Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crescent City unveils FY25–26 budget with Measure S spending focused on public safety, streets and parks
Summary
City staff presented the proposed FY25–26 budget emphasizing Measure S allocations for police, fire, streets and the pool, while flagging cash‑flow questions tied to $20M in grants and several large capital projects. Council continued the workshop for final direction.
Crescent City staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget, asking the City Council for direction on Measure S allocations, staffing and capital spending. The package before the council would keep Measure S focused on fire, police, streets and recreational facilities while preserving a conservative reserve to manage grant cash‑flow.
Finance Director Linda Lieber and the city manager said Measure S remains a vital local revenue stream since its 2020 voter approval, and that the oversight committee recommended roughly $2.6 million in Measure S expenditures for the coming year. That funding is earmarked primarily for public safety staffing and equipment, street preservation projects, and pool operations and maintenance.
Staff highlighted several major capital projects that will drive budget planning, including phases of the Front Street reconstruction and Beachfront Park improvements (staff estimated roughly $6 million this year for Front Street work and another $6 million for the park across adjacent years). City staff also noted approximately $20 million in grant‑funded projects now in various stages of design or procurement and cautioned that many grants operate on a reimbursement basis, creating short‑term cash‑flow needs the general fund may have to bridge.
Council members asked staff to prioritize a short list of “not included” requests and consider deferring lower‑priority items until mid‑year if cash flows remain tight. Staff recommended retaining conservative estimates (including a 5% budget‑to‑actual adjustment) and bringing a final budget to a public hearing in June. The council agreed to continue the workshop at a follow‑up session the next day to finalize remaining direction.
The city manager stressed that the budget assumptions shown do not yet include results from an ongoing compensation study or potential labor‑negotiation outcomes, and that wage adjustments will materially affect long‑term costs. The meeting concluded with staff directing follow‑up analysis and scheduling additional detailed briefings on specific projects and the Measure S five‑year plan.
