Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monument council reviews new-format 2026 draft budget, staff cites revenue moves to close gap
Summary
Town staff presented a new GFOA-style 2026 draft budget and identified added revenues — $24,000 in rent, proposed water franchise fees, $100,000 from ending a vendor discount and about $200,000 from mill‑levy adjustments — and said reserves and a pared expense base are balancing the plan.
Town staff presented a refreshed, more transparent 2026 draft budget to the Monument Town Council on Nov. 17, saying the document is reformatted to follow Government Finance Officers Association best practices and to make revenues and strategy clearer to taxpayers.
Lori, the town finance manager, told the council the draft includes several revenue changes intended to reduce reliance on general‑fund reserves. She identified about $24,000 in rent formerly allocated elsewhere, a proposed water franchise fee to be brought as an ordinance in two weeks, roughly $100,000 expected from eliminating a vendor sales‑tax discount, and an estimated $200,000 from raising the mill levy toward the town’s statutory limit. “This is a little bit different than you’ve seen before,” Lori said, describing additional appendix content, department accomplishments and strategic objectives that staff added to the new format.
Nut graf: The changes bring the draft budget closer to balance while leaving the council to weigh presentation choices and the long‑term sustainability of a “bare‑bones” operating base. Staff said the town’s operating reserve is now above 30 percent, exceeding the town policy target of 20 percent, but cautioned that capital needs remain significant.
Council members pressed staff for clarity on several items. A member asked whether rental income from the property at 259 Beacon Light Road is under market terms; staff said the lease is in place and believed to be at market but will be reviewed as part of meter consolidation work. Several council members asked for a public‑facing summary or cover sheet because the budget software shows revenues as negative numbers (an accounting presentation that some residents could misread). One council member suggested a clear disclaimer: “negative is not a negative,” the presenter replied, offering to add explanatory notes to summary pages.
The council and staff also discussed water‑fund totals. Staff explained that all‑fund summaries include capital line items—such as a roughly $5 million water tank and $2 million for renewable water purchases—so all‑fund expenditures outpace the general fund operating totals. Staff confirmed no new debt is proposed for 2026 and that the water fund has a fund balance available to cover planned capital work.
On capital priorities, staff flagged a five‑year CIP backlog of roughly $145 million, even when excluding the police station and public‑works facilities, and promised to return with a long‑range financial forecast when the budget is finalized for adoption on Dec. 1.
The council held detailed follow‑up questions and directed staff to finalize presentation edits, bring the water‑franchise ordinance back for consideration, and include clearer summaries for the public before the budget adoption process continues.
