Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget Tax Rate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staunton proposes 91 real-estate rate to fund infrastructure, COLA and court separation costs
Summary
City staff presented a FY26 budget proposing a 91 per $100 assessed value real-estate tax rate, funding a 3% cost-of-living increase for employees, an infrastructure reserve focused on tunnels under the wharf, and higher transfers for schools and regional human services.
City staff presented the proposed FY26 operating and capital budget to Staunton City Council on April 10 and recommended a real-estate tax rate of $0.91 per $100 of assessed value to fund a range of needs, including an infrastructure reserve tied to deterioration beneath the Wharf and a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for city employees.
"The proposed budget has a tax rate of 91 in addition to the assessment increases," a city budget presenter said, adding that the general fund portion of the budget is roughly $79.6 million. Staff explained the all-funds total of about $164 million appears large because enterprise capital projects (water, sewer, stormwater) and interfund transfers (including the school transfer) are double-counted in the headline total.
On expenditures, staff listed key drivers of the increase: a $1,647,000 rise in the school transfer tied to the funding formula; about $657,000 proposed as the equivalent of 2 cents on the real-estate rate to seed an infrastructure reserve focused on the tunnels that run under the Wharf; $1.1 million for a 3% COLA for full- and part-time employees; and additional costs tied to the new Juvenile and Domestic Relations courthouse that the city now separately funds.
Staff outlined other budget changes: a 10% increase in health-insurance costs, expanded real-estate tax relief for elderly and disabled residents, a $16500 replacement K-9 for the police department, and a 68% increase in animal-shelter expenditures driven by higher usage and a move to a larger facility.
Councilors discussed alternatives to the proposed rate, including presenting an 89 scenario. Some members asked staff to produce a budget at 89 for comparison; others said the FY26 package provided needed flexibility given the unknown cost of Wharf repairs. City staff noted that changing the personal-property tax rate would require an additional public hearing and delay adoption.
Councilors also debated whether to hire a dedicated grants coordinator; city staff recommended continuing with a decentralized grant process and using recently hired staff and regional partners for now, then reassessing the need later.
City staff said some one-time revenues, including proceeds from property sale(s) and unallocated funds, could be used strategically, and the council discussed using a previously established $50,000 discretionary council fund to support outside agencies that were not funded in the proposed budget.
