Hayden council adopts FY2026 budget with 0% levy after approving $68,752 in cuts

HAYDEN, Idaho — The Hayden City Council voted Aug. 26 to adopt its fiscal year 2026 budget with a 0% increase to the city’s property-tax levy after approving a set of spending cuts totaling roughly $68,752.28.

Council Member Ed DePriest proposed the cuts and moved the measure to adopt his package of line-item reductions; after an initial motion to deny the proposal failed, the council approved DePriest’s package by roll call vote. The package reduces or suspends funding in several nonoperational accounts and relies on the city’s fund balance to provide contingency for later requests from departments.

DePriest, who presented the proposal to the council, said the cuts are intended to avoid a one-year tax increase while leaving money in reserve. “I hope every looks like everybody received the, proposed, roughly $68,752.28, which is pretty specific…,” DePriest said, and added that the reductions would “end up… in our fund balance, k, which is our reserve, our savings account.” He also said the package is meant as a one-year measure because he expects future ballot measures related to the county sheriff and other needs: “I’m gonna be quite honest with the people about this … we’re gonna need to go to the ballot anyway.”

City Administrator Lisa told the council staff had been consulted about the proposed cuts but expressed concern about the operational friction created if departments must return to the council for additional appropriations. “We did. I did meet with the staff that was affected mostly by this, and some of them didn't hear about it till today… The concern really is that… it does slow cause a slowing of the engine of governmental engine… to have to come back every time,” Lisa said.

The approved reductions target budget lines including travel and training, professional services, temporary contract labor, special-project engineering, on-call planning and building review, books and technical materials, street lighting maintenance, signal maintenance and CDL training and testing. DePriest characterized the total reduction as “roughly $68,000, which covers the 3%.” The cuts were described as preserving the city’s total appropriations while shifting unused allocations into the fund balance until a department demonstrates a legitimate need for those funds.

Council Member Sandy, who opposed DePriest’s approach and moved to deny the proposal, said some of her prior suggested reductions had been aimed at achieving a 2% levy rather than 3% so the city could also preserve bargaining leverage in negotiations with the county sheriff’s office. “The goal of my reductions was to lower the base budget rate down to a 2% rather than 3% levy rate and then, to also retain the sheriff,” Sandy said, adding she thought the adopted cuts would not preserve that negotiating power.

Council discussion touched repeatedly on the city’s reliance on its fund balance for one-time needs and past episodes when state revenue-sharing fluctuations forced the city to use reserves. Council members and staff discussed a potential lieutenant position and a planned vehicle purchase that could free up roughly $95,000 if the hire were postponed; staff explained that shifting money between appropriation lines is possible so long as total appropriations equal projected revenues.

Mayor Davis, who ultimately voted to approve DePriest’s proposal, said the city is likely to ask voters in the near term to address multiple long-term needs, including law enforcement and street improvements, and preferred presenting a single, comprehensive request to voters rather than multiple separate measures. “I’d rather only have to go to the people one time,” Davis said.

Votes at a glance - Motion to deny Council Member DePriest’s proposal: motion made by Sandy; seconded; roll call (as recorded): DePriest — No; Council President Reuter — No; Council Member Schaeffer — Yes; Sandy — Yes; Mayor Davis — No. Outcome: failed. - Motion to approve Council Member DePriest’s proposal (adopt cuts and a 0% levy increase): motion by Council Member Ed DePriest; second not specified on record. Roll call (as recorded): Council Member White — No; Council Member Schaeffer — No; Council President Reuter — Yes; Council Member DePriest — Yes; Mayor Davis — Yes. Outcome: approved; city adopted a 0% increase to the levy and the described line-item reductions.

What the vote changes and what remains The council did not adopt new ongoing spending commitments as part of the cuts; staff said departments can return with requests if they can demonstrate a critical need and the council can reallocate appropriations without reopening the overall appropriation ordinance so long as total appropriations do not exceed the council-adopted bottom-line figure. Staff also warned that repeatedly relying on the fund balance for operating gaps is not a sustainable multi-year approach and recommended multi-year planning to avoid annual shortfalls.

Next steps City staff said they will prepare the appropriation ordinance and related documents to reflect the adopted budget and bring them back for formalization. Several council members signaled that larger structural decisions — including whether to place a levy measure before Hayden voters to address law enforcement and streets — may be required in the coming year.

(Reporting from a special Hayden City Council meeting on Aug. 26, 2025.)