Effective civic engagement requires accessible information. Too often, municipal budget data remains locked in dense PDFs or spreadsheet formats that create barriers for community members who want to understand how...
Maria Santos
Community Engagement Coordinator
Effective civic engagement requires accessible information. Too often, municipal budget data remains locked in dense PDFs or spreadsheet formats that create barriers for community members who want to understand how their tax dollars are collected and spent.
Digital capacity building in Solano County means creating tools and visualizations that make complex civic information understandable to all residents, regardless of their technical background or familiarity with government finance.
The path from tax collection to public services involves multiple steps that can be difficult to follow. Interactive data visualizations help bridge this gap by showing these relationships clearly.
Understanding budget performance requires looking at trends over time. How does actual spending compare to budgeted amounts throughout the year?
This monthly view reveals seasonal patterns in spending and helps identify when actual expenditures diverge from planned budgets. For community advocates, this information is crucial for understanding when to engage in budget discussions and where potential adjustments might be needed.
Where does the money actually go? A clear breakdown of budget allocation by category helps residents understand spending priorities.
Public safety and education typically represent the largest budget categories in most jurisdictions. This visualization makes it easy to see the relative size of different spending areas and spark informed discussions about community priorities.
Perhaps most importantly, residents need to understand the complete flow from tax collection through budget categories to actual spending.
| Side | Group | Line item | Amount | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| revenue | Taxes | Sales tax (Bradley-Burns) | $27506262 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Measure M sales tax | $21348950 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Property tax | $21100471 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Property tax in lieu of VLF | $15057016 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Excise taxes (Measures I & G) | $9409983 | Measure I (1989/2012) utility-bill, hotel, and per-employee excise (~$3.0M) plus Measure G (2005) utility franchise/excise (~$6.4M). |
| revenue | Taxes | Paramedic tax | $7312900 | |
| revenue | Taxes | RDA pass-through / TI excess | $6152400 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Franchise tax | $5705593 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Transient lodging tax | $2087102 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Public safety sales tax (Prop 172) | $540000 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Real property transfer tax | $527100 | |
| revenue | Taxes | Business license tax | $435000 | |
| revenue | Fees & charges | Emergency medical fees | $6000000 | |
| revenue | Fees & charges | Recreation & facilities fees | $4954456 | |
| revenue | Fees & charges | Police & fire fees | $1145635 | |
| revenue | Fees & charges | Other departmental fees | $457618 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | GEMT program (intergovernmental) | $1442000 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | Partnership Health transport | $1000000 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | In-lieu development impact fees | $509394 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | Cell tower leases | $486875 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | Interest, penalties & rents | $382000 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | Homeowners subvention | $180000 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | State reimbursements | $145000 | |
| revenue | Other revenue | Miscellaneous | $153000 | |
| revenue | Transfers & reserves | Transfers in (CFDs & traffic fines) | $10925235 | |
| revenue | Transfers & reserves | Overhead recovered from other funds | $6574920 | Internal cost allocation — General Fund overhead charged to utility and special revenue funds, shown in the budget as a negative expenditure (-$6,574,920); presented here as an inflow so the diagram balances gross. |
| revenue | Transfers & reserves | Drawn from reserves & one-time sources (derived) | $13428517 | Balancing figure: gross uses ($164,967,427) minus budgeted revenues and other inflows ($151,538,910). The budget's own Sources and Uses schedule, which nets transfers differently, states a planned "use of fund balance" of $8,892,389 — either way, FY2025-26 spending exceeds revenue and the gap is covered from fund balance. |
| spending | Public safety | Police Department | $58947980 | |
| spending | Public safety | Fire Department | $45099727 | |
| spending | Public works | Public Works (general) | $12267906 | |
| spending | Public works | Park maintenance | $4125868 | |
| spending | Community services | Parks & Recreation | $11330706 | |
| spending | Community services | Housing & Community Services | $159661 | |
| spending | Administration | Finance | $5817527 | |
| spending | Administration | Non-departmental | $4760870 | |
| spending | Administration | Human Resources | $3858986 | |
| spending | Administration | Information Technology | $3497528 | |
| spending | Administration | City Manager's Office / Clerk | $3358373 | |
| spending | Administration | City Attorney | $2793011 | |
| spending | Administration | Economic Development | $1078113 | |
| spending | Administration | City Council / Treasurer | $128755 | |
| spending | Transfers out | Transfers out (capital, equipment, districts) | $7742416 | Support to community development, park maintenance districts, vehicle/equipment replacement, technology projects, and capital improvement projects. |
This flow diagram shows how revenue sources feed the General Fund, which then funds specific departments — here using Vacaville’s actual FY2025-26 adopted budget. Understanding these connections helps community members see how changes in tax policy or revenue streams affect the services they care about. An expanded, annotated version lives in the Budget Flow experiment.
Digital tools are most effective when they support broader community engagement efforts:
As civic engagement moves online, verifying the identity and credentials of contributors becomes increasingly important. Decentralized identity systems can help build trust in digital civic spaces while protecting privacy.
For example, community budget advocates could use verifiable credentials to demonstrate their training in budget analysis without revealing personal information. Journalists could verify their professional status when reporting on municipal finance issues.
Building digital capacity requires ongoing collaboration between:
The goal isn’t just prettier charts—it’s creating the foundation for more informed, inclusive civic participation across Solano County.
Have questions about these visualizations or ideas for other civic data that should be more accessible? Request specific datasets or volunteer to help document public meetings.
Join our community of civic technologists working to make government data more accessible and actionable.