 increase. This is just in the general fund,” a staff member said during the presentation. The staff member added: “that’s an approximate 5% increase for all employees across the board.”

Staff also described revenue assumptions and transfers. The draft uses a 1.5% projected increase in sales tax revenue for the next fiscal year (staff said the current year had been budgeted at 2% but actual August receipts were about 3.5%). The budget proposes transferring 75% of local use tax revenue to the general fund to help cover wage increases and other costs. As of August, staff said local use tax receipts were performing above prior estimates, with an actual year‑to‑date increase of about 8.75%.

Proposed staffing changes and operating transfers described in the presentation include adding one full‑time police officer, converting a part‑time airport position to full time, and adding a part‑time parks position (20 hours). Staff said they did not include an additional part‑time office position for a commercial occupancy program in the draft but would revisit that if revenues outperform the 1.5% sales tax projection after the first quarter.

Several capital and one‑time items were outlined with proposed funding sources. Highlights staff listed: - Transfer to the library: $440,000 (staff said past transfers were about $300,000 and the current figure reflects additional needs, including roof work). - Completion of a fire station: about $1,800,000. - Downtown Washington improvements (new light standards, paver replacement, utility burial for Front and Main): $825,000. - Equipment storage facility for parks and public works: $900,000. - Airport runway expansion: $3,000,000, which staff said is 95% reimbursable. - Pool house renovation: an estimated $195,000 in the draft pending bid review.

Staff also proposed a $250,000 set‑aside for riverfront bank stabilization work when river conditions permit, and continuing work on detention basin retrofits and storm‑sewer slip‑lining. The presentation described an erosion‑control idea proposed by Charles to set aside materials (rock) that private property owners could access on a first‑come basis for bank repair; staff said the program details were not yet worked out.

The draft budget anticipates cost pressures: staff estimated health insurance increases of 9–10%, an approximate 12% increase in electric rates from Ameren, and about a 13% increase in property liability and casualty insurance. Staff also noted the presence of a new major user of natural gas in the industrial park that could increase utility franchise receipts, but said a full year of data had not yet been observed.

During discussion, Councilman Patke raised concern about the distribution formula for county Prop P funds that reimburse commissioned police officers. Staff said the reimbursable amount is about $5,000 per officer and that the county’s distribution formula uses a fixed pool divided by the number of officers, which results in a smaller per‑officer payment as the municipality’s officer count increases. "It doesn't get added. It gets split," Patke said, arguing the current formula penalizes growth. A speaker suggested the county commission's distribution policy could be changed.

Multiple council members and staff discussed timing for merit or additional salary adjustments beyond the phase‑2 implementation. Tammy recommended waiting until midyear or reviewing quarterly results to see whether the city could afford additional merit increases, saying the city has in the past reconsidered salary adjustments midyear.

Staff asked commissioners to submit follow‑up questions before the Sept. 22 hearing; they said they plan to present the ordinance for adoption at that meeting. No budget ordinance was adopted at the workshop.

Earlier in the meeting the committee approved the minutes from the Aug. 4 meeting (motion by Patke, second by Briggs). The committee also voted to go into executive session pursuant to Section 610.021, RSMo 2000 to discuss personnel, legal or real‑estate matters.

The presentation closed with staff offering to provide more detailed line‑by‑line budget information on request and with a reminder of the Sept. 22 public hearing on the budget and the ordinance adoption timeline.