Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Springs council reviews proposed $8 million 2026–27 budget, millage and rate changes
Summary
City staff presented a proposed $8 million budget for fiscal year 2026–27, showing modest millage adjustments (including a small fire bond millage increase), a projected 15.5% rise in the average city tax bill driven by higher taxable values, planned capital outlays around $1 million and utility rate increases tied to a 2.4% CPI-based adjustment.
At a special meeting on March 19, Cedar Springs staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget, outlining revenue, capital needs and department-level changes.
Finance staff said the city’s total budget across funds is approximately $8 million, with about $1 million earmarked for capital outlay including a fire truck scheduled for 2027, street projects and equipment purchases. The presentation noted the general fund would not draw on fund balance under the current proposal and the administration’s goal is to rebuild reserves toward a 20% target after a recent net loss year tied to legal expenses.
Staff highlighted proposed millage adjustments: an increase in the fire station debt mill to 1.4981 mills (from 1.4211 last year) and a reduction in another city millage from 0.5 mills to 0.4 mills, which together produce minimal net change in total city millage. Staff corrected a miscalculation in the presentation and reported an updated average residential taxable value of $89,977, which, after millage application, produces an estimated average city tax bill of $3,976 — a 15.5% increase from the prior year. Staff attributed most of that change to rising taxable values, a CPI-based inflation adjustment and property uncapping.
The budget workshop also detailed department-level allocations: police and fire make up about 43% of general fund spending; a 2.7% across-the-board pay adjustment was proposed along with a 3% increase in the city contribution to employee health insurance (limited by a hard cap); and specific departmental expenses such as election equipment (estimated at about $15,000 per precinct-equivalent) and new IT services were noted.
Enterprise funds were reviewed: proposed water and sewer rate adjustments reflect the ordinance formula (the greater of 2% or inflation) and use a 2.4% figure for the coming year; the sewer fund plans about $350,000 in capital expenses and retains a fund balance of roughly $2.5 million, while the water fund projects about $65,000 in capital work and a healthy fund balance for larger projects such as East Moskegan Street infrastructure needs.
Council and staff discussed street funding formulas tied to Act 51 allocations (~$480,000 annually), reserving funds for East Moskegan and Ronald Street projects and showing recent winter maintenance costs that reduced available local street balances. Staff said they will not budget speculative additional state funds until they are received.
No formal budget adoption occurred at the workshop; the session provided staff direction and explanations and will be followed by formal budget action in upcoming meetings.
