Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Mount Pleasant council approves 2025–26 budget and a 10.4% effective property tax-rate increase after debate over pay raises and cuts

5957250 · September 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On Sept. 16 the Mount Pleasant City Council adopted the fiscal 2025–26 budget and set a property tax rate of 0.366042 per $100 of assessed value — an effective 10.4% increase — after a public hearing that focused on pay raises for first responders, sales-tax shortfalls and internal cuts.

The Mount Pleasant City Council approved the city’s fiscal 2025–26 budget and raised the property tax rate after a public hearing and extended discussion about salary increases, sales-tax shortfalls and internal cuts.

On Sept. 16 the council voted to adopt ordinance 2025‑17 (the 2025–26 budget) and ordinance 2025‑18 setting the city’s tax rate at 0.366042 per $100 of assessed value — an effective tax-rate increase the city characterized as 10.4%. The budget vote passed 4–1. Council members later ratified the tax revenue increase (ordinance 2025‑19) by the same 4–1 margin. The investment policy (Resolution 2025‑13) and a two‑year chemicals procurement award (Chemical Bid 9‑2025) were approved unanimously.

Why the change: City staff told the council the budget must address a multiyear gap driven mainly by lower-than-expected sales tax and rising debt service. Finance staff reported that full-year sales tax closed about $544,000 below the adopted budget for the year; staff said the general fund showed a year‑to‑date surplus of roughly $657,000 and the utility fund a surplus near $1.23 million, but that revenue trends and debt payments required action.

Competing pay-and-budget proposals: City management presented three compensation options labeled A, B and C. Option B (the city manager’s operational preference) would have paid a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for most employees, advanced eligible employees one step in their salary grade, and restructured longevity pay to a graduated lump-sum plan; staff said Option B could fund a permanent…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans