Finance Committee Mid-Year Budget Review - Jan 15, 2026
Finance Committee Mid-Year Budget Review - January 15, 2026
The Finance Committee convened on January 15, 2026, to conduct a mid-year budget review, examine the monthly revenue and expenditure reports, and discuss reserve fund adjustments. Budget Manager Kim Kaufman presented the findings, highlighting fiscal variances from the FY25 audit, the impact of stalled capital projects, escalating health insurance costs, and the stagnation of sales tax revenue compared to pre-2020 growth rates. Council members expressed strong positions regarding contract fairness for School Resource Officers (SROs), the sustainability of current healthcare cost trajectories, and the need for careful capital management.
Consent Calendar
- Review and discussion of the monthly revenue and expenditure reports for December (covering October–December FY25-26). No formal motions were taken, as the committee reviewed the data to inform ongoing budget discussions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No formal public testimony or comments from the general public were recorded during this meeting transcript.
Discussion Items
-
General Fund Fiscal Status and Capital Restrictions:
- Budget Manager Kaufman explained that FY25 ended with a fund balance of $11.6 million, approximately $400,000 less than the $12 million budgeted, largely due to unliquidated purchase orders (encumbrances) totaling $3.5 million.
- Councilmember (implied) expressed concern regarding the rigidity of the voter-approved seven-tenths of a percent sales tax earmark for capital projects ($18 million annually), noting it creates a "hard string" that limits operational flexibility when new opportunities arise.
- The committee agreed that while sales tax revenue has plateaued, the 25% revenue growth seen between FY2019–FY2023 is unsustainable, and future growth is attributed to population increases rather than per-capita retail shifts.
-
Public Safety Sales Tax (PSST) Fund & SRO Contract:
- PSST expenses were lower than budgeted ($2.6M budgeted vs. $212k actual subsidy) due to unused purchase orders, resulting in a fiscal year-end balance of $54,145.
- Councilmember expressed strong opposition to the current SRO reimbursement contract with Norman Public Schools, citing a potential $2.2 million discrepancy between the fully funded cost of the program (including overtime) and the actual reimbursement received.
- Councilmember positioned the current contract as unfair compared to the Cleveland County agreement, which prohibits overtime and utilizes less experienced officers yet costs significantly less. Councilmember argued that fully trained officers are being overcompensated in the current arrangement while the school district pays less.
- Staff indicated that overtime management has improved via active management, but the major and chief acknowledged the pressure of concurrent high school football games driving overtime costs.
-
Health Insurance and Risk Management:
- The Risk Management Fund is in a deficit of $804,445 for the first half of FY26 due to higher-than-anticipated health claims. Kaufman noted that while prescription drug costs are rising, hospitalization and doctor visit costs are decreasing in metro comparisons.
- Councilmember expressed skepticism about the sustainability of the current healthcare system, acknowledging that some employees incur half a million dollars in annual prescription costs, which is critical for life or death outcomes but fiscally difficult to sustain.
- Staff confirmed that the city is self-insured with a stop-loss cap of $250,000 per person (with a total cap of $5 million), and that the cost of stop-loss premiums is increasing.
-
Park and Rec / Room Tax Fund:
- Parks Department has a negative reserve in FY27, meaning no new capital appropriations are projected for the upcoming fiscal year under current room tax rates.
-
Public Transportation / Micro-Transit:
- The Public Transportation fund (Fund 27) currently requires a $39,000 subsidy. If a $665,000 micro-transit program (added in FY26) is not renewed, the fund projects a surplus of $16,000 in FY27. Council must decide whether to fund micro-transit in FY27 entirely from the General Fund.
- Councilmember expressed reluctance to support a request from a commissioner to change downtown courthouse parking to timed parking (hourly) rather than single-day, noting that parking is available in other areas, though acknowledged the revenue potential.
-
Capital Fund Management:
- The Capital Fund holds a healthy balance of $70 million, largely tied to specific bond projects and reserves for existing obligations, leaving $0 available for new projects.
- Staff explained that the $4.7 million annual general fund capital outlay is typically fully consumed within the fiscal year by vehicle and computer replacements, with most other requests denied due to rising costs (e.g., fire trucks doubling in price over five years).
-
Norman Forward Fund:
- The fund is projected to have a $7.7 million balance in FY26, growing to $22 million by FY2031 if no new projects are identified.
- Council discussed utilizing this surplus for approved but unfunded projects, such as the River Park project, gymnasium expansion at the senior center, turf fields at Griffin, and potential upgrades to Reeves Park.
Key Outcomes
- Mid-Year Budget Review Adopted in Principle: The committee accepted the staff recommendation to freeze fiscal year 2027 expenditures at current levels (rollover budget) unless significant variances occur. This strategy aims to restore the General Fund balance to a healthier level without entering deficit.
- Reserve Fund Decision (Rainy Day): The committee deferred a decision on depositing the $463,021 surplus into the Rainy Day Fund. Staff recommended leaving the funds in the General Fund, as the current balance ($5.32 million) already exceeds the $636,058 minimum requirement, preserving flexibility for future emergencies.
- PSST Fund Sustainability: The PSST fund is projected to require a $336,000 subsidy from the General Fund in FY27 to remain in the black, with future years projected to require less as tax revenue grows and expenses stabilize.
- Rate Increase Considerations: Wastewater rates are identified as a necessary area for a potential rate increase, likely to be brought to council for voter consideration in November 2026, to maintain the 125% debt coverage ratio for bondholders.
- Administrative Directives: Staff was directed to reapproach Norman Regional regarding a potential pharmacy partnership for employee prescriptions and to prepare a report analyzing on-demand parking revenue and enforcement costs for the Finance Committee.
- Meeting Adjourned: The meeting concluded with the committee adjourned after reviewing the monthly reports and acknowledging the staff's performance in staying within budget.
Meeting Transcript
Finance committee meeting of Thursday, January 15th, 2026. Councilmember Heekle is uh out. So he asked me to fill in for that. And we've got two items on the agenda. The first one is a discussion regarding the mid-year budget review. And we have him here. First meeting as current finance director. Place budget manager. Somebody's filling in that role in a semester. So thank you for being here. And um we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you, Mayor. I'm Kim Kaufman, uh budget manager. Uh trying to step in for Anthony uh for the purpose of the finance committee meeting. Um for the mid-year budget review. Um, I have a little packet for everybody. Um the mid-year budget review serves a few different purposes. Um, first it gives council a picture of uh the city's funds after the uh prior year audit has been completed and allows council to uh course correct if need be. And then it also asks council the question of whether or not they want to add funds to the ready day fund or uh take funds from the ready day fund. So we'll jump right in with uh the handout of the city's uh major funds right now looking at the general fund. Um, and stop me at any time if you have any questions. I have some um cells highlighted here that I want to draw your attention to. So on line 16, uh this is looking at uh fiscal year 25 estimated compared to fiscal year 25 actual, which is our our audit audited figures. Um you can see that revenue came in slightly below um estimated for fiscal year 25. Um, but expenses also came in slightly below. We had a lower subsidy to the PSST fund than anticipated, uh, due to um purchase orders that haven't been paid yet, and so all that comes together to um give us an ending fund balance of 11.6 million, which is about 400,000 less than budgeted, and then right below uh that was on line 65. Right below that we see our reserve for encumbrances at 3.5 million. Those are POs that were created in fiscal year 25 and potentially prior that haven't been paid yet. So they're still um they were budgeted for in fiscal year 25, uh, but they're not going to hit fund balance until they're actually paid. So the uh expenditures probably the less than spent less than correct, right? That's that's the main difference between on line 47 where you see the uh transfer PSST fund 2.6 million compared to what we actually transferred to PSST to bring keep them in the black, 212,000. It's because they didn't spend all of their purchase orders, they didn't fully liquidate them. The PSST didn't need as much of a subsidy. Correct. So we didn't spend as much, okay. But the PSST does continue to not generate enough to cover that is correct, yes. Which I know it was never it was always gonna be blended in, but just for discussion's sake, it has obligations and the tax itself doesn't generate enough to cover all of it by itself. That's correct, especially since the additional four SROs were at it. That's right. Okay, those are you mentioned too that there were some purchase orders that haven't been fulfilled. Yes, they've been created, but we haven't been invoiced for them yet, and or the the merchandise hasn't arrived, been delivered. Um roughly how much is that? Sorry if I missed it you saying that earlier. No, you're fine, it's on line uh 67. Okay. So in fiscal year 25 and potentially prior to that, we have outstanding purchase orders that haven't been paid yet. And that's usually like if something's on back order or if we haven't received an invoice yet. So we're reserved for encumbrances that were yes, and that's 3.5. Yes, as of the end of fiscal year 25, it was 3.5. And as we go through the budget development process, we'll review all of those, and if any of those a purchase order was issued, but the project's not gonna happen or the purchase isn't gonna happen.
openpublica.com