Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pittsburg commission approves year-end budget amendment after public outcry over mill‑levy and book discrepancies
Summary
After a two-hour public hearing, the City Commission approved a 2025 budget amendment to reconcile Section 8/HUD and sanitation expenditures. Citizens and commissioners pressed staff over conflicting budget books and a higher mill levy; staff said the money has already been spent and the amendment is required for compliance.
The Pittsburg City Commission voted Tuesday to approve a 2025 budget amendment reconciling actual expenditures for HUD Section 8 and the city’s new sanitation enterprise, after an extended public hearing in which residents raised discrepancies across multiple budget books and warned of rising property tax bills.
City finance staff said the amendment is largely a housekeeping action required to align the legal budget with expenditures that have already occurred, including capital purchases for the sanitation department and reimbursements tied to housing programs. "The budget amendments are . . . a standard annual procedure, and it's required by the state to align the budget with the actual expenditures," a finance official said during the hearing.
Why it matters: Residents said they were surprised to see differing revenue and valuation numbers in three versions of the budget book circulated this fall and argued those changes affected the mill levy calculation. Several speakers presented sample tax bills showing year‑over‑year city tax increases of 8–9% in some neighborhoods, despite earlier assurances the mill levy would be held constant.
During the hearing Christie Bittner, a resident who reviewed the books, told commissioners: "There are three separate budget books . . . The annual revenues between these three books range from 46 to 48,000,000. The total revenues range from 72 to 74,000,000." She asked the commission to reexamine the documents and called for an outside audit if needed.
Staff response and commission action: City staff and the newly seated finance director explained that timing, accounting reclassifications and the start‑up costs of the sanitation enterprise caused differences between drafts and final filing copies. The finance director said the amendments are necessary to close 2025 with legally balanced fund statements. Commissioners debated options including asking the county clerk for final valuation details and cutting the budget to keep the levy unchanged.
In the end the commission voted to adopt the amendment so funds would not show negative balances and to remain in compliance with state accounting rules; staff agreed to increase transparency on reporting and to brief the commission on grant and sanitation expenditures prior to grant closeouts and future budget work sessions. The approval followed a roll‑call and voice votes recorded during the meeting; no formal outside audit was ordered that night.
What’s next: Commissioners asked staff for clearer monthly or quarterly briefings during the 2026 budget process and for a public accounting of nonprofit and tax‑exempt properties that influence the city’s tax base.
