Panama City officials warn of budget shortfall, ask staff for line‑item detail and monthly KPIs
Loading...
Summary
City finance staff presented monthly reports showing most funds performing as expected but flagged lagging impact‑fee receipts and timing items; commissioners pressed for detailed line‑item revenue breakdowns, a plan to close an estimated $3 million gap and regular, public KPIs ahead of the March pre‑budget workshop.
City finance staff on Friday presented monthly financial reports showing generally steady fund performance but drew commissioners’ attention to lagging impact‑fee revenue and timing issues that together leave the general fund roughly $3,000,000 short of the commission’s target if current trends continue.
Jan Smith, the city clerk‑treasurer, introduced the four routine monthly reports and said staff had grouped them by “colors of money” to help elected officials track special revenue, enterprise, debt service and general fund activity. In the presentation, staff said charges‑for‑service targets are set near 25% of the fiscal year at this point in the calendar; the Marina Fund, for example, showed about 12% in charges for services in December, well below that seasonal benchmark.
The budget manager, Samantha Perman, explained the accounting treatment of a $2.8 million sale of the Jenks property: the cash was collected before year end and is budgeted as a FY2026 sale‑of‑asset, so it appears in the current projections but may be moved in a year‑end amendment if needed. “So the money was budgeted in fiscal year 26 as a sale of an asset. It was not budgeted at all in fiscal year 25. So, in fiscal year 25, technically, it goes back into reserves,” Perman said.
Commissioners sought clarification on several revenue lines. Commissioner Street pressed staff on a multi‑year shortfall in impact‑fee collections and asked whether receipts were being miscoded to other accounts. Staff said they rely on rate‑study projections but will review cash remittance and account coding and supply a line‑item breakdown for the “charges for services” revenue grouping.
“Between now and the beginning of next fiscal year we have an opportunity…to actually start to make the changes that we need to to balance the budget without having to, you know, raise taxes or make some catastrophic cuts,” Commissioner Street said, urging early action and specific savings targets rather than waiting until the formal budget process.
Staff reported the general fund was about $9.3 million positive as of Dec. 31 in cash terms, but projections that treat the $2.8 million sale as a FY2026 item reduce the structural reserve position toward the 4–6% range of fund balance. Staff presented projections for 09/30/2026 showing estimated unassigned fund balance and compared city policy targets to Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) guidance, concluding that expenditure reduction and closer monitoring would be prudent.
Commissioners and staff also debated how to present the budget to the public. Several commissioners supported a program‑or service‑delivery view that aggregates costs by function (public safety, parks, etc.) and pairs spending with measurable performance indicators. Staff said the city’s reporting system can produce both account‑level and program‑level views and committed to creating a public, ADA‑compliant, program‑level “budget in brief” and to circulate mockups.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will provide detailed line‑item accounts for charges‑for‑services and CRA operating accounts, investigate impact‑fee coding/receipts, circulate a program‑level mockup for public presentation and begin providing monthly departmental operational metrics at the first meeting of each month. The commission also set a pre‑budget workshop for March 31 to discuss priorities and possible savings targets ahead of the FY2027 budget cycle.
The meeting ended with staff agreeing to follow up with the requested data and reporting formats; no formal motions or votes were taken.
