City staff told the Deerfield Beach City Commission on July 9 that the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget trims roughly $59 million from the prior year plan and emphasizes holding cash rather than including unconfirmed grant or capital “wish list” items.

The proposal, presented in a public workshop, reduces the overall spending plan from about $385,000,000 in FY2025 to about $326,000,000 in the FY2026 proposal. City managers attributed most of the net reduction to three causes: a roughly $5.3 million decline in grant funding (largely federal/state), about a $40 million reorganization and deferment of capital projects, and roughly $15 million of cuts to operational personnel and other recurring costs.

City staff said the FY2026 package includes no “wish list” projects. Instead, the budget includes only items for which funding is confirmed; any grant awards or other outside revenues received later in the year would be brought to the commission for a public acceptance and a budget amendment.

The proposal includes a small net drop in full-time equivalents: three part‑time positions are eliminated while one new full‑time performance analyst position is added; staff described the net change as roughly a 0.5 FTE decrease. The performance analyst post is placed in the office of budget and is intended to monitor programmatic performance during the fiscal year.

On revenues, staff said property taxes remain the single largest revenue source (about 42% of the general fund), with estimated taxable collections of about $70,980,000; the general fund share is roughly $67,960,000. The proposed operating millage rate shown in the presentation remained at the current 6.0018 mills.

City leaders also proposed a major change to reserve policy. Staff recommended increasing the city’s unassigned fund balance goal from the existing 10% of operating expenditures to 30% over a four‑year period—equivalent to roughly 3.5 months of operating expenditures. Presenters and several commissioners said higher reserves would improve the city’s financial resilience for disasters, revenue shocks and bond‑market rating considerations.

Why it matters: staff emphasized that the trimmed budget reflects confirmed funding and choices about what the city can afford now, not an aspirational project list. Raising reserve targets and holding funding back for contingencies were framed as steps to protect services and creditworthiness amid federal and state funding reductions.

"There's nothing in this budget that is a wish list at all," the City Manager said in the presentation, warning that any newly awarded grants would be brought back to the commission before being spent.

Ending: staff said the commission will review the proposal through formal budget hearings in August and September, with a first public hearing expected in September and a final hearing later in the month. Commissioners and staff also flagged potential future needs—fire station replacements, major road projects and PFAS‑related water upgrades—that could require separate discussions about bonds or other funding sources.