Sebastian committee approves three quarterly budget amendments after debate over report format and grant details

The Sebastian Budget Review Advisory Committee voted unanimously May 5 to recommend the city council approve three quarterly budget amendment packages covering the July 1–Sept. 30, 2024 fourth quarter and the first two quarters of fiscal 2025.

Committee members said the amendment schedules in their packet documented transfers and year-end adjustments but did not give them the income-statement–style view they have used in prior years to judge overall budget performance and to prepare recommendations for council.

The committee’s concern centered on format and context rather than the specific amendments. “This is simply amendments and adjustments to the original budget,” said Mr. Stewart, the city’s finance director, describing the packets staff provided to the committee. City Manager Bridal Benton told the committee the materials were intended to bring the city’s records up to date after staffing changes and promised an income-statement comparison of budget-to-actual and prior-year figures at a future meeting. “We will do that, and we will get that information to you all,” Benton said.

The packet contained three amendment groups: the FY2024 fourth-quarter adjustments (covering July 1–Sept. 30, 2024), FY2025 first quarter (Oct. 1–Dec. 31, 2024) and FY2025 second quarter (Jan. 1–March 31, 2025). The finance director pointed the committee to net changes affecting fund balance shown on each: a net increase of $450,008.24 for the Sept. 30 adjustments, a net decrease of $159,448 for the December adjustments and a net increase of $29,812 for the March adjustments. Stewart and Benton said those figures reflect transfers, project closeouts, appropriations from reserves and receipts such as a property sale noted in the packet.

Members asked for more detail on several specific entries. Committee member McGinn questioned a “solid waste collection fees reversed” line that showed roughly $1,900,000 and asked whether those were expenditures or revenues and where the money came from. City Manager Benton answered that the amount represented non-ad valorem assessments collected by the tax collector; the city initially operated the solid waste account at a deficit because collections come through the tax collector on a lag, and the $1.9 million reflected establishing the solid-waste account once collections arrived.

Members also sought details on a marine patrol boat purchase. The packet showed a $250,000 account established for a police vessel; Benton said the boat was budgeted at $250,000 and the city received a Florida Inland Navigation District grant for $125,000 with the city providing $125,000 from discretionary sales tax. Benton said the boat arrived in late December or January and that no additional police staffing was budgeted for the vessel because existing marine patrol personnel would operate it. “The boat came in under budget. The boat is here,” Benton said.

Committee members asked whether grants on the schedules carried contingency plans in case federal or state funding did not materialize. Benton said the city does not expend funds until grant awards are finalized and executed; if a grant award does not come through, councils would need to decide whether to fund a project from other sources or to scale or cancel it. He used the Riverview Park master-plan grant as an example: if a $1.5 million federal award and a $1.5 million city match together were not fully available, council would decide whether to reallocate city match funds or to reduce or cancel the project.

Committee members repeatedly requested staff restore a condensed income-statement–style quarterly report they had received in prior years showing revenues and expenditures by department. Several members said that format—one level above the chart of accounts—helped them spot areas running ahead or behind budget and generate targeted recommendations to council. Stewart and Benton said they would work with the committee to provide an acceptable report as the finance office completes its catch-up work.

After discussion, committee members made and seconded motions recommending approval of each of the three amendment packages. The committee chair called the roll; members present for the votes included Napier, Hall, McGinn, Scott Baker and Garton; the motions carried unanimously. The committee also discussed scheduling for its next meeting in July and noted several members would be unavailable on the originally posted date; staff agreed to survey members about alternate dates.

The committee’s deliberations focused on the sufficiency of reporting and the need for clearer budget-to-actual context rather than on disagreements about the amendment transactions themselves. Staff emphasized the amendments are catch-up accounting of transfers and project closeouts and pledged to deliver the income-statement comparisons and other departmental summaries the committee requested at a future meeting.