Fresno council opens FY‑26 budget hearings as staff outline a $528 million general‑fund plan

Fresno City Council on Tuesday opened its FY‑26 budget hearings with city budget staff presenting a proposed general fund that projects $527.7 million in revenue and $512.4 million in operating appropriations.

Assistant Director Edward Shinnevir, who presented the general‑fund overview, told the council the budget relies on sales tax projected at $143.8 million and property tax estimated at $202.6 million; together those two categories make up about two‑thirds of general‑fund revenue. Shinnevir said total operating revenue is expected to grow about 5.5 percent over fiscal year 2025 after accounting for one‑time carryover from the prior year.

The budget presentation explained how FY‑26 balances expected contractions in some revenue with carryover from FY‑25, attrition savings and program adjustments. The administration noted expiration of some one‑time supports — including ARPA and a SAFER grant for firefighters — and anticipated higher personnel costs that together raise personnel spending to about 75 percent of the recommended expenditure budget.

Shinnevir and other city staff repeatedly cautioned the council that sales‑tax projections remain a major source of uncertainty. Council members pressed staff about the sales‑tax consultant HDL’s forecasting accuracy and requested more granular industry breakdowns for recent years. City staff said HDL’s median estimates historically have been within about 3 percent of actuals and that updates from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration were used in the FY‑26 estimate.

Council members also questioned the administration about reserves and mid‑year adjustments. Finance staff said the general‑fund reserve is estimated to end FY‑26 at about $47.7 million, roughly 9.3 percent of operating expenditures, below the 10 percent policy target. Staff said the charter requires a balanced budget and summarized the council’s role in submitting and voting on motions throughout the budget hearings process.

Departments gave short summaries of their FY‑26 proposals following the overview. Highlights included: - General Services: Director Brian Barr described a $69 million department budget and lower fleet operating purchases in FY‑26, plus several facilities and equipment items including $200,000 for initial EV charging planning at the Municipal Service Center and $500,000 for sewer lift‑station rehabilitation at City Hall. - Information Services (ISD): CIO Brian Horn described a roughly $42.7 million budget driven by increased software and maintenance costs, some new public‑safety radio funding and an ongoing focus on cybersecurity. Horn said the city’s cyber team has detected and blocked multiple threats recently and participates in regional threat‑sharing efforts. - Finance and Budget: Finance leaders said the department consolidation recently folded Budget Management and Studies into Finance and deferred several filling decisions while adding an assistant director position for utility billing and collections. Staff noted the FY‑26 budget achieves internal reduction targets and continues work to strengthen internal controls. - Airports: Director Henry Thompson presented a $125 million airport budget that includes about $34 million for operations, $81.3 million in capital (largely grant‑funded) and $10 million in debt service. Capital projects identified include runway rehabilitation, terminal expansion and steps toward an East Terminal design; Thompson said parking revenue and the passenger facility charge will help offset debt service for the terminal project. - Parks: Parks staff described a proposed FY‑26 department budget totaling about $118.5 million (including capital). The department said it will receive transferred landscape/irrigation maintenance positions from Public Works (about 50 positions) and noted major proposed capital work, including restroom replacements and playground upgrades. Parks staff said they are using Measure P and other grants to fund several planned projects and that commissioners reviewed and recommended a set of budget motions.

Council members raised a range of follow‑up questions across departments: the timeline and risk for the planned senior activity center and associated affordable senior housing site; status of cannabis retail revenue projections (staff said 13 retail outlets are currently open and projected 18 in FY‑26); the condition and maintenance cycle for park trees and playgrounds; the status of electric vehicle charging and bus procurement; and more detail about delinquent utility balances and collection efforts.

A handful of motions were made during the hearing’s public portion (see “Votes and motions” below). Council approved the meeting agenda unanimously at the outset; other motions were introduced and seconded but the transcript does not record roll‑call outcomes for each. Staff said motions that receive seconds will be placed in the “hopper” and scheduled for subsequent votes according to the budget‑hearing rules.

The council recessed for a closed session and later returned with no reportable action. Staff told the council the budget hearings will continue across scheduled session days, with the council expected to vote on motions and the final amended budget on dates identified during the overview. The administration said motions made during the hearings must, for clarity, include dollar amounts and suggested that council members submit proposed motions in writing by email to expedite staff responses.