Councilors propose one‑year $300,000 shift from police and fire pension levies to parks; some members object

Chairman Engel and city staff presented a proposal to reduce next year’s levy allocation to the police pension fund and the fire pension fund by $150,000 each and reassign those funds to the parks department for 2026.

The change would shift $300,000 total from the two pension levies into the parks budget for one year only. “We had decided for both pension and fire that we are taking a reduction in the levy of a 150,000 to help support, the police department… Oh, it’s for the park,” a finance staff member said during the discussion. Tracy (finance staff) confirmed the reduction is a one‑year adjustment and would not be carried forward into 2027 unless the council voted to do so.

City finance staff said the police and fire pension funds are currently well above typical minimum cash balances. “Right now, the police pension fund, their cash balance with taking out the 150,000 is $1,760,000,” Tracy said; for the fire pension she reported a cash balance of $531,000 after the proposed reduction. Beth Fields (staff member) said the city receives a single maximum levy allocation from the state and the administration allocates that total among city funds when preparing the advertised budget.

Several council members expressed concern about moving money out of funds intended to support pensions while public safety recruitment and retention were described as challenges. “We’re losing police and firefighters because of their base pays and we’re giving money to the parks department,” Councilor Purcell said. He and others pressed staff on whether the levy allocations are legally restricted; staff replied the reallocation is an internal assignment for 2026 and may be adjusted after the state’s allocation notice (the “17 82 notice”) is received in November.

Councilor Ingram asked whether the reduction was unrelated to a separate conversation about the fire pension; city staff explained the $150,000 reduction was taken from both pension funds to produce the $300,000 transferred to parks. Staff said the police and fire pension levies remain generous enough that, despite the transfer, both pension funds would still have positive cash balances.

The discussion did not produce a formal vote on the levy reallocation; staff said the budget as advertised shows the pension allocations and that the administration can reassign them after the state allocation notice is finalized.

The council’s debate underscored a broader tension in the budget process: officials balancing one‑time or short‑term funding needs for operating departments (in this case parks) against funds that provide long‑term benefits for police and fire retirees.