Pataskala City reviews proposed 2026 budget, five-year forecast

Pataskala City officials met in a special session to review the proposed 2026 budget and a five‑year forecast. Finance staff presented revenue projections, fund allocations, staffing assumptions and capital‑project plans; council members asked for clarifications on pension assumptions, insurance costs and specific project funding. No formal vote on the budget was taken at the session; the meeting ended with a procedural adjournment vote.

The finance presentation said the city’s five‑year forecast "provides a comprehensive overview of the city's projected financial landscape for the period" and lays out six primary expense categories: salary‑related costs, contractual services, general operating, capital outlay, debt service and transfers. Staff proposed a 3% general salary increase for 2026 and assumed the same 3% placeholder for each subsequent year in the forecast, and reported a 19.5% projected increase in health‑insurance renewal rates for 2026.

Jennifer (finance staff) told council income tax revenue for 2026 is projected at "approximately 11,000,000," and staff used a conservative 4.5% annual growth rate instead of a historical 5% assumption. The presentation noted that approximately 50% of net income‑tax revenue from the corporate park is shared with Licking Heights and Southwest Licking School Districts per revenue‑sharing agreements, and that the city began receiving JED (joint economic development) income tax receipts in fiscal 2024. For 2026, JED receipts were estimated around $1,000,000 and will be recorded in the 204 JED fund.

On pension costs, a councilmember identified as Jim raised concerns that the forecast includes a 24% pension contribution assumption and said recent legislation would phase in increases at about 1% per year. He argued the phase‑in would make a more limited near‑term impact than the forecasted figure. Another staff member explained the director favored maintaining conservative placeholders in the forecast given uncertainty about future legislation and negotiations.

Staff outlined planned transfers and major fund allocations. The general (101) fund was shown funding a $400,000 transfer to the parks and recreation (206) fund in 2026 and a $1,600,000 transfer to the 301 capital improvement fund to support a named capital project listed in the CIP. The finance overview allocated income tax across funds with the police (208) fund shown receiving roughly 46% of income‑tax revenue for 2026; the police fund’s total expenditures were presented at about $6,000,000, with roughly $4,000,000 in salary and benefits.

Capital improvement highlights included the city’s 2026 improvement program, Broad Street downtown corridor work and intersection projects on Taylor Road and Famous Corners Road. Staff acknowledged they would double‑check an engineering line item that council members flagged as potentially overstated. Building maintenance items noted in the forecast included roof work at city facilities and replacement of a fire‑alarm system at the municipal building.

Utility funds and major projects were discussed. Staff said water rates are scheduled to increase 8% in 2026 and 5% in 2028 and 2030; the iron‑filter replacement project is expected to be completed in 2026 and is tied to bond financing and related debt‑service timing. The utility funds’ combined 2026 expenditures were presented at about $7,500,000, with water and sewer operations and capital needs detailed in the CIP schedules.

Council members also questioned recurring operational costs such as street sweeping and vacuuming, and asked for clarification on whether paving for the street garage will use previously budgeted funds or new appropriations. Staff said some items were deferred while construction was ongoing and committed to follow up with precise account reconciliations.

The session concluded without a formal council vote on the budget papers presented. At 66:35 on the meeting clock, Councilmember Andy moved to adjourn; the motion was seconded by Epperson and passed on a roll call (Walter, Epperson, Bowman, Gainshier and Dalit voting yes).