Advisory board reviews revenue options, personnel cost projections and public‑safety staffing concerns

At a workshop-style meeting on April 16, the Budget Advisory Board reviewed revenue estimating recommendations and a preliminary personnel-cost projection for fiscal 2026. Board members and staff discussed several revenue lines that staff suggested the commission could consider for increases, and staff described how department decision packages will be presented during the May department meetings.

Revenue items discussed included business tax (estimated $3.5 million), building‑permit fees (declining in recent years), parks and recreation user fees (youth program and swim fees last raised in 2017), and other service fees. Staff members recommended the board consider whether to advise the commission on selective fee increases and requested the board identify priority lines for deeper analysis; the board volunteered to undertake benchmarking against comparable cities and to request departmental detail for specific fee categories.

Staff described the process and schedule for budget review: departments will present decision packages during May department meetings (20 minutes per department; board members are encouraged to submit questions in advance), and the city manager will deliver the preliminary budget before a joint June workshop with the commission. The board said it would assemble a small team to deep‑dive into the revenue items Ross (board member) identified and to prepare options—revenue increases and cost‑saving ideas—for the June joint workshop.

Personnel and public‑safety matters were a major focus of the staff presentation. Staff presented a personnel‑cost projection showing salaries and benefits account for roughly 62.7% of the general‑fund budget, with projected personnel growth of roughly 4.64% this year (a preliminary figure staff attributed to merit, COLA and turnover effects). Staff noted retirement and health‑insurance costs are major drivers: the city contributes approximately $18,700 per participating employee toward health coverage, and total retirement contribution (all funds) was presented near $68 million in recent years. Personnel matters were flagged by board members as a primary long‑term driver of budget pressure.

Public‑safety discussion included police motor‑unit staffing and traffic‑citation revenue. Staff said motor‑unit staffing has fallen from historical highs (the city once had 18 motor officers) and that five motor units are currently active; members expressed concern about reduced highway/traffic enforcement visibility and asked whether staffing increases should be part of budget requests. Staff also described an automated school‑zone camera program (initial rollout focusing on schools on city roads; vendor selection and permit timing remain), noting revenue assumptions for camera enforcement were conservatively treated as revenue‑neutral because of anticipated vendor and staffing costs.

Fire and EMS officials described revenue streams tied to EMS transport and special event fees; staff noted the city is reviewing fee structures (including flat‑fee approaches for transport and increased collection efforts) but emphasized Medicare/Medicaid payment limits and contract provisions. Boards and staff discussed overtime: fire‑rescue overtime spiked in years of vacancies but fell once staffing improved; police overtime is budgeted and adjusted with salary changes and programmatic reimbursement trends.

Board members requested benchmarking reports, the most recent actuarial on police and fire pensions, audited collections data for EMS and transport charges, and targeted revenue projections for the lines Ross identified (business tax, building permits, parks fees, lien research fees). Staff agreed to prepare those materials for the board and to incorporate board input into the June joint workshop with the commission.

Ending: The board directed staff to return benchmarked revenue projections and personnel‑cost details for the June meeting; the board said it would use those materials to develop combined recommendations on revenue increases, cost‑savings and any millage guidance for the commission.