Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster council hears staff presentation on budget approaches, seeks more metrics and public engagement
Summary
City staff outlined best-practice budget approaches and proposed process changes for the 2026 budget. Councilors asked for clearer performance metrics, explanations of staffing changes and a public engagement plan including a proposed May workshop.
City staff presented an overview of municipal budget approaches and sought council direction on elements to include in preparation of the 2026 budget.
"A budget really is an allocation of scarce resources," Assistant City Manager Chris Lindsey told the City Council on Jan. 13, explaining why staff reviewed multiple development approaches including line-item, zero-based, priority-based and budgeting for outcomes. Policy and Budget Administrator Erin Ferriter summarized planned process changes including a community request follow-up and a city performance dashboard.
Lindsey said Westminster currently uses a "modified line-item" approach while incorporating programmatic tracking and some capital planning scoring techniques. He described strengths and weaknesses of other models: zero-based budgeting requires intense staff and council time, priority-based budgeting requires full-cost allocation and scoring of programs, and budgeting for outcomes depends on mature performance management systems.
Why it matters: Councilors signaled they want clearer, outcome-oriented metrics to guide decisions. Multiple members asked for transparency on why FTEs were added in recent years, how new state mandates affect staffing, and how the city benchmarks costs against peer communities.
Key details: Ferriter said the 2026 process will add a formal accountability loop responding to community requests from the 2025 cycle, and that the city will launch a performance-measure dashboard to display department metrics. She said staff plans department presentations at council meetings through March 31, a cost-of-service study kickoff for utilities, and more frequent budget touchpoints through the year. Staff proposed a May full-day budget workshop (proposed May 3) to allow deep review before formal budget development.
Council reaction: Councilors asked for metrics tied to outcomes and for clearer explanations of where additional staffing dollars originated. Councilor Rosati requested that departments present outcome measures and targets linked to budget requests; Councilor DeMott suggested the town-hall process clarify the realistic funding levers available to residents so the public discussion does not become an exercise in unlimited requests.
On budget cadence, views varied. Some councilors advocated returning to a two-year budget cycle to gain planning efficiencies; others, including staff, favored one-year budgeting because sales-and-use tax (the city’s primary revenue source) is hard to forecast and inaccurate long-range revenue projections can constrain flexibility. Assistant City Manager Lindsey said staff does not recommend switching the 2026 process immediately and noted the technical challenges of projecting sales tax revenues 30 months ahead.
Staff next steps: Staff will continue department briefings through March, launch the performance dashboard and proceed with the utility cost-of-service study. Ferriter said staff will contact council about dates and formats for the community budget conversation and the proposed May workshop.
Ending: Councilors and staff agreed on continued work to incorporate outcome measures and community feedback into the 2026 budget timeline; no final structural decision on a one- versus two-year budget was made at the meeting.
