Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monona projects 3.16% levy increase as debt service drives most of 2026 budget change
Summary
Finance staff told the Committee of the Whole the proposed 2026 operating levy is $12,488,401.50, a $443,563 (3.16%) rise largely caused by debt service; the tax rate falls from 6.58 to 6.25 while department guidance targeted 3% operating increases.
Mark, the city finance director, opened the Committee of the Whole’s review of the 2026 operating budget with a high‑level summary of tax and spending changes. He said the overall property tax levy in the proposed budget is $12,488,401.50 and that the overall increase is $443,563, or 3.16%. “Majority of that is related to debt service,” he said, adding that the municipal tax rate would drop from 6.58 to 6.25 even as levy dollars increase.
The nut of the budget, Mark said, is departmental direction: most departments received guidance to hold general‑fund expense growth to roughly 3%. Some funds with separate levy and fund balances (for example library and utilities) were treated independently, and the administration expects most departments to be within the target; the library ended up slightly above at about 4% because of county tax changes. Mark summarized other revenue and expenditure drivers, including net new construction growth (reported at 1.36%) and an increase in levy‑exempt debt service that accounts for much of the levy uptick.
City staff also highlighted budget mechanicals that affect the levy picture. Finance staff said they plan to use some fund‑balance in the debt service fund ($900,000 this year) to smooth tax impacts while principal and interest obligations remain about level year‑to‑year. The administration noted one‑time transfers and contingency reductions tied to the prior referendum will continue to decline as contingency is spent down.
Council members asked about rounding and specific line items (for example health‑insurance assumptions and contract increases for public safety). Mark answered detailed questions on the expenditure restraint calculation and how shared revenues and state formulas interact with local levies.
The committee did not take a final vote on the operating budget at this meeting; the discussion will feed the next formal council review and subsequent ordinance preparation.
