Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City presents FY2026‑27 proposed budget; Parks & Recreation outlines cost‑recovery plan and goals
Summary
City Manager and finance staff presented the proposed FY2026‑27 budget (General Fund revenues ~$124.35M; proposed expenditures ~$124.3M; ending balance meeting reserve policy). Parks & Recreation outlined a multi‑year strategy to increase cost recovery for recreation services from ~64% toward 70% over 2–3 years through fee updates, partnerships and operational efficiencies.
The City Manager and Finance Director presented the proposed FY2026‑27 operating and capital budgets at the May 26 meeting. Staff projected General Fund revenues of approximately $124.35 million (including transfers) and proposed expenditures that leave the General Fund ending balance near the council reserve target (about 20% of appropriations). Key drivers include salary and benefit increases, negotiated MOU adjustments, and programmatic operating cost increases tied to CPI and contract escalations.
Enterprise funds (water, wastewater, solid waste) and capital improvement project priorities were reviewed; staff highlighted that capital needs outpace available funding for major projects (for example, an estimated $50M corporation yard buildout requires additional grant or outside funding). The budget book and presentation provide a CIP list for FY26‑27 and funding source breakdowns.
Parks & Recreation director Kelly Gonzales and staff presented an in‑depth cost‑recovery review for recreation, community services, aquatics and facilities. The department is revising an outdated cost‑recovery policy and proposed a Financial Sustainability Plan to be work‑shopped with the Parks & Recreation Commission this fall and with updated fees to take effect Jan. 2027. The department proposed a three‑year target to increase recreation division cost recovery from about 64% to 70%, equivalent to roughly $800,000 less annual general‑fund subsidy. Approaches include targeted fee adjustments, stronger public‑private partnerships (including nonprofit and health‑care partnerships), improved municipal landscape and facilities cost recovery, energy efficiency upgrades, and a re‑examination of contract vs. in‑house service delivery for park maintenance.
Council asked for more granular follow‑up information: a multi‑year comparison of pension/OPEB liabilities and contributions, clearer documentation of where contracted services replaced positions and the net fiscal impact, and more detailed projections on when single‑role firefighter/paramedic staffing will permit restoration of additional apparatus.
