Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saint Clair Shores council reviews tight fiscal 2026 budget, flags $6.4M citywide shortfall
Summary
City staff presented a recommended FY budget with a $28,376 general-fund surplus but a $6,433,832 citywide deficit driven largely by road and utility capital projects; council pressed administration on millage accounting, reserves and spending priorities.
The Saint Clair Shores City Council reviewed a recommended fiscal package that city staff said balances the general fund but leaves the overall citywide budget in deficit.
Administration presented a general-fund recommendation of $47,529,908 in revenues and $47,001,532 in expenses, yielding a reported $28,376 surplus for that fund. Staff also showed total citywide revenues of $132,740,710 against expenses of $139,174,542 — a $6,433,832 shortfall that officials said is largely driven by capital and street-related spending.
The presentation and ensuing council questions focused attention on a set of large projects, notably the Jefferson Road reconstruction and related TIP-funded work north of 11 Mile. City staff said some costs will be shared with partner agencies while the city will use fund balance and targeted allocations inside special funds (motor pool, streets, sanitary) to cover project spending.
Council members pressed administration for clarity about the police-and-fire millage approved by voters, asking how the roughly $1.4 million in new revenue is being dedicated and whether the budget shows a formal reserve. Administration acknowledged the millage covers only a portion of public-safety salary costs (administration estimated roughly 60–63% of salaries) and said part of the new revenue is being used to balance the overall budget in the short term; council asked staff to outline options, including an explicit reserve or line-item tracking to demonstrate how millage proceeds are applied.
Other recurring budget pressures surfaced in the session: rising health and benefits costs that now appear as a more detailed fringe-benefits breakdown across departments; interpreter cost increases in the court budget after a state policy change that reduced the court’s ability to recoup those fees; and higher vehicle and equipment replacement costs across police, fire and DPW. Administration emphasized that several enterprise and special funds carry planned deficits in order to spend down designated fund balances for capital projects.
The council did not vote on the budget at the session. Staff said follow-up material will show multi‑year forecasts and additional line‑item detail and that the council will consider adjustments and possible budget amendments in subsequent meetings.
