Council reviews proposed FY2025–26 budget; debate centers on road paving priorities and staff cuts

City staff on Tuesday presented a proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget that trims every general‑fund line item by 7% and keeps $18.5 million in capital projects across multiple funds, while leaving the council to decide which major road paving projects to prioritize.

The budget presentation opened with a staff overview of the process and constraints. “I know that one of my job duties … is to present a balanced budget to this board each year. Just kinda emphasize, this is my fourteenth time presenting to the board of an annual budget,” a staff member said as they summarized fund restrictions and the work to pare requests from 10 departments.

Why it matters: council members focused most of the discussion on how to apply limited paving dollars amid competing public‑safety and quality‑of‑life claims from neighborhoods. Staff warned that a shortfall in the general fund required cuts and reassignments and that some funds are legally restricted and cannot be moved for general uses.

Most important facts

- Staff reported a list of proposed cuts and realignments that initially totaled about $1.6 million; an additional $418,000 in requests were shifted from the general fund into other, allowable funds where possible.

- To close the remaining gap staff applied a 7% cut to every general‑fund line item, which produced a projected general‑fund reserve (fund balance) around 22% after the reductions.

- The budget maintains $18.5 million in capital projects across the city’s 15 funds and includes funding to support a new public services building; staff said operations for that building add roughly $400,000 in recurring costs.

Paving showdown: Wilkinson cluster vs. Pleasant Grove and Boyles

A large portion of the meeting centered on whether to use the next fiscal year’s repaving dollars for the Wilkinson Lane cluster (including adjacent cul‑de‑sacs such as Hollis Court and Barksdale Courts) or to repave Pleasant Grove Road and Boyles Road.

Staff outlined several options discussed in recent weeks: (1) allocate the $600,000 State Street Aid repaving allocation to one project and add $450,000 from the debt service fund to reach roughly $1.05 million for a single project; (2) take up to $600,000 from the park sales tax fund to cover part of Pleasant Grove/Boyles; or (3) pursue a local option sales tax increase of 0.5 percentage point (a previously authorized local option mechanism) to generate roughly $1.3 million annually for roads.

Council members and staff reviewed condition scores from the city’s road matrix: staff said Wilkinson Lane includes two segments scored at about 45 and 13 (average ~29.5 out of 100 on the city matrix), while Pleasant Grove segments scored about 25 and 27. Staff estimated the Wilkinson cluster paving at roughly $950,000; an estimate of about $400,000 per mile was discussed and Wilkinson was reported at 1.3 miles in length.

Staff recommended a compromise that would relabel the line item in the budget from “Pleasant Grove Road repaving $450,000” to a combined “Pleasant Grove Road / Wilkinson Lane cluster” allocation and apply the available $1.05 million in paving funds across both needs so the council could both patch and partially pave the most urgent cluster spots this year while scheduling fuller work the following fiscal year. Council members signaled informal agreement to that approach; staff said the change would appear in the first reading of the budget ordinance.

Funding constraints and options discussed

- State Street Aid: staff noted the city receives roughly $600,000 in state street aid and that those monies are apportioned by population; the council and staff said the city is pursuing a congressional inquiry and waiting on federal census actions that could affect future allocations.

- Debt service fund: staff reported the debt service fund had room to free about $450,000 without dropping below policy targets, allowing additional one‑time paving revenue.

- Park sales tax fund: council members discussed shifting up to $600,000 from the park sales tax fund into the general fund for paving, but several members said the Leisure Services board should weigh in because the park fund supports grant matches and planned park projects.

- Local option sales tax: staff described a 0.5% local sales tax option adopted in the past as an available tool; staff estimated a 0.5‑point increase could yield about $1.3 million a year, and said it could be framed as a temporary revenue source to catch up on paving needs.

Other budget items discussed briefly

- Staffing and services: staff said to reach the 7% target they trimmed personnel requests and asked departments to identify necessary versus discretionary spending. The draft retains some hires intended to reduce outsourced costs: an IT position intended to reduce external contractor fees and a finance customer‑service position that staff said could free time spent processing mailed checks and reconcile ACH processes.

- Public safety and fire overtime: council members raised firefighter overtime and minimum staffing levels. Staff explained the department’s rotating schedules cause two out of three payrolls to include automatic overtime and that the department strives to keep seven personnel on shift for safety; staff said adding a firefighter would not immediately eliminate overtime costs under the current schedule.

- Enterprise and restricted funds: staff reiterated that wastewater, stormwater and sanitation are enterprise funds with restricted uses and cannot be reallocated to the general fund.

What the council directed or decided

- The council did not take a formal budget vote during the meeting but instructed staff to revise the budget language to combine the Pleasant Grove and Wilkinson paving items into one line item and to include that change in the upcoming first reading of the budget ordinance.

- Staff said they will bring back the first‑reading budget ordinance in the next few weeks and that the board will re‑examine allocations at the June meeting and before final adoption if fund balances permit additional transfers.

Context and next steps

The budget debate reflected decades‑long maintenance shortfalls the city described in several road corridors, with both safety and equity arguments made by members representing different wards. Staff repeatedly emphasized legal limits on reassigning restricted funds and warned that some road impact fee dollars are intended for widening collector roads and cannot be used for general resurfacing. The council’s first reading of the budget is scheduled in a few weeks; staff said they will present the revised line item and supporting cost estimates then.

Ending note: council members repeatedly framed the choices as difficult tradeoffs among competing community priorities, and staff said they will return with revised budget language and more granular cost and scheduling information ahead of the ordinance readings.