Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Forecast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brighton council hears revised six‑year forecast, fund‑balance higher than previously reported
Summary
Finance Director Liz Gaines told the City Council a corrected beginning fund balance raised the city's unassigned and assigned fund balance to about 49% of next year's expenditures and that several bond and millage funding choices remain to support street projects.
Finance Director Liz Gaines told the Brighton City Council on the city's revised six‑year forecast that a correction to the unassigned beginning fund balance for fiscal 2024–25 substantially raised the city's available fund balance.
Gaines said the corrected figure increased the city's unassigned and assigned fund balance as a share of next year's expenditures and that the combined assigned/unassigned balance now stands at about 49% of next year's expenditures, well above the council's 15% minimum requirement. "I think all of us can breathe a little bit easier with that number," she said.
The forecast discussion also included updated revenue expectations from new construction and property completions. Gaines said a commercial project on Second Street added about $170,000 to the current tax roll and she is forecasting roughly $220,000 to be added for 2026 as the project advances toward completion. She also noted one property is in DDA District 3 and therefore does not capture DDA taxes.
Why it matters: The corrected forecast gives council more flexibility when weighing capital improvements and road work. Finance staff told council there is roughly $1.25 million assigned in the general fund fund balance that could be applied to identified projects and that some 2021 bond funds remain available for East Street and related engineering.
Council and staff discussed priorities for the coming construction season and asked staff to return estimated costs. City staff said they can bring road project estimates to the council for the first May meeting and requested council feedback about which local streets to prioritize; staff asked for a consensus by the next council meeting to meet construction timelines. "I'd love to know by Tuesday next week," a staff member said when urging fast input on choices.
The council also reviewed the voter‑approved street millage that was passed in 2019 and will sunset after the July 1 levy that funds bond payments. Staff described how that millage funded the Northwest neighborhood project and other street work and said a future renewal would enable smaller, less expensive projects to move more streets from "poor" to "good" condition. Staff noted Act 51 reclassifications added roughly $40,000 in state shared revenue for major roads after seven road segments were upgraded to major classification.
Votes at a glance: The meeting included three procedural council votes: a motion to excuse Council member Gibson (motion by Council member Pettengill, supported by Council member Gardner; passed), a motion to approve the agenda (motion by Council member Schmank, seconded by Council member Gardner; passed), and a motion to adjourn (motion by Council member Schmiedt, seconded by Council member Pettengill; passed). Those procedural actions did not change budget direction.
What's next: Staff will prepare cost estimates for candidate streets (staff requested council preferences by the next meeting) and return with a discussion item to finalize which streets, if any, will be bid for the 2024 construction season. Finance staff said bond and fund balance positions give the city room to move on projects if the council identifies priorities.
