Council reviews FY26 budget preview: personnel requests, $537,016 in one‑time asks and debate over a $300,000 road fix

City staff presented a preliminary overview of the fiscal year 2026 budget at the May 14 budget work session, outlining personnel requests, one‑time spending proposals and a general‑fund primer ahead of a final discussion later in the summer.

The numbers: Staff projected a proposed total budget of about $63.5 million for FY26 — roughly a 10% increase over the adopted FY25 total — and presented an updated property-tax comparison and preliminary rate recommendation. Verna (finance staff) told the council the VOT A projection under current assumptions would be about 0.370331; staff emphasized those numbers are preliminary and subject to certified valuations that arrive later in the summer.

Personnel and one‑time requests: Verna said the requested personnel changes produce a net increase of one full‑time equivalent in the general fund and described three position additions that staff expects to fill primarily from internal candidates: an administrative sergeant in police to provide supervisory capacity and improved training oversight; a fire inspector/investigator to back up the fire marshal and handle investigations; and a part‑time kennel technician for animal control. Verna and other staff said many other staffing adjustments are reclassifications or fund transfers rather than net head‑count growth.

One‑time list and Tall Tree/Renner debate: Staff identified $537,016 in proposed one‑time expenditures to be funded from general‑fund balance, including small equipment replacements, IT items, leadership training and a larger public‑safety/roads item — a proposed $300,000 project at Tall Tree and Renner (referred to in discussion as a Ritter/Tall Tree safety and rerouting project). Verna said staff considered using CO financing for that location but proposed funding it from reserves to avoid a tax‑rate impact.

Council response: Several council members questioned the $300,000 estimate and asked staff to return with alternative, lower‑cost options or additional cost comparisons (including the possibility of property acquisition). One council member asked staff to bring back possible alternatives for rerouting or lower‑cost fixes; Verna said engineers had prepared three options previously and staff would return with more detail before the June meeting so the council could adjust the budget direction.

Other items: Staff proposed outsourcing much of park mowing as an operational change to reallocate staff time; Verna said that the first year would appear as a one‑time expense and then be built into operations if the council supports the change. Staff also discussed an IT equipment-refresh plan and said they will prepare a more comprehensive multi‑year technology replacement plan for future work sessions.

Next steps: Staff asked the council to review the one‑time list and provide direction before formal publication of budget notices; staff expects to return with updated certified numbers and a final general‑fund conversation at the July 31 budget meeting.

Ending: Verna and city management said the city’s fund balance remains above the council’s policy target and that proposed one‑time uses would not reduce the city below the stated 20% fund‑balance policy under current projections.