Minot council directs staff to rewrite budget ordinance after finance office warns reserves could fall below requirement by 2028
Loading...
Summary
At a Feb. 17 work session, Minot finance staff proposed allowing some administrative budget transfers to reduce routine amendments and presented projections showing reserves could drop below the city's one-twelfth requirement by 2028. Council asked staff to redline ordinance language and return proposed changes and 2027 budget guidance at a future agenda; no formal policy votes were taken.
Minot's City Council heard a proposal Feb. 17 to amend the city's budget ordinance so certain administrative budget transfers could be handled by staff, and received multi-year projections from the finance director showing the city's reserves could fall below the one-twelfth reserve requirement by 2028.
City finance director David told the council the current ordinance contains contradictory language about whether appropriations must be shown by fund or by detailed line item and asked for guidance on allowing administrative amendments for transfers that remain within appropriation thresholds. "Our current budget ordinance is it contradicts itself," David said, and staff proposed an administrative approval process tied to city manager sign-off with quarterly reporting to preserve transparency.
Why it matters: Finance staff said the city is running on a trajectory where expenditure growth outpaces revenue growth. Using the $20,100,754 property-tax levy adopted for 2026 as a baseline, David showed scenarios that, under a flat levy, would draw down reserves and leave the city about $3.4 million below the required one-twelfth reserve by 2028 unless the council and staff implement revenue increases, cuts, or stricter fiscal management.
Council members voiced competing concerns. Alderman Blessing said he did not want the change to create "the feeling of sort of a slush fund," asking that staff retain clear guardrails and be able to justify transfers. "I don't want that feeling," Blessing said, arguing staff must be able to defend decisions. Alderman Fuller warned that administrative flexibility could "circumvent the whole budget process" if not carefully constrained and cautioned against allowing departments to move money into purchases the council decided to cut.
Staff responded that administrative transfers would require city manager approval and be reported to council; contracts connected to transfers would still require council authorization, providing an additional transparency point. David also noted the 2026 budget includes multi-year police funding (about $5 million in year two and roughly $15 million over three years) and that even removing that future police funding would leave a structural deficit approaching $10 million by 2028.
Several council members urged starting the 2027 budget from a clear baseline: Alderman Blessing recommended beginning with the adopted 2026 levy of $20.1 million and layering modest new growth rather than immediately using the full 3% state cap. Others, including Alderman Olsen and Lauren Pitner, urged caution about overusing reserves and stressed the need for a sustainable approach.
Council gave staff direction to clean up the contradictory language in the budget ordinance, produce a redlined version, and bring those changes and recommended budget guidance back to a future regular council agenda for formal review. No formal policy votes were taken during the work session. The meeting adjourned by voice vote.
