Superior council approves two‑phase move to priority based budgeting, authorizes $20,000 contingency for consultant

The Superior Common Council voted 7–3 to begin a two‑phase transition to priority based budgeting, authorizing staff to return on March 7 with a contract for the Center for Priority Based Budgeting and approving the use of $20,000 from 2017 contingency funds pending contract approval. The motion was moved by Councilor Fennessy and seconded by Councilor Sweeney.

Finance Director Vito introduced the measure and Mister Bronson delivered a 14‑slide presentation outlining how priority based budgeting (PBB) would inventory city services, identify community goals and rank programs so resources align with those priorities. "Priority based budgeting is a process that evaluates current city programs by their influence in achieving the most desired outcomes of the community and uses this as a basis for allocating resources more effectively," Bronson said.

Councilors questioned scope, timing and who would determine final rankings. Councilor Kern said she supported the approach but urged caution: "I thoroughly think that this is where we have to go, but I just don't really wanna rush it and not be fully, you know, prepared to do it either." Staff and the consultant described a blended process in which city officials and department heads would develop initial goals, the consultant would facilitate community engagement (surveys, town halls and mailed options) and a peer review committee would review departmental scores before the common council makes final decisions.

Some councilors emphasized fiscal realities and limits on local authority. One member warned that community feedback could request additional services the council cannot fund, and staff acknowledged PBB is not a substitute for increased shared revenue from the state. Supporters said PBB would increase transparency and provide data to guide difficult tradeoffs; Councilor Brent Fennessey argued the uncertainty voiced by members was precisely the reason to employ an outside expert.

Questions on personnel effects drew sustained attention. Councilors asked whether the city would need layoffs to balance budgets under PBB; staff said the intent is to avoid layoffs where possible, using attrition and redeployment as tools, but conceded that personnel costs are a large share of the general fund and creative solutions may be required.

The contract timeline discussed would roll the work across two budget cycles, with a quoted cost of $20,000 for the 2017 engagement (phase 1) and an estimated $15,000 for the following year. Staff said the Center has worked with more than 120 U.S. communities and that the firm is recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association and ICMA.

After questions about sole‑source procurement and reference checks, the council called for a roll call vote. The motion passed 7–3. Councilors who raised concerns said they expect detailed plans on public outreach, scoring methodology, the make‑up of any review committees and protections for staff and core services before the city finalizes lengthy implementation.

The council adjourned the committee of the whole after the vote. The contract is expected to be returned to the council for approval on March 7.