Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions inclusion of $33 million in proposed FY26 budget; staff to post revised binder and follow up
Summary
On June 19 East Point councilors pressed staff over $33 million in bond proceeds included in the advertised FY26 ordinance, arguing the funds are not yet authorized and should not be budgeted as presented
East Point councilors sharply questioned staff and the interim finance team at a June 19 work session about the city's proposed FY26 ordinance, which staff said had been adjusted to show $247.1 million in total resources after a late addition of roughly $18 million in anticipated bond proceeds. Several council members objected to including $33 million of bond proceeds in the advertised budget when the type of bond and revenue to service debt had not been finalized.
"Why are we budgeting ghost funds at this point?" Mayor Pro Tem (Councilmember) Martin Rogers asked, noting that the $33 million would not be available unless council decided to proceed with a form of bond financing that might require a public referendum or a revenue source. Interim finance staff said the larger ordinance number reflected discussion with the city manager and updated cost estimates; staff offered to post a revised, paginated binder and to make additional written corrections requested by council.
City staff said the change reflected updated project cost estimates and an accounting for additional anticipated proceeds but agreed that budget amendments are the normal vehicle for adding any proceeds once the financing path is known. City attorney Wiggins confirmed that a subsequent change to the advertised budget does not require re-advertising the public hearing; council still must adopt a final budget by the charter deadline.
Council members pressed for more complete documentation before adoption: Councilmember Butler asked that staff supply the published public-hearing notices and asked whether the budget text in the manager's message referenced the correct fiscal year; Councilmember Ziegler noted the earlier, larger budget summaries had been removed from the posted file and requested the complete, corrected binder. Interim staff committed to posting the corrected, paginated budget on the city website by noon the following day and to providing hard-copy binders for council members.
Council guidance and next steps: Several members asked staff to remove or not rely on the $33 million of unapproved bond proceeds in the advertised appropriation and to instead present a budget that can be reconciled to currently available revenue and the city's policy on debt. Finance staff and the city manager were asked to return to a future meeting with a reconciled package that shows fund-balance effects and alternate capital and debt scenarios.
Ending: The council did not adopt the budget at the work session; staff will post a corrected electronic binder and bring additional detail and scenarios back to council before final adoption.
