City staff presents proposed FY 2025–26 budget with tax rate unchanged, reserves at policy target

City staff presented the proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget to the Greenville City Council on Aug. 12, saying the proposal keeps the city—s property tax rate unchanged while maintaining the general fund reserve at about 17% of annual expenses. The presentation matters because the proposed budget sets staffing levels, capital spending and utility rates that will affect city services, reserves and future debt decisions. According to the staff presentation, the budget keeps the proposed tax rate at the current level; the general fund—s projected fund balance at year-end would be about $7.02 million, which staff said equals the city—s 17% policy target for reserves. Staff described the city—s fund-balance policy as a 15% to 20% target and said the proposed numbers meet that standard. Sales-tax growth for the coming year was forecast at about 6% over projected receipts, producing an overall increase of roughly 8.24% compared with last year—s adopted budget, the presenter said. Net taxable property value growth was reported at 4.68% and the city—s "new value" component rose about 26% from the prior year, a staff speaker said. Staff said a 10% rate increase for water and sewer is included to support planned capital work, including a second-phase wastewater-treatment expansion expected in 2026. Health-insurance renewal was discussed: staff said a Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal initially returned near 9%, but the city—s broker negotiated that down and the presentation includes a 5% health-insurance cost increase. On personnel, staff proposed a 5% merit pool (total cost across funds presented as about $1,108,003) plus a 1% base pay increase (about $224,000) and roughly $123,000 in pay-plan adjustments to move incumbents toward market ranges. The package also includes about 24 new or reclassified positions across funds and roughly 60 part-time rec positions for six months; staff estimated the total cost of new personnel across funds at about $1.99 million and said some positions are charged to non-general funds such as venue and recreation. Capital items included a mix of general-fund and enterprise projects. The general-fund capital-improvement items listed in the presentation included a Spillman records/virtual environment upgrade, Axon taser replacements, six SCBA units for fire, animal-control safety and kennel improvements, a farmer—s market awning and HVAC work for municipal buildings (general-fund total presented as about $706,906). The water/wastewater CIP items (funded from the utility fund) included multiple sewer projects, reservoir dock work and surveillance at the wastewater plant (about $1,565,006). On the equipment/vehicle list, staff proposed 12 additional leased vehicles and replacement of aging fleet, and listed planned lease/auction offsets for retired units. Council members asked several operational questions during the discussion. Members queried why the golf fund showed a negative retained-earnings number; staff said the recreation and venue operations had lower revenue this year and that council can choose to subsidize enterprise funds from the general fund if desired. Council members also questioned whether a specific street-department trailer and a small-batch concrete-mix truck could be included in the equipment list; staff said those items were not included in the proposed lease/equipment request but that staff could provide a cost-comparison of outsourcing repairs versus in-house acquisition at a future meeting. Staff emphasized that this presentation is the proposed budget and that council will have subsequent meetings (staff cited Aug. 26 and Sept. 9) to adjust line items before adoption and to hold the required tax-rate hearings. No formal action on the budget was taken at the Aug. 12 meeting; staff said a more detailed budget book and an interactive worksheet will be posted online and shared with council for review. The presentation and the follow-up council discussion focused on maintaining reserve policy, funding workforce retention and recruitment measures, and balancing capital needs across general and enterprise funds. Staff asked council to submit questions in advance when possible so staff could provide supporting detail at later hearings.