Denver City Council Budget and Policy Committee Meeting - April 13, 2026

This meeting of the Budget and Policy Committee focused on a presentation by Councilmembers Stacey Gilmore, Amanda Sawyer, and Chantel Lewis proposing a series of charter changes to the city's budget process. The city's general fund, approximately $1.5 billion in 2024, funds salaries, programs, and operations. Current charter requires a balanced calendar-year budget with short and long-term planning, a 2% contingency, a 15% unassigned fund balance goal, and a 3% state-mandated emergency reserve. The sponsors argued that the current process limits community engagement, compresses council review, and provides no definition of a balanced budget, leading to mid-year shortfalls like the layoffs in 2025 when the fund balance fell below 10%.

Presentation of Proposed Charter Changes

• Optional Biannual Budget Cycle: The proposal would allow the city to adopt a two-year budget cycle, with a "main year" for full budget adoption and an "off year" for evaluation and adjustments. In times of economic uncertainty, the city could revert to a one-year budget. This aims to provide longer-term planning for capital projects and non-profit partners. The sponsors noted that cities like Fort Collins and Seattle use similar optional two-year cycles.
• Require Public Engagement for Budget Priorities: The charter would mandate a process for community input during budget development, including surveys and town halls, led by the Mayor's Office. The sponsors emphasized that this would ground budget priorities in community needs, as current public hearings occur only one week before budget adoption.
• Simplify Budget Timeline: The proposal seeks to remove the July 1st preliminary budget estimate requirement and move the September 15th budget delivery date earlier to give council more time for review. The goal is to separate the timeline to allow for reflection and analysis. The sponsors noted that subsequent discussions suggested a September 8th date may be possible, but more than one week is needed for both review and amendments.
• Define Balanced Budget: The sponsors propose adding language stating that if expected revenues are less than total appropriations from the prior year's long bill, the Mayor shall propose and City Council shall reduce appropriations by ordinance to balance the budget. It also requires council approval for expenditures from the unassigned fund balance below a certain threshold. The sponsors initially suggested 10%, but the Department of Finance provided feedback that this threshold may not be practical.

Discussion and Feedback from Council Members and City Officials

• Councilmember Alviderez asked about the shift from mandatory to optional two-year budget and how capital project funds would be reflected. The Department of Finance clarified that capital funds are non-lapsing and would still roll over.
• Councilmember Flynn expressed support for the public process and timeline simplification but strongly opposed the biannual budget, arguing it would reduce council's ability to respond annually and increase chaos. He noted that more cities have moved from two-year to one-year cycles and questioned the effective date, suggesting 2029 would be the earliest realistic implementation. He also asked about collective bargaining: the sponsors responded that union agreements would continue to be funded through contingency, unchanged from the current process.
• Councilmember Romero Campbell inquired about when the decision between one-year and two-year would be made, and suggested the community engagement component should be robust but questioned if such prescriptive language belongs in the charter. Mayor's office representative Dominic Moreno agreed on the need for robust engagement but expressed concern about charter prescriptiveness.
• Councilmember Hines highlighted a "knowledge disparity" where council receives budget information late and in overwhelming volume. He questioned how a two-year cycle would alleviate this, noting that economic volatility makes a standard year elusive. He also raised concerns about the six-year capital improvement plan not being transparently linked to the budget, and asked for better accounting of capital projects and agency budget expansion requests.
• Councilmember Torres asked about the charter language and the possibility of testing changes via ordinance before amending the charter. She also clarified the relationship between the state-required 3% emergency reserve and the 15% unassigned fund balance, with the Deputy CFO explaining that the 3% reserve is separate and largely met by property value.
• Deputy CFO Stephanie Kiralis Adams provided technical feedback, cautioning that a 10% threshold trigger for council approval of reductions might lead to unstrategic across-the-board cuts and that the Department of Finance prefers more flexibility. She suggested testing changes through ordinances and explained that mid-year reductions are currently handled through sequestered accounts (98s) without an ordinance. She also noted that the Department of Finance only calculates the fund balance point-in-time annually, making a mid-year threshold trigger difficult.
• Councilmembers Gilmore and Sawyer responded, acknowledging that the 10% threshold is not final and that they are waiting for the Department of Finance's recommendation. They emphasized that policy decisions must be made before drafting final language. Gilmore argued that the two-year cycle would make community engagement more feasible, as conducting it annually would be too staff-intensive. They also noted that some changes, like community engagement and a two-year strategic plan, do not currently exist in the charter and cannot be tested without amendment.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. The committee will continue discussions with the Department of Finance to refine the proposals.
• The sponsors plan to bring refined language back to committee, with a goal to meet charter amendment deadlines for the November 2026 ballot.
• Councilmembers expressed a range of opinions, particularly on the biannual budget cycle, with several members skeptical and others seeing value in the timeline changes and public engagement. The committee acknowledged the need for compromise between council's desire for oversight and the Department of Finance's need for flexibility.
• The meeting concluded with adjournment, noting that the next committee meeting scheduled for June 15 may need to be moved due to other agenda items.