Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee reviews fiscal 2025–26 budget draft; public hearing, schedule set
Summary
Treasurer presented the proposed FY 2025–26 budget; the committee agreed to discuss the draft at the next committee meeting and schedule a public hearing and voting timeline. Officials said the draft currently projects expenditures exceed revenues by about $28,000 but recommended trimming appropriations and using fund balance if needed.
Treasurer Conso reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget at the March 25 committee of the whole meeting and outlined next steps for public review and adoption.
Conso said department heads and the mayor contributed to a draft designed to keep costs down while accounting for known loan and equipment payments; he described choices on unpredictable costs such as fuel and supply prices. “We usually try to come in where the revenue exceeds the expenditures. This year we’re a little bit short on that,” he told the council, noting an estimated shortfall of roughly $28,000 and sufficient fund balance to cover the gap if needed.
Conso recommended the council discuss the budget at the committee of the whole meeting on April 15 and consider a voting meeting on May 21, with a public hearing scheduled for April 21 prior to the regular council meeting. He explained the public‑hearing notice and estimated budget amount must be published in the Courier at least 10 days before the hearing.
Council members asked for clarifications. Alderman Ross identified a roughly $3 million increase in expenditures driven primarily by a Fifth Street road project; Conso confirmed that amount is included in fund 60. Alderman Parrott and others discussed timing and whether additional committee meetings would be necessary; the council agreed to proceed with the proposed schedule unless issues arise.
Conso described savings already incorporated in the draft, including reducing façade grant appropriations from $50,000 to $25,000 and asking department heads to identify modest line‑item reductions. He said compensation‑study costs are not yet coded in the draft but that a vendor quote under $10,000 exists and could be accommodated in existing lines or by amendment if needed.
No final adoption took place at the committee meeting; the council set the proposed hearing and timeline for additional review and public comment.
