Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centerville budget review flags reserves as fire district assessment rises
Summary
City staff presented a tentative budget showing healthy reserves even as the city absorbs a roughly 3% increase in a regional fire-district assessment, councilmembers said during a budget session.
Centerville city staff told the City Council during a budget review that the tentative fiscal plan does not propose new local taxes and that the city is carrying higher reserves while absorbing a roughly 2.9–3% increase in its fire-district assessment.
The discussion matters because the increase — described in the meeting as an assessment of about $1,200,000 that represents the city’s share of the regional fire district costs — appears in the draft numbers the council is now reviewing. City staff also said a $34,003.79 line-item increase appeared in the calculation the council was shown.
City staff described the assessment as the result of a multi-jurisdictional process. The council was told all five cities and the county participated in the decision and that the assessment mechanism gives the cities some oversight of the fire district’s budget. Council members discussed alternatives such as switching to a property-tax-based approach for the fire district but noted any change would require agreement across the member cities and county.
Councilmembers pressed staff for detail on what the fire district is doing with the added funds. Staff said the district is realigning some administrative and inspection functions, adding part‑time inspectors and shifting a deputy chief to more administrative duties. The staff presentation emphasized those changes were more about inspection and administrative roles than adding line firefighters.
The budget presentation also included an overview of the city’s reserves and capital funds: staff said the city’s general-fund reserves rose from about $1.6 million in 2019 to roughly $4.5 million in the current figures (about 30–35% of the general fund). Staff noted an additional capital fund (Fund 47) balance of about $5.8 million, and said the draft budget uses no revenue increases for property or sales taxes; staff identified court revenue and sales of fixed assets as the primary sources of the modest revenue gains in the draft.
Councilmembers raised caution about dipping too far into reserves. One councilmember said the city should avoid spending down a large share of savings given uncertainties in the revenue climate. Staff responded that some one-time items in the draft — notably capital equipment purchases — would be funded from reserves or capital and that the budget team tried to prioritize needs without proposing new recurring taxes.
The council did not take formal budget votes at the session; members asked for further detail on the fire‑district assessment, staffing requests and the composition of one‑time versus ongoing expenditures ahead of final adoption.
