Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance Committee hears FY26 budget options; staff outlines personnel, vehicle and software cost pressures
Summary
City staff presented a budget update on the FY26 79¢ tax-rate option and a FY25 finance report. Highlights included staff estimates for vehicle and software cost inflation, FTE and COLA cost figures, insurance and benefits details, and revenue trends for sales, meals and business-license receipts.
City finance staff briefed the Finance Committee on options for the FY26 budget, including a 79¢ tax-rate scenario the committee requested, and provided the FY25 finance report on current-year revenues and expenditures.
Mary and Celeste (city staff) told the committee they are still revising the 79¢ scenario and expect to return a detailed budget at the next council meeting. Staff presented example cost pressures for capital and operating items: a historical escalation of roughly 10% per year for police interceptor vehicles (not including outfitting) and a range of about 10–30% for software-as-a-service contracts, depending on the product. Staff cautioned that construction-material costs vary by project and that specific figures depend on bid results.
On personnel, Celeste said there are 365.5 full-time-equivalent positions budgeted in the general fund. Of those, 40 positions in the general fund have salaries over $100,000; after excluding five state-mandated constitutional officer positions, staff counted 35 general-fund FTEs earning over $100,000. Celeste told the committee that 1% in salary and benefits for those 35 positions is about $54,500; she also said a 1% COLA across the general fund is about $318,000.
Staff reiterated existing benefit policies: the city pays 100% of the premium for employee-only health coverage and contributes a smaller percentage for employee-plus-one and family coverage. Staff reported the annual cost for single-employee coverage is roughly $8,000 per year. The committee discussed whether to cap contributions or shift costs to employees but staff cautioned changes can affect retention.
Council members asked for clarifications on assessment timing for grant measures, the assumed cost escalations (staff suggested sharing the 10% vehicle and 15–30% software ranges with the council for further review), and the status of a potential in-house city attorney position beginning July 1, which would shift funds from contract services to payroll. Staff also noted uncertainties for FY26 in health-insurance premium increases and said final numbers were pending.
On current-year finances, staff reported the city remains on track: sales tax receipts were up 5.2% year over year, meals tax (meals and lodging) was up about 11.5%, and the mil rate receipts were about 11.5% higher than the prior year. Personal property bills were recently issued with a June 5 due date (changed from June 20), creating short-term cash-flow timing differences but not changing annual totals. Utilities staff are managing roughly $3.1 million in capital projects and anticipate another bond issuance for water and sewer work.
The committee asked staff to return with the revised 79¢ budget scenario at the next council meeting and to distribute the vehicle and software escalation assumptions for council review.
