Residents at Shawnee commission hearing press for clearer capital-improvement and budget disclosures

City of Shawnee staff opened public hearings on the proposed five-year Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2026–2030 and the draft city budget for fiscal year 2025–26, and several residents urged the commission to delay action and provide clearer budget disclosures.

Kimberly Smith, City of Shawnee finance staff, told the commission the CIP and the budget presented at the meeting were the same as the versions circulated in April and that no changes had been made since then. The commission opened the public hearing so citizens could comment on both the CIP and the proposed budget.

Multiple residents spoke during the hearings with similar requests: clearer, more detailed budget documents and explanations of transfers between funds. Fred Turner, who identified himself as a long-time resident, reviewed item-by-item sections of the proposed five-year capital budget and the budget summary and said the way figures were presented made it difficult for citizens to verify totals or understand where transfers come from and where transfers go. Turner cited the documents’ presentation of a $73 million capital plan and a roughly $33 million operating budget and asked why the two figures and individual fund totals were not shown in a clearer, additive way for public review.

Another resident who spoke asked specifically about a sales-tax allocation that was approved in 2018 and earmarked for a fire-department training center, saying the voters had expected that money to be appropriated for the training center and asking whether those funds remain available and when they would be included in the CIP.

Speakers repeatedly asked for percentage-change columns and itemized descriptions (for example, breaking “expenditures” into salary vs. capital costs), and asked staff to show where “transfers in” and “transfers out” originate and end. Turner and other commenters also raised concerns about particular fund lines they said appeared inconsistent across pages — for example, street improvement totals that the speaker said did not reconcile with subtotals in other sections of the packet.

Kimberly Smith answered procedural questions and advised commissioners that the budget documents presented that night were the ones previously distributed; she referred commenters to the material in the packet and to staff for follow-up. City staff later provided an expanded spreadsheet to some commissioners during the meeting; a speaker noted the larger spreadsheet contained additional denotations but said it would have been helpful to receive that exact worksheet with the packet in advance.

No formal vote on the budget or CIP occurred at the public hearing; the hearing was opened and subsequently closed. Commissioners and staff did not adopt new budget language or change the CIP during the meeting. Several commissioners said the formal adoption process would continue in coming weeks and that there would be additional opportunities for public review as adoption votes approach.

Why it matters: The budget and CIP set priorities for capital projects, maintenance, debt service and service delivery across city departments. Residents at the hearing emphasized that transfers between funds and line-item classifications affect whether specific projects (including a previously discussed fire-department training center) receive funding. Those speakers urged the commission to provide clearer disclosure so citizens can track designated revenues and planned expenditures before final votes.

What’s next: City staff will continue the budget process; the commission is scheduled to consider formal adoption of budget and CIP items in upcoming meetings. Citizens who spoke requested additional, clearer worksheets and itemized detail showing where transfers originate and where transferred funds will be spent.