Denver City Council Budget and Policy Committee Discusses Two-Year Budget Cycle on December 8, 2025

The Budget and Policy Committee of the Denver City Council held its final meeting of 2025 on December 8, 2025, at 12:30 PM. The primary agenda item was a briefing on a proposed charter change to transition the city from an annual to a two-year budget cycle, with an option to revert to a one-year cycle during economic uncertainty. The proposal was sponsored by Councilmembers Sawyer, Gilmore, and Lewis. Council President Mandy Sandoval chaired the meeting.

Discussion Items

• Proposal for a Two-Year Budget Cycle

  • Councilmember Sawyer presented the current budget timeline, noting that the July 1st base budget provides "false information to the community" and that the compressed September 15th deadline leaves council only five days to review a thousand-page document. The proposal aims to address these issues by moving to a two-year cycle (on-year for the full budget, off-year for adjustments) and simplifying the process by removing the July 1st requirement and moving the September 15th date earlier.
  • Councilmember Gilmore presented research from King County, Washington, and Fort Collins, Colorado, which both use flexible biannual budgets. She highlighted that both jurisdictions allow for a one-year cycle during high uncertainty and that Fort Collins ties its budget to a community-informed strategic plan.
  • Councilmember Lewis emphasized that a two-year cycle would increase transparency through quarterly financial reporting, a defined balanced budget, and a required public process for resident feedback. She noted a November 5, 2025 community feedback session had already been held, with a long list of pros and a shorter list of cons.

• Councilmember Concerns and Questions

  • Councilmember Lane expressed skepticism, noting that many jurisdictions have moved away from biannual budgets. She raised concerns about forecasting accuracy, the lack of a clear definition of a balanced budget, and the difficulty of locking in two-year projections with collective bargaining underway. She asked if the proposal could include a provision that the budget does not automatically pass if council fails to approve it.
  • Councilmember Torres questioned the timing of the two-year cycle, suggesting it might begin at the start of a new mayoral term (e.g., 2028). She also asked about the strategic planning process, noting that inheriting a predecessor's budget might limit a new administration's ability to set different priorities.
  • Councilmember Parody distinguished between the budget process and project/strategic planning, questioning whether the proposal conflates them. She suggested that some transparency improvements (e.g., quarterly updates, re-forecasting) could be implemented without a two-year cycle.
  • Council President Sandoval expressed a general concern about giving away council power, particularly during the off-year. She noted that the current $500,000 contract threshold (under which council does not review contracts) already limits transparency, and she worried that a two-year cycle might further reduce council oversight. She also pointed out that many planning documents in Denver are not implemented, raising doubts about the effectiveness of a new strategic plan.
  • Councilmember Cashman asked whether the charter change could include language requiring the mayor's office to implement council-adopted amendments as written, but acknowledged that might undermine the strong-mayor form of government.
  • Councilmember Watson sought clarification on the strategic planning process—who runs it, how council participates, and whether the plan is tied to budget outcomes. The sponsors responded that the mayor's office would lead the outreach and set the strategic plan, with council continuing to provide input through its budget priorities.

• Supporting Points from Sponsors

  • Councilmember Sawyer argued that a two-year cycle would allow for more meaningful community engagement because projects (e.g., street improvements, safety infrastructure) typically take longer than one year. She cited the Place Network Investigations (PNI) program as an example where a one-year goal was unrealistic, but a two-year window would allow for measurable outcomes.
  • Councilmember Gilmore noted that non-profit organizations would benefit from multi-year funding certainty, and that the off-year could serve as a reconciliation point for residents to hold the administration accountable for promises made in the strategic plan.

• Timeline and Next Steps

  • The sponsors outlined a proposed timeline: public outreach meetings in February 2026, return to Budget and Policy in April 2026 for further input, stakeholder briefings in May, governance committee review over the summer, and a potential ballot referral in November 2026 for a vote by Denver residents.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken; the discussion was for information and feedback purposes.
• Councilmembers requested additional research, including a list of municipalities with strong-mayor forms of government that use biannual budgets (e.g., San Francisco, Seattle). The sponsors agreed to provide links to Fort Collins' strategic planning materials and other peer city data.
• The proposal will be refined based on committee feedback and brought back to Budget and Policy in April 2026. Council President Sandoval emphasized that she would oppose any change that reduces council power, and that the final language must preserve council's role in budget oversight.