Town of Speedway previews 2026 budget, flags personnel and liability-driven shortfall
Loading...
Summary
Town staff presented a roughly $35 million 2026 budget outline that shows a projected deficit driven largely by rising personnel, insurance and liability costs and the effects of state legislation; council members discussed potential cuts, timing and use of reserves.
Town of Speedway officials on Aug. 19 presented an initial 2026 budget overview that projects roughly $35,000,000 in total spending and a shortfall in the general fund largely tied to rising personnel costs, health insurance and property-casualty liability.
Grant, the town manager, told the council the town "literally start[s] this in March and April" and described the budget process as "a political statement...a priority statement" outlining the town’s policy choices. He said department heads and staff prepared drafts and that the council had reviewed and trimmed requests in July.
Why it matters: the draft shows an increase in overall spending from about $32,000,000 the prior year to roughly $35,000,000, driven primarily by wage and benefit growth. Grant said "I would wager that about 85% of our overall increases are personnel related expenses." He listed specific drivers: a proposed 2.5% cost-of-living pay adjustment for nonunion staff (3% given in 2025), union wage increases, an estimated 5% rise in health insurance costs and what he described as a "pretty significant hit" in property-casualty liability (an increase he estimated in the meeting at about 30%–40%).
Officials and staff warned the council that the general fund face a budget gap under current assumptions. Philip (finance staff) provided spreadsheets showing an approximate $1,800,000 overspend in the general fund under the draft budget. Grant noted the town may receive transfers from the Speedway Redevelopment Commission (SRC) that could reduce the shortfall; he said those transfers might be about $1,000,000, which would reduce the projected gap to roughly $800,000 — similar to the town’s recent experience.
State legislation: the presentation repeatedly referenced "Senate Bill 1," which Grant said had "some significant revenue effects to the town and all local governments," and the town factored the law into revenue estimates. Officials said the more dramatic revenue effects are expected to materialize in later years and that uncertainty complicates hiring decisions for 2026.
Reserves and timing: Council members and staff discussed fund balances and how much cash the town should hold. Grant said the town’s total cash position across funds is substantial and that officials prefer having a buffer for unanticipated capital repairs (examples mentioned later in the meeting included water infrastructure and sanitary sewer failures). Staff recommended treating one-time purchases differently from recurring personnel increases when considering use of reserves.
Next steps: staff presented this as a first draft subject to change. Grant and Philip urged the council to identify priorities and possible one-time reductions; several council members said they would prefer delaying new recurring personnel positions until the revenue picture from Senate Bill 1 and other state-level changes is clearer.
