Jenks budget committee recommends changes to biannual budget after mall-driven sales-tax surge

Jenks — The Jenks Budget Committee on Monday reviewed proposed adjustments to the city’s FY2024–26 biannual budget and voted to recommend the package to the full City Council, after staff reported higher-than-expected sales and use tax receipts tied to the new outlet mall.

City finance staff told the committee that, as of May, Jenks had collected about $15.4 million in sales and use tax against a $16.5 million budgeted target for the fiscal year. Staff said average monthly sales-tax receipts this year are roughly $1.4 million and estimated June collections at about $1,488,000, which would bring the fiscal-year total to roughly $16.87 million.

The budget presentation attributed most of the projected increase for the coming fiscal year to a full year of mall collections. Staff said they added roughly $1.1 million to next year’s sales-tax forecast and attributed about 75% of that bump to the mall operating for a full 12 months; the remaining increase was described as a modest gain across other sales- and use-tax sources. Finance staff told the committee they were deliberately conservative in estimating growth for non-mall sales tax (about 0.5%) and use tax (about 2%), given broader regional trends.

Why it matters: The outlet mall’s receipts have materially changed short-term revenue expectations for the city. Committee members said clearer presentation of numbers is needed so the public and council can see how much of the higher revenue is recurring, how much is a one-time boost and where transfers to related public trusts (JPWA and others) appear in the books.

Discussion and requests for clarification Committee members pressed staff on percentage calculations and phrasing in the presentation. One councilor flagged a percentage in the budget memo as inconsistent with the underlying dollar figures; staff acknowledged the wording was likely referring to an increase over actual collections rather than the previously approved budget and said they would correct the phrasing before publication.

Councilors also asked for more detail about how sales-tax transfers are handled. Finance explained that portions of sales tax are routinely transferred among the city, the Jenks Public Works Authority (JPWA) and related public trusts to support debt backed by those entities; those transfers appear in the budget packet as interfund transfers.

Downtown planning and traffic modeling During the budget discussion several councilors raised the downtown master plan and expressed concern that work on downtown aesthetics, parking and street design could outpace traffic-flow analysis. Staff said the city has a recent, citywide traffic model but that scenario-specific modeling for downtown — for example, to test changes to parking layouts, curb lines or one-way conversions — would require additional funds and a separate scope of work. Several members said they preferred to appropriate money for targeted traffic modeling once the council has clearer design options to test.

Signs and code enforcement Councilors pressed staff about recurring unpermitted signs in rights-of-way. Members described longstanding frustration with temporary signs remaining in place and said enforcement has been uneven because the city lacks dedicated enforcement capacity for routine sign removal. Staff said an ordinance exists and that enforcement is largely complaint-driven; councilors discussed options ranging from creating a permit for certain temporary signage to budgeting a dedicated code-enforcement position if they want stricter enforcement.

Permits, fees and grants Committee members asked about declines in some revenue categories, including building-permit receipts and franchise fees, and about timing of reimbursements tied to grants (for example, a SAFER grant is recorded as budgeted but reimbursed when expenses are submitted). Staff said lower permit revenues reflect softer home-building activity and that franchise fees come from utilities operating in the right of way.

Staffing and spending priorities Councilors debated whether to add staff now or delay hires until next year. Staff reiterated the presentation’s conservative posture: the city proposes limited new positions this budget cycle while keeping a competitive pay plan (a roughly 6% overall pay increase was proposed in budget materials). Several members warned that adding permanent positions is a recurring, long-term cost and urged caution until revenue patterns stabilize.

Next steps and vote Finance staff said the budget summary will be published in the paper of required circulation and that a public budget hearing is scheduled for June 3, with a second meeting in June available for changes before the July 1 deadline. The committee voted to recommend the proposed changes be forwarded to the full City Council. Vote on the committee recommendation: John Brown, yes; Kevin Short, yes; Mayor Box, yes.

Ending Staff asked councilors to send additional questions to Chief Financial Officer David Sims and the presenter. The committee’s recommendation will appear on the full council agenda for final consideration in June.