Pacific Partnership sought continued city support as the Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed fiscal 2026 budget during a May 29 special meeting.

Val Droge of Pacific Partnership told the aldermen the nonprofit’s “total expenses for items” between July 2024 and May 2025 were “almost $95,000,” and that the organization’s “total budgeted contributions from the City of Pacific was $32,000.” She said Main Street America recommends roughly 30% of local Main Street program budgets come from city funding and that Pacific’s $32,000 contribution represents about 28% of the group’s budget. “With the help of public funding, we’ve been able to host free events that bring thousands of visitors to our city,” Droge said during the public-participation portion.

That presentation set off an extended internal budget discussion in which aldermen and staff reviewed several tourism-related lines, questioned how event and rodeo revenue and expenditures were organized on the spreadsheet, and debated how much of the partnership’s contract should be funded from tourism bed-tax receipts versus the general fund.

On accounting for the Iron Horse Rodeo, staff and aldermen disagreed over the fund balance displayed in the spreadsheet. One staff value showed $111,712 labeled as the rodeo fund cash balance as of March 31, 2025; another calculation on the same worksheet produced a $41,000 post‑expenditure balance. Staff said part of the discrepancy came from worksheet rows that were used for working calculations but not included in totals. Aldermen directed staff to consolidate the rodeo revenue and expenditure lines so the budget reflects a single, consistent revenue line and a single expenditure item for the contract. The group also discussed moving worksheet-only detail into a single worksheet that feeds the summary so totals are accurate.

The aldermen pressed for clarity on how tourism revenue lines are being used. One staff member advised using the spreadsheet row that has been used in recent years for rodeo revenue (row 26 in the tourism tab) and “hide” the unused row to avoid confusion. The board discussed folding the rodeo worksheet summary into the main tourism totals so the department’s fund balance is not misrepresented.

Members also debated where the Pacific Partnership contract payment should come from. Several aldermen said the organization provides a citywide economic benefit and should receive at least some general-fund support instead of having the full amount paid from tourism bed-tax proceeds. City staff noted the current draft budget shows only $5,000 in the partnership contractual line and that earlier discussions and agreements had contemplated more city support. Aldermen asked staff to add a general-fund contractual line (general government line 35300 in the draft) that could carry the remainder so the partnership did not lose most of its prior funding in a single year; staff said they would prepare that adjustment for the next workshop.

No formal ordinance or appropriation was adopted at the workshop. The aldermen agreed to continue refining the tourism tab, to consolidate rodeo accounting into single revenue/expenditure lines, and to return with corrected worksheets showing the partnership contract funded in a way that matches the board’s direction.

The meeting concluded before final decisions on those lines; aldermen reserved final approval for a later budget meeting once corrected figures and revised transfer proposals were in the packet.

Pacific Partnership’s public comment and the subsequent aldermen discussion underlined two practical budget issues: (1) operational spreadsheet structure can change the appearance of fund balances and (2) aldermen are weighing whether marketing and downtown‑revitalization activities should be paid through tourism receipts or shared from the general fund.

Aldermen said they would revisit the partnership line, rodeo consolidation, and tourism fund structure at the next workshop so the city’s final FY26 appropriation packets reflect those clarifications.