City staff presents $181.8 million FY 2027 budget; board debates staffing, depreciation and tax impacts

City staff on May 5 presented a $181,847,160 proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 and asked the Board of Auburn to provide feedback ahead of a planned adoption vote at the May 12 meeting.

Mister Houston, who opened the presentation, described the proposal as "a disciplined, responsible budget" that balances reductions with investments in city services and the workforce: "It makes targeted reductions where necessary to protect services our residents depend on and invest in the workforce that delivers their services." The staff timeline stretched from a November kickoff through department presentations and committee review; staff said the board’s goal remains adoption next week.

Tanya, who reviewed the budget book, walked members through the document’s structure and summary tabs, explaining the comparison is between FY27 recommended and FY26 revised numbers. Staff reported all-funds totals of $181,847,160 and noted that the general fund portion is $52,238,420 while the electric fund is $75,600,000. Staff said adding a new debt service fund (about $4.8 million) makes an apples-to-apples comparison show a roughly 5.5% increase over FY26.

The proposed property-tax rate in the draft budget is 42¢, which staff said includes 2.75¢ dedicated to debt payments from the GO bond and about a quarter of a penny for general operations. Staff emphasized the revenue impact for taxpayers: "For every $100,000 of property value is an increase of $30," a finance presenter said while walking through the tax-rate scenarios.

Board members pressed staff on several line items. The travel-and-training budget drew questions about required vs. discretionary travel; staff agreed to identify which programs are mandated (licenses, certifications) and which are for professional development. The cemetery and parks budgets prompted discussion about available burial space and potential revenue-producing amenities.

On personnel, staff reported selective recommendations: several requested positions (an IT network support analyst, a GIS tech and a proposed real-time crime-center analyst) were not recommended because of limited general-fund resources; other requests such as a sewer treatment mechanic were recommended. Staff also described numerous reclassifications and title changes intended as career-ladder moves rather than net new FTEs.

The board approved one substantive personnel change at the meeting: after debate about tradeoffs, a motion to restore the electric engineering manager position carried on a roll-call vote, 6–1. The roll call showed six aldermen voting yes and the mayor opposed. Staff said the salary midpoint for that grade is roughly $102,000 plus about $40,000 in benefits and that the positions removed earlier in the recommended budget largely offset the additions.

Staff also summarized capital requests: departments sought about $13 million in capital items and staff recommended funding approximately $7.4 million, pursuing cash payment where possible and loans only where fund balance was insufficient (solid waste was cited as one such exception). The budget presentation noted a goal of paying operating capital in cash while financing long-lived infrastructure when feasible.

What happens next: staff said they will incorporate board feedback ahead of the May 12 adoption vote. Separately, staff reported the city has set a bond-sale timeline for GO-bond projects this summer; board discussion of those capital projects and redevelopment commission spending was deferred pending a joint meeting requested by multiple members.

Votes and procedural steps taken at the work session will be reflected in the May 12 meeting packet, and staff told the board they will return with any additional clarifying details requested at the session.