Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pekin council hears FY2025–26 budget; final adoption fails after split votes

Pekin City Council · April 15, 2025
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

City staff presented a proposed FY2025–26 budget showing a near-balanced general fund after four targeted corrections; council approved technical corrections but the ordinance to adopt the full budget failed on a 3‑3 vote amid separate defeats on a proposed utility tax and COLA.

The Pekin City Council heard a staff presentation on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget during a public hearing Tuesday evening but failed to adopt the ordinance after the vote split the council.

City Manager Eric Dabrowski told the council the proposed budget had been strengthened through staff work and collaboration with department heads, and that four adjustments submitted at the hearing — an IMRF correction, removal of one bus‑instructor position, recognition of an expected leachate revenue stream, and a contingency reduction — would reduce a prior large deficit to roughly a balanced general fund. “We were able to reduce the projected general fund deficit from 5,000,000 to a $140,000 in the budget as presented in your packet,” Dabrowski said.

Council members pressed staff on details. Finance Director Bob Grogan explained how motor fuel tax entries and interfund loans can make apparent duplications in line items: “The TIF money is additional revenues that do come in,” he said in response to concerns about double‑counted salaries and motor fuel tax usage. Several members questioned outsourcing sewer cameraing rather than using recently purchased city equipment; staff said the intent is to accelerate a city‑wide inspection effort that would be costly and time‑consuming to complete in‑house.

Two separate votes likely influenced final arithmetic: the proposed natural‑gas use tax (a 5¢/therm alternative aimed at about 116 accounts) failed 3‑3, and a staff‑proposed 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment for nonunion employees also failed 3‑3. After accounting for those outcomes, staff estimated the net general fund position would move from the small surplus shown in the packet to roughly a $150,000 shortfall unless further adjustments are proposed. The formal ordinance to adopt the FY2025–26 budget failed on a 3‑3 vote. Council members and staff said work will continue on options to close gaps or bring the item back at a future meeting.