Council members and members of the public questioned how federal and state grant dollars were recorded and spent after several items on the fiscal year budget and specific community grants drew scrutiny.
Resident commenters and Councilman Jake Green pointed to a Dawson Park appropriation (referred to in the meeting by act number and the shorthand “Act 397”) and said they saw $12,500 listed as remaining in a $25,000 appropriation. City attorney/administrator Jones and the finance staff said the city received $25,000 grants that were commonly drawn down in two increments of $12,500; the administration reported that $12,500 had been spent and that paperwork to request reimbursement from the state was in process but had not yet been submitted as of the meeting.
Council members also debated whether previously reported allocations described as ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) monies had been ‘‘washed’’ or moved into the general fund by means-of-financing swaps. Jones explained that if federal funds are reallocated into general-fund spending without a separate federal funding code and without formal council action to amend the budget, accounting becomes unclear. Jones said some prior year entries and means-of-financing swaps were not entered with separate federal funding codes; as a result an apparent ARPA balance reported to councilors (amounts of $250,000 were discussed in public comment) did not reflect available, earmarked ARPA dollars in the way councilors expected.
On Dawson Park specifically, Jones said the grant had act identifiers and that a portion of funds had been used for an event (public testimony referred to a food-truck event and children’s activities). He said the city had not yet submitted the reimbursement packet required by the state, that the deadline to file reimbursement documentation was approaching, and that if state review determines any expense was an ineligible use, the state could deny reimbursement and that could trigger an audit finding. Jones said the city has engaged a grant-writing professional during the budget transition to compile reimbursements and that the administration will provide itemized backup to the council.
Several councilors urged caution and recommended that the council not adopt the FY2025–26 operating budget until the administration provides clearer itemized information and evidence the spending conforms to state and federal grant rules. A motion earlier in the meeting to reject or separate certain budget resolutions was discussed; the council later agreed to handle budget-related resolutions as separate items and to continue work on budget detail and means-of-financing allocations.
There was no final vote approving the FY2025–26 operating budget during the meeting; city officials said they will provide detailed account-level documentation to the council to show how grants and ARPA-related items were recorded and to identify any remaining balances that are legitimately available for district-level spending.