Carmel finance staff report revenue above target, outline earlier budget timetable and new review steps

CARMEL, Ind. — City finance staff told the Carmel Common Council on July 21 that year‑to‑date revenues for the first half of 2025 were roughly $79 million versus a planned $76 million, and they outlined a new calendar for this fall’s budget review and public hearings.

The finance presentation by Zach Jackson and staff emphasized that the revenue surplus—about a 3.9 percent increase over the mid‑year forecast—largely reflects timing of property‑tax receipts and not an increase to the overall annual target, which the staff said remains about $147.2 million. Jackson said planned spending is running below forecast: general fund spending was about $69.2 million versus a planned $72.1 million, or roughly $2.9 million under expected year‑to‑date outlays.

City officials said the underspending is partly timing and partly deliberate pauses while awaiting state decisions that affect local revenues. Jackson told the council the administration now expects to finish the year with roughly $3 million of unspent general‑fund appropriations, acknowledging recent years have seen larger underspends.

Jackson outlined a revised calendar: the administration will post the proposed budget and supporting detail by Labor Day; the mayor and Jackson will present an overview on that date; two full‑day budget workshops are scheduled Sept. 15–16; and council will hold follow‑up meetings with a target to act on the budget and tax levy ordinance in late October. He said departments should be prepared to provide program‑level line‑item detail earlier than in past years to reduce late changes at the final reading.

Council members pressed for operational clarity: several asked for a running head‑count or full‑time‑equivalent (FTE) breakdown by department and for the finance team to flag whether department underspend is driven by vacant positions. Jackson said head‑count reporting is available on the city’s transparency portal monthly and agreed to add clearer FTE summaries to the budget packet; he asked counselors who want individual meetings with department heads to wait until after Sept. 1 so the administration can provide updated materials.

Councilors also discussed specific revenue lines: state distributions for local income‑tax (the “supplemental”) were running lower than expected year‑to‑date and are sensitive to the state’s year‑end collections, Jackson said. He noted interest income was higher than budgeted and could offset some other shortfalls.

The schedule change is procedural and meant to move more review earlier in public sessions rather than compressing most changes into the final council meetings, Jackson said. Council members asked for additional calendar flexibility for the Sept. 23 meeting so there will be time to handle questions that arise from the workshops.

Why it matters: the timing and granularity of the budget review affect how quickly departments can hire or award contracts, and how the council will consider tax‑levy and appropriation decisions this fall. The council’s budget decisions ultimately set the city’s fiscal plan for 2026.