Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council schedules second reading for appropriation of opioid-settlement and debt-service funds (Ordinance 2026-7C)
Summary
Council heard first reading of ordinance 2026-7C to appropriate opioid-settlement funds (including a $30,000 JCAP payment correction and a $50,000 restricted fund addition) and to adjust debt-service cash timing (noting a $112,625 correction). No vote was taken; the ordinance was set for second reading on April 21, 2026.
Mayor introduced ordinance 2026-7C, sponsored by Councilman Bartlett, which would appropriate opioid-settlement funds and adjust the general obligation debt-service fund to permit an early payment schedule. The ordinance is on first reading; no action was taken beyond discussion and scheduling for second reading on April 21.
City staff (Mindy and Shirley, identified only by first name in the transcript) summarized the finance changes. Staff said an earlier budget entry allocated $10,000 in the restricted fund when the mayor intended that $10,000 to be in the unrestricted fund; the city’s JCAP commitment is $30,000 per year, leaving a $20,000 shortfall that staff proposed to appropriate. Staff also proposed adding $50,000 to the restricted opioid fund to cover possible eligible uses later in the year. On the unrestricted side, staff described bringing balances into appropriated funds so the dollars are available for legal uses.
On the debt-service side staff said a timing mismatch of a bond payment had left too much cash in the debt-service fund in the prior year and prompted the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) to reduce the approved levy by about $220,000 (the transcript describes this as roughly a two-cent tax-rate reduction). To avoid a repeat, staff proposed bringing $112,625 (transcript numeric: "112625") into the debt-service fund to allow the city to make an early payment in December from cash rather than leave the fund over the statutory maximum and risk another levy reduction.
Staff emphasized that none of the measures would increase the tax levy and said the appropriation follows DLGF and State Board of Accounts (SBOA) procedures for correcting appropriation entries. No public comment was offered at the first reading; the ordinance moves to second reading and further public comment on April 21.
Next steps: council will consider the ordinance at second reading on April 21; staff will continue internal review and work with DLGF as needed.
