Fairview leaders propose roughly $1.3M in cuts to avoid property tax increase

Fairview officials reviewed a proposal to cut about $1.3 million from the proposed fiscal-year 2026–27 budget in a work session, aiming to present a budget with a 0% property tax increase while balancing revenue shortfalls and rising costs. City staff said the package of cuts would leave the proposed budget roughly $30,000 over target without raising the tax rate.

The staff presentation described a two-step approach: an initial pass that removed about $649,000 from departmental operations (excluding police and fire), then a proportional reduction across all departments — including police and fire — that produced an additional roughly $668,000 in savings, for a combined reduction of about $1.3 million. “We took all budgets except fire and police and worked through each of those, line by line, item by item,” the presenter said, adding that the second pass applied percentage cuts across every department to reach the target.

Ben Knox, the city’s finance director, then walked commissioners through revenues and line-item changes. Knox explained the comparison layout — the no-increase budget beside the original proposed budget and the specific line-item changes — and identified particular personnel reductions and operating cuts in administration that would contribute to savings, including discontinuing a policy-software subscription, scaling back advertising and eliminating certain community-events spending.

Commissioners pressed staff for specifics. The board asked which two administrative positions were targeted; Knox said the cuts as presented would affect the economic development position and the public information officer. Several commissioners expressed reluctance about cutting personnel but acknowledged the exercise’s purpose. “Part of the exercise was getting that number,” one presenter said, inviting individual follow-up before decisions are finalized.

Public-safety impacts drew sustained attention. Staff proposed eliminating two sworn police positions (one vacant, one filled) and a slate of operating reductions — training, ammunition, radios, and other items — that together represented significant savings in the police budget. Police leadership explained some operating lines are necessary for certified training and specialized instructor travel, and warned that fleet shortfalls and rising upfitting costs have left the city roughly $400,000 behind prior assumptions for police vehicle replacement and upfitting.

Fire-department cuts proposed removing three firefighter positions. The fire chief warned that losing three positions would likely force Station 2 to be taken offline at times, increase response times in that area and risk breaching the city’s contract with the county (which brings roughly $60,000–$70,000 in revenue). “If we lost the three firefighters, Station 2 would have to be shut down,” the chief said, adding that such a move could also affect Fairview’s ISO rating and therefore property-insurance costs for residents and businesses.

Public works and parks were also hit with staff-proposed personnel reductions. Public works leaders described a heavy workload after a recent storm — roughly 97 chipper-truck loads since April 1 — and said chipper service is labor-intensive and requires additional flaggers; commissioners discussed scaling the months of chipper service or limiting the program to reduce personnel needs. Parks staff would face several full- and part-time position eliminations in the exercise; commissioners noted the consequences of shrinking the department to very small staffing levels.

Commissioners discussed alternatives to deep cuts, including a property-tax increase to rebuild reserves and address capital needs. Staff framed the options as: accept the cuts (with recurring service impacts), increase property taxes to balance the current year, or increase taxes at a level that also begins replenishing reserves and funds needed for capital items such as public-safety apparatus and fleet replacement. Staff provided illustrative household impacts for a proposed increase range (for example, a higher-end scenario described in the meeting would raise an owner of a $500,000 home by about $372 annually under that worst-case example).

Separately, staff noted potential contingent liabilities and longer-term obligations. They said work was underway to reconcile prior revenue assumptions and one-time funds (ARPA and debt service blending), and that the city will need to plan for possible FEMA cost shares: staff mentioned a potential 25% match obligation on a FEMA-related item that could amount to roughly $675,000 if the full project costs required that match.

Commissioners and staff agreed the session was a brainstorm rather than a decision-making meeting. Staff proposed to meet individually with commissioners over the coming week, return revised numbers and present the budget for a second reading on the 18th; the board discussed a possible workshop or collective follow-up (a tentative date of June 11 was discussed for additional deliberation). There was no formal vote on the ordinance or final adoption during the session.

The board will hold a public hearing before the second reading and is expected to reconvene with revised budget scenarios before any binding decision on taxes or personnel changes.