Longview manager presents 2025–26 budget with 1¢ tax increase, proposed 6% raises and new fees

City staff presented a proposed 2025–26 budget on July 24 that would raise the city’s property tax rate by one cent and fund a 6% across‑the‑board pay increase plus a $1,000 flat adjustment for employees while also proposing several fee changes intended to shrink the gap between service costs and revenues.

The proposal was described by city staff as a package that would keep the overall proposed tax rate below a previously voter‑approved benchmark and avoid larger increases staff had projected earlier. “We can fund the budget as proposed with a property tax increase of only 1¢ per 100,” City staff member McPhee told the council, adding that the increase would cost the owner of an average home “$22.33 a year or a dollar 86 per month.”

City staff said the raise plan is designed to improve pay for lower‑paid employees while remaining sustainable under current property valuations. McPhee cautioned the council that a separate business personal property tax exemption potentially before voters next year could reduce revenue and affect future budgets.

Staff presented multiple fee changes bundled with the budget. Finance staff member Cohen proposed that the city stop absorbing credit‑card processing costs and instead “pass through those costs to the customers,” capped at 5% with a $2.50 minimum. Development services director Michael Shirley presented several permit and review increases, including raising residential permit costs from $0.25 to $0.30 per square foot and “a roughly about a 3 and a half percent increase” in many commercial fees; he said the changes reflect added inspections, use of third‑party engineering reviews and the need to better align fees with actual staff and contractor time.

Sean Harrah, speaking for the Longview Convention Complex, proposed higher facility and equipment rates and a reduced nonprofit discount to 15% to better align Mod‑Cobb and the Exhibit Center with regional comparables. Fire Chief Grimes described a proposed lift‑assist fee intended to discourage repeated nonemergency calls from skilled nursing facilities: “the fee schedule is really designed, not so much for revenue impact for the city, but to decrease those calls, for service that are non priority,” he said, adding the charge would be billed to the facility and “would not be charged to the patient or the resident.” Chief Grimes said similar programs elsewhere produced large reductions in nonemergency calls.

Council members asked for additional data on long‑term sustainability and the distributional effect of the raises and fees. Councilmember Bridal and others pressed staff to identify further cuts before approving a tax increase; McPhee and the budget team said directors had already supplied multiple rounds of cuts across departments and that the presented package was the result of that effort. Several council members emphasized concern for lower‑paid employees and asked staff to prioritize impacts on staff recruitment and retention.

The presentation did not include a final vote; staff said the budget and fee changes will return for formal adoption in a subsequent meeting and that many of the proposed rate changes would take up to a year to show results because facility bookings and contracts are often made in advance. The council discussed excusing two members and concluded the meeting without taking a final budget vote.

If adopted as presented, the budget would proceed with the 1¢ tax increase, the 6% plus $1,000 pay package, and the proposed fee changes; staff emphasized the proposals are intended to reduce future structural gaps between costs and revenues and to shore up employee pay closer to regional comparators.