City staff and elected officials spent a work session reviewing proposed supplemental appropriations and accounting corrections that would adjust the 2024–25 budget, including a proposed increase to the fire department budget and several interfund transfers.

Steve (staff member) opened the packet and summarized the two resolutions under discussion, saying, “When you approve your budget, you approve the appropriations of the budget. That means how are you gonna spend the money.” He presented a draft supplemental resolution and the detailed worksheets staff want the council to approve or correct before the formal vote.

Why it matters: these adjustments would change how the city obligates existing revenue and reserves for operations this fiscal year. If the council approves the supplemental appropriation and the matching transfers, departments assessed as over-budget on certain line items would be able to finish the fiscal year without triggering out‑of‑balance findings at audit close.

Most significant items discussed

- Fire department: Staff said the 2024–25 fire budget line is currently recorded at about $963,000 and recommended adding roughly $134,000 to that line to cover overtime and other costs through fiscal year end. Staff explained some of the overtime stems from extended coverage needs and that some payments will be reimbursed but not within the current accounting period.

- Contingency and transfers: Council members and staff discussed using the city’s operating contingency (noted in the packet as $30,000) and an existing $25,000 transfer line from an equipment reserve to cover part of the projected shortfall. Multiple participants argued transferring the full $30,000 contingency to fire would provide a buffer; staff said such transfers are recorded as a debit to contingency and a credit to the fire line and would be reflected in journal entries for audit.

- Equipment reserve / fire truck: Staff described reversing an earlier transfer to equipment reserve related to a fire truck purchase. The packet shows a $90,000 movement: previously the general fund transferred $90,000 to equipment reserve to fund the truck; staff proposed transferring that $90,000 back into the general fund (to a fire payroll/confirmation-pay line) because interfund loan timing and other budget entries changed during the year. Staff said they will add the explicit “transfer out” and “transfer in” lines to the packet so the records match.

- Urban renewal and street/LID work: The packet includes adjustments for the urban renewal fund and the street fund. Staff noted two local improvement districts (LIDs) and related billing will show roughly $150,000 coming into the street fund next year, money that is expected to be paid out over time for project costs. Council members flagged that if money associated with work outside the urban renewal district is reimbursed from the district, the city will need clear contractor backup and documented change orders delineating costs inside and outside the renewal district.

- Packet and worksheet inconsistencies: Several council members and staff spent substantial time comparing the multi-page packet to the larger workbook. They found inconsistent numbers between the smaller packet pages and the larger spreadsheet (for example, different “current budget” column values and differing material-and-services totals for the street fund). Staff agreed to rework the packet and provide a reconciled Excel file before the next public meeting so councilors can review forecast, approved budget and projected year-end numbers in a consistent format.

What was directed and next steps

Staff were asked to: revise the supplemental resolution packet to show (1) the explicit transfers in and out for the $90,000 equipment-reserve reversal, (2) the proposed $134,000 increase to the fire budget with the $30,000 contingency and $25,000 transfer applied as shown, (3) corrected line‑item attributions for street and urban renewal funds, and (4) a reconciled Excel workbook that separates the approved 2024–25 budget from the staff forecast. Steve (staff member) told the group he would provide the revised package by Monday for review and aim to bring it back for council action the following Wednesday; they discussed an alternate meeting the next week if more time is needed.

Matters for follow-up and risk

Council members asked for documentation supporting the urban renewal and LID charge allocations (contractor invoices and change orders that separate work inside and outside the renewal district) to reduce the risk of a post‑audit challenge. Staff also agreed to double‑check the underlying totals that produce the $134,000 fire adjustment and to confirm which payments will be reimbursed versus which must be covered from general fund resources.

Closing note

No formal vote was taken at the work session; councilors gave staff direction to correct the packet and return with a cleaned, auditable package for formal action. Steve said the corrected documents and resolution text should be emailed to council members in advance so they can review before the formal meeting.