Englewood’s July report shows $3.9 million General Fund operating surplus

Englewood’s General Fund had $3.924 million more in revenue than expenditures through July, according to a city financial report scheduled for discussion at the City Council’s Sept. 8 study session.

The operating result is separate from a $239,000 net transfer from the Public Improvement Fund for debt service. Including that transfer, the city reports a $4.163 million increase in its total General Fund balance. The transfer did not create the operating surplus.

The General Fund recorded $46.471 million in year-to-date revenue, or 63.7% of the amended annual budget, and $42.547 million in expenditures, or 56.6% of budget. Revenue was up $1.592 million, or 3.5%, from the same period in 2025.

Licenses and permits generated $2.997 million, or 105.2% of the amended budget. Property-tax collections totaled $6.141 million, or 94.5% of budget, while sales tax totaled $24.564 million, or 62.8%. Use-tax revenue was $1.405 million, or 46.1% of budget.

The largest year-over-year revenue increases were in sales tax, up $1.219 million; licenses and permits, up $1.139 million; property tax, up $225,000; and intergovernmental revenue, up $67,000. Those gains were partly offset by lower charges for services, investment earnings, franchise fees, use tax, fines and forfeitures, and specific-ownership tax.

The report says sales and use tax collections totaled $26.487 million, up $1.081 million from the same period in 2025 and equal to 57% of the fiscal-year budgeted amount. It separately lists $450,000 in 2025 sales-and-use-tax audit and voluntary-disclosure collections. The detailed table lists $24.564 million in sales tax, $1.405 million in use tax and $518,000 in marijuana sales tax, which add to the reported total; the report does not explicitly explain how the figures are presented together.

Marijuana sales-tax revenue was $518,000 through July, down $26,000, or about 4.8%, from the same period in 2025. The report gives no reason for the decline and does not show an amended-budget target for that line, so the available record does not establish a budget shortfall.

Expenditures totaled 56.6% of the amended annual budget. Personnel spending was $25.091 million, or 55.2% of budget; contractual services were $15.583 million, or 64.5%; commodities were $1.158 million, or 49.8%; capital spending was $521,000, or 18.8%; and debt service was $194,000, or 40.4%.

The city’s financial report included in the Council packet attributes some spending differences to a 1% salary increase for most employees and says reduced interdepartmental fleet-replacement charges lowered capital expenditures by about $250,000. Compared with July 2025, total spending was $1.604 million higher, despite a staff-summary statement describing the comparison as lower. Personnel spending rose $1.603 million and contractual services increased $354,000, while commodities fell $207,000 and capital spending fell $266,000.

The report does not provide a formal year-end projection for revenue, expenditures or fund balance, and it does not announce new spending based on the July result. It says there were no one-time revenue or expenditure adjustments. Capital spending is described as primarily vehicle replacement and street maintenance paid with dedicated sales-tax revenue. The packet also says the council has allocated more than $21.3 million from the General Fund for capital-improvement projects since 2021.

The report contains an unresolved budget comparison. Its narrative describes an amended operating deficit of $2.006 million, while the operating table shows amended revenue of $72.920 million and amended expenditures of $75.190 million, which calculate to a $2.270 million deficit. The packet does not explain the $264,000 difference.

The July report is scheduled as an information item for the Sept. 8 City Council study session, with five minutes allotted for presentation and five minutes for discussion. The packet says Finance Director Kevin Engels will present the report and recommends that the council review the information and provide feedback. Because the available record is a pre-meeting agenda and staff packet, it does not establish whether the council ultimately discussed, received or took other action on the update.