Hayden council narrows FY26 budget, sets law-enforcement cap and removes projected interest revenue

HAYDEN, Idaho — The Hayden City Council held a special meeting Aug. 19 to finish Fiscal Year 2026 budget work, focusing on how much to allocate for law enforcement and whether to use investment earnings this year to cover new costs.

The council voted to set the law-enforcement budget line at $1,049,000 and, after debate, declined to remove a separately budgeted $95,000 vehicle purchase. The council also voted unanimously to remove $200,000 in anticipated interest income from the revenue side of the FY26 budget.

The meeting, led by Council President Rotor and attended by Mayor Tom and council members Sandy White, Ed, Matt and Schafer, staff and finance personnel, was billed as a focused session on the appropriation ordinance and the L2 levy form the city uses to set the property-tax rate. City Administrator Lisa told the council the purpose of the meeting was "to jump into some unfinished business, which is ... fiscal year 26 budget planning" and that the appropriation table is the document the city must adopt under Idaho law to complete the budget process.

Why it matters

The decisions affect the city’s baseline spending and the revenue the council will seek from property taxes. The law-enforcement allocation was the meeting’s central dispute: council members debated whether to accept a county-proposed increase to the sheriff contract and whether to budget for a lieutenant and its associated vehicle. At the same time, councilors debated targeted cuts proposed by Council Member Sandy White and the one-time use of investment interest to avoid or reduce a property-tax increase this year.

What the council decided

- Law-enforcement cap: In a motion recorded to department/line 110-251-59003, the council adopted a maximum budget of $1,049,000 for law-enforcement services in FY26. The motion was made and seconded and passed by roll call (Council President Rotor voted yes; Council Member White voted no; Council Member Dupree/DePree voted no; Council Member Schafer voted yes). The clerk recorded that the motion passed.

- Vehicle funding: A subsequent motion to reduce the $95,000 vehicle line to $0 failed on roll call (Council Member White voted no; Council Member Schafer voted no; Council Member DePree voted no; Council President Rotor voted yes). Councilors who argued to keep the vehicle said leaving the line in the budget preserves negotiation leverage; those who favored removal cited uncertain operational need if a lieutenant is not part of any final agreement.

- Interest/one-time revenue: The council voted unanimously to remove $200,000 in projected interest income from the FY26 revenue estimate (line 111-361-46111). Lisa and finance staff explained council could still collect interest but not rely on that amount formally in the adopted budget. Council members discussed the tradeoffs of using one-time interest to avoid a tax increase versus preserving a conservative revenue posture.

Key debate points and proposals

Council Member Sandy White proposed taking a 2% property-tax increase instead of 3% and identified about $26,000 in targeted reductions — including pausing the city newsletter (about $11,000), cutting council travel and training roughly in half, reducing Arts Commission funding and trimming a professional services line — to offset the revenue difference. White framed the proposal as a fiscally conservative trimming that would not touch payroll, insurance or the sheriff contract. "I'm proposing that we put a pause on the city newsletter that is in the budget for $11,000 a year," White said during the presentation.

Council Member Ed argued the city should not absorb the county’s requested law-enforcement increases without fuller public discussion. He proposed a one-time approach to pay law-enforcement increases using interest earnings and suggested limiting the sheriff allocation to a 4% inflationary adjustment for the current contract in the near term. "The citizens of Hayden is not the bank for the county," Ed said, arguing for a deliberate review and potential voter engagement before committing to large, ongoing tax increases.

Mayor Tom, who led portions of the budget discussion and whiteboarded revenue-versus-expense scenarios, pushed for pragmatic continuity in funding, noting rising employee and medical costs the budget must cover. Lisa, the city administrator, presented revenue scenarios and explained how the appropriation ordinance and the county L2 form interact with levy decisions.

Other fiscal details discussed

- The council and staff discussed a proposed 3% cost-of-living adjustment for employees that staff estimated would cost about $78,774 to the general fund. - Staff projected new construction assessed value fluctuating in the range of about $62,000–$95,000, depending on levy choices and the County assessor’s reports; Lisa warned those figures had changed during county review and that small variations were possible. - Staff identified several non-discretionary increases, including the city’s medical-insurance change (roughly $45,000) and an ICRMP liability-insurance increase (about $12,000). Red-line adjustments for individual employee salary steps were discussed as roughly $32,000 in total.

What comes next

Council members agreed to reconvene for additional budget work ahead of the county deadline. Staff will refine the revenue and appropriation tables to reflect the council’s instructions and the latest assessor information, then present updated figures at the follow-up meeting as the council finalizes the appropriation ordinance required under Idaho law.

Votes at a glance

- Adjust law-enforcement services line (110-251-59003) to $1,049,000 — Motion passed (Council President Rotor: yes; Council Member White: no; Council Member DePree/Dupree: no; Council Member Schafer: yes). Outcome: approved; notes: this is a budget line maximum; any final contract can be lower if negotiations produce a different package.

- Reduce vehicle allocation (110-253-59004) from $95,000 to $0 — Motion failed (Council Member White: no; Council Member Schafer: no; Council Member DePree: no; Council President Rotor: yes). Outcome: failed.

- Remove $200,000 projected interest income from revenue (111-361-46111) — Motion passed unanimously (Rotor: yes; White: yes; DePree/Dupree: yes; Schafer: yes). Outcome: approved; notes: council will not budget that interest as revenue in FY26 but may still receive interest funds during the year.

Ending note

Council members and staff repeatedly cautioned that the appropriation ordinance is an accounting and legal step required under Idaho law to authorize spending; it does not itself obligate the city to expend every budgeted dollar until contracts are signed and specific expenditures are approved. Council scheduled follow-up work to allow staff to finalize numbers for submission to the county and to give councilors additional time to deliberate the property-tax decision and any further expense adjustments.