City manager presents 2027 preliminary budget that leans on property-tax revenue and reduced reserve use

City Manager Tom presented the City of Minot’s proposed 2027 preliminary budget on July 16, asking the council to consider a plan that shifts more costs to property-tax revenue while reducing reliance on general-fund reserves and deferring some capital projects.

Tom told the council the proposal prioritizes “public safety first and foremost,” and emphasized street maintenance and preserving core services while responding to a recently enacted 3% cap on tax growth. He said staff had worked to reduce requests citywide and that the proposal balances an increase in property-tax revenue with lower use of general-fund reserves.

Finance Director Dave Lakefield described recent cash-reserve use and cash-flow constraints, stating that “we're anticipating that we if everything is fully executed in the budget, we'll use about 14 and a half million dollars of reserves in the general fund in the 2026 budget year.” He warned that smaller reserves reduce flexibility for reimbursement-based capital projects and could affect future bond costs.

The manager sketched the scale of the proposal: he said the property-tax line in the general fund would produce roughly $6.6 million in additional property-tax revenue (a figure he characterized as a roughly 33% year-over-year increase in the property-tax portion of the general-fund levy) and that the median household would see an estimated city-side property-tax increase of about $234.31 under the proposal. He said these shifts are paired with lower planned cash-reserve usage than earlier proposals and modest across-the-board rate and fee changes (roughly 3–5% on average for city rates).

Department-level changes include an 11.43% proposed increase in the police budget tied to hiring capacity and authority to fill more sworn positions if resources permit; the manager said the fire department’s requested positions (including a third fire inspector) are included. Other departments — notably building safety, community development, traffic and engineering — face reductions or smaller increases in the recommended plan. The presentation also deferred a planned ladder-truck purchase (pushed roughly one year) and removed a prior proposal to use $5 million of general-fund reserves for police-department renovation.

HR Director Kelly Beck and comptroller Jenna Zielinski briefed council members on personnel and special-revenue items. Beck said the budget recognizes 465 authorized city positions (12 of them currently authorized but unfunded, representing roughly $900,000 in payroll cost) and described a voluntary separation incentive plan (VSIP) included in the updated personnel code that would allow the city manager, at council direction, to offer up to three months' salary for qualifying employees.

Zielinski reviewed the “magic fund” allocations (15% of the first penny of sales tax) and recommended funding the administration bucket, maximizing state matching where available and earmarking interest revenue to priority sectors; she cited administrative costs (for example, approximately $12,000 annually for audits and $75,000 for a chamber contract) and a proposed $1,000,000 state-match target for a primary-sector bucket.

Council members praised staff work but warned against immediately reversing recent spending restraint. Alderman Blassen said residents “aren’t gonna see that number now” if counties stop sending a preliminary tax statement in the mailer, and argued the council’s own discussions must serve as the public “high mark.” Blassen also warned the average city-side increase could be around $300 and urged caution. Alderman Samuelson said he would not support a budget that raises property tax.

Next steps: the city manager asked the council to approve a preliminary budget at the August 3 council meeting so the city can meet county timing (approximately August 10) and proposed moving the first public hearing from Sept. 14 to Sept. 8. Staff said further council meetings are scheduled to refine rates, fees and potential amendments before any final adoption.

What’s next: council members will use upcoming meetings (including a July 20 tour and the Aug. 3 meeting) to ask more detailed questions about specific line items, rate adjustments and capital priorities; any adoption of a preliminary maximum levy would then be transmitted to the county on the schedule the manager described.