Pacific aldermen debate budget priorities as parks, pool reserve and animal services draw cuts

The City of Pacific Board of Aldermen opened a public hearing on the fiscal year 2025–26 budget June 17 and spent more than an hour questioning line items for parks, tourism, animal services and personnel without taking a final vote.

The hearing and subsequent discussion focused on how the proposed budget balances after reductions in several departments. Alderman Kelly, who sponsored review of the budget bill, walked the board through multiple line items and flagged changes including a reduction in trap-neuter-return (TNR) funding from $18,000 to $9,000 and a cut to a new-vehicle-equipment line. Staff confirmed the Franklin County Humane Society contract was added to the budget and that the society billed the city $1,375 for May; "I believe for this last month, they were all kittens," a staff member said during the meeting.

The debate centered on whether one-time or earmarked revenues approved by voters should be treated as supplements. Several aldermen cited Prop P and Prop S — voter-approved park and stormwater taxes — while others warned the general fund cannot currently support additional transfers without creating an imbalance. Alderman Lesh and others noted the proposed park revenues include an estimated $300,000 from the new tax and roughly $53,100 in miscellaneous park revenues, but that the budget contains no transfer from the general fund into parks this year. "I'm not happy with seeing a budget with deficit line items," an alderman said during the discussion.

Board members pressed staff on specific assumptions the administration used to estimate event revenue, pointing to a $65,000 projection for upcoming tourism events that has not yet occurred. The tourism liaison and staff acknowledged a request made at a prior special meeting for the tourism department to provide reports to justify projected revenues; those reports had not been received by the board at the June 17 meeting.

On reserves, the board discussed use of the pool reserve to balance park spending. Staff said the draft budget would draw $170,000 from the pool reserve rather than make a contribution this year; aldermen expressed concern about reducing the pool fund after voters had approved a prior tax for a future pool. There was also discussion about an ordinance that some aldermen recalled requiring an annual transfer of $120,000 to contingency; Attorney Jones agreed to review the ordinance language and advise whether a transfer is required and how it would affect overall budget balance.

Members also questioned salary and staffing assumptions. The draft raises the city administrator salary line to $135,000; staff said the figure was chosen within an advertised salary range and that pay lines use an assumed 1,560 hours to prorate a partial-year hire. Aldermen asked that calculations be adjusted so a partial-year hire does not overstate the budget impact.

No final action to adopt the budget was recorded at the meeting; the ordinance that would adopt the budget (bill 5282) was introduced and read aloud and the board conducted line-item review and direction to staff. Members indicated a special meeting may be scheduled before the fiscal year begins to finalize adoption and to consider any invoices that arrive before June 30.

Why it matters: The board's choices on transfers, reserves and reserve draws will determine whether voter-approved taxes augment park services as voters expected, or whether general fund constraints force cuts to projects or services.

What’s next: Attorney Jones will review the contingency-transfer ordinance and staff will supply additional tourism revenue reports and clarify pool-reserve plans before the next scheduled meeting. The board flagged the possibility of a special meeting before June 30 to finalize the fiscal year 2025–26 budget.