Apple City Council reviews nearly $2 million in one‑time budget amendments

The Apple City Council met in a May 22 work session to review a long list of proposed budget amendments that total $1,980,000 in additions to the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget, Finance Director Britney Moran said. "If you look under the onetime reserve ... we're looking at a total of 1,980,000 additions, and we have 1.429 available," Moran told the council.

Moran and Jake Trudeau, the city's budget manager, told council members the $1.429 million figure is the audited, available one‑time balance right now; an earlier projection of $4.5 million reflected estimated year‑end savings that may not materialize. "That was including the anticipation of fy the current fiscal year that we're in. So balance to balance, what's physically available at the moment is that 1.4," Trudeau said. Moran cautioned that using the full available balance would “wipe those balances clean for the next year.”

Why it matters: Council members heard repeated warnings that the ceiling figures in the amendment list reflect current account balances and not guaranteed future savings. Moran said there is an additional $1,000,000 in the capital reserve shown as available for capital projects, but using the full amount would leave those reserves depleted for the following year.

Council members asked for clarifying information and for more time to review individual amendments. Several aldermen asked that staff provide cost justifications or additional detail for large items — notably the police signing bonus, transportation studies and large capital projects — before final action. Council leadership asked that any changes to funding sources be delivered to staff by close of business Monday so finance can run an internal review and present updated materials prior to the next meeting.

The discussion set the stage for a series of individual amendment debates during the meeting, where department directors and program leads briefly explained the intended use and funding source for specific proposals. Several sponsors signaled readiness to revise amendments based on staff feedback and to prioritize items if available onetime funding remained below the full amendment list total.

Ending: City finance staff asked the council to treat the $1.429 million figure as the conservative, audited baseline and to avoid appropriating amounts contingent on unfinalized fiscal‑year savings. Council members directed staff to provide more detailed back‑up for large amendments and to produce updated amendment tables before the subsequent meeting so the body can reconcile priorities and funding sources.