Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews FY2025–26 budget proposal; members advance parks-fee plan and flag state bills
Summary
City staff briefed council on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating and capital budget, highlighting increases for public safety and cultural/recreation services; councilmembers proposed fee increases for parks field use and discussed state legislation that could affect future tax-rate setting.
City staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating and capital budget during a work session on Aug. 26 and outlined several program-level changes and fast-moving state bills that could affect future budgets.
City Manager Jared Atkinson said the total proposed budget is roughly $943 million. He highlighted a $6.5 million year-over-year increase in public safety spending (primarily police and fire) and a roughly $729,000 increase in cultural and recreation services, which include parks and museums. Taken together those increases are partly offset by reductions in other categories, yielding a net proposed general-fund increase of about $2.3 million.
Atkinson flagged two pieces of state legislation active in the special session: Senate Bill 10 (fast-tracked) would change the voter-approval rate currently tied to rollback or voter-approval tax-rate calculations (House and Senate versions differed in the meeting), and House Bill 17 would require a mailed taxpayer notice to owners of all tax parcels describing tax impacts. Staff said the legislation is moving quickly and that the city is working to understand carve-outs and technical details.
Councilmembers discussed two staff-proposed technical changes: move a traffic-sign large-printer purchase from next year into the current year’s funds, and increase the vehicle-replacement fund by $110,000 (for a phonemically described “cattail removal” machine) funded from a $2 million street-bond contingency. Atkinson said staff recommended those changes and explained the funding source.
Councilmembers Rose and Collins introduced a proposal to raise parks and recreation field fees: resident user group fees from $6 to $10; nonresident user group fees from $8.50 to $20; and per-game fees from $35 to $50. The administration’s baseline revenue in the parks line was $359,558; staff estimated this fee change would bring an additional roughly $236,000 and raise total fee revenue to about $595,000. The sponsors proposed dedicating 60% of the new revenue to the general fund (to be used as currently budgeted) and directing 40% to a parks CIP for maintenance (approximately $238,000). Council discussed using a resolution or other mechanism to protect the dedicated funds from being reallocated by future councils and asked staff to return with language.
Councilmembers also questioned staff compensation levels. Councilmember Collins asked staff to calculate the fiscal impact of raising the non-public-safety staff increase by a half percentage point; the proposed public-safety salary increase was 4% while general staff were proposed at 2.5% (CPI cited as 2.7%).
Atkinson reviewed the budget schedule: budget and tax-rate hearings are scheduled for Sept. 2, the first reading of the budget ordinance will be Sept. 2, and the second reading and ratification votes are set for the Sept. 9 regular meeting. Staff emphasized that any technical adjustments or direction from council this week would be incorporated for action at those hearings. Several items were discussed but left for formal action during the scheduled hearings.
