Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Batavia council advances FY2026/27 budget after debate over staffing, parks and outreach

City of Batavia – Conference Meeting · February 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Batavia City Council voted 6-2 to move the proposed FY2026/27 budget ordinance forward after public commenters questioned a new deputy fire chief position and spending on parks; councilors debated timing and public access to the budget ahead of the March 20 charter deadline.

Council President Jankowski and council members advanced the proposed FY2026/27 budget on Feb. 23, 2026, voting 6-2 to move the ordinance forward for final action before the March 20 charter deadline.

The public hearing attracted two residents who urged changes. Deb Snyder said she opposed adding a deputy fire chief, suggesting those duties could be delegated to captains or that leadership should change if current staffing could not handle the workload. Mary Ellen Zickl said she believed youth services were being shortchanged, asked why a Williams Park grant did not come through and sought clarity on where about 800 grant-funded trees would be planted.

Council discussion focused on process and timing as much as substance. Councilmember Lord said more time might be warranted after public comment; Council President Jankowski and City Attorney George Van Nest said the budget had been discussed in multiple public work sessions and stressed the charter requirement that the budget be adopted by March 20. Councilmember DiSalvo criticized the work-session format as less open than a public hearing and urged future timetable adjustments.

On the procedural motion to move the budget forward for final consideration, Lord and DiSalvo voted no; the motion passed on a 6-2 roll call. The record indicates no final adoption occurred at the Feb. 23 conference meeting; councilmembers moved the ordinance along the process toward a future vote.

Next steps: Because the charter sets an adoption deadline, any substantive changes that would trigger a new public hearing must be scheduled and noticed; council did not schedule an additional hearing on Feb. 23.