Fountain Green staff present $1.10 million budget package; road fund added for 2025-26

Staff member, the budget presenter, told the Fountain Green work meeting on June 19 that the proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget would combine the general fund and the road fund into a single package. "Our general budget for this upcoming year is $645,425," the staff member said, and "the road budget is $458,220 for a total of $1,103,645." The presenter said revenues and expenditures for the two funds balance out in the proposal.

The inclusion of the road fund increased the total above $1 million, the presenter said, because this year the council was required to include both road revenues and road expenditures in the budget document. The presenter described a line‑by‑line review intended to make category tracking clearer, and said the draft includes "a raise across the board for all the employees. So full time and part time."

Council members and staff discussed a handful of items they said could be adjusted after the initial approval rather than during the meeting. One councilmember cautioned that changes to landscaping at the DUP could draw community opposition: "You're gonna get some pushback on Xeriscape taking that lawn out," the councilmember said, and recommended approving the budget as written and amending it later if needed.

Landscaping and drainage at the DUP were discussed in detail. A councilmember described recent site work and an intermittent basement flooding issue affecting a resident, Roger Huffman, saying a sprinkler line had been cut and flooded Huffman’s basement. Councilmembers discussed removing a strip of lawn on the west side of the DUP, reworking sprinkler zones to protect remaining plantings, and testing a temporary outlet pipe that would route stormwater onto concrete and into the road before making a permanent change. One member said the plan was to "hook it up and put up just a pipe there and see if that slope will do exactly the place it's gonna do and keep it totally away from liability." The council discussed whether to set aside funds in the current budget for those landscaping and drainage repairs or to add them via amendment in the coming months.

Members also reviewed cemetery finances and maintenance. Discussion participants gave mixed figures for the cemetery perpetual care and related accounts. One councilmember said the perpetual care account had "maybe not 65,000," and later in the conversation the same member said, "We have $92,004.27," adding that insurance proceeds had raised the comparable total to "about $120,000" in a previous fiscal year. The group said the perpetual care account had not been used for non‑cemetery purposes in recent decades; one speaker summarized that the city has two cemetery accounts, a perpetual care fund and a separate growth savings account.

Council members confirmed that potential new revenue from a previously discussed cell‑tower project was not included in the draft budget because its timing remains uncertain. "We did not put that in there," the presenter said. Members said they would not count on construction‑related or other variable revenues unless there was a history or a confirmed commitment of funds.

No formal motions or votes on the budget appeared in the work meeting transcript. Councilmembers said the budget document had been tightened by removing unused categories and by adding more specific line items to make future monitoring easier. Attendees discussed pursuing grants or DUP partner funds for landscaping work, and agreed to consider amendments later rather than change the budget at the work meeting.

The meeting concluded after the review and line‑by‑line discussion.