Bartlett adopts 2025–26 budget, sets 66-cent tax rate after debate and amendment

The Bartlett Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved the city’s 2025–26 operating and capital budget and set a tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value at its June meeting after public comment, an amendment to add an economic development manager, and board debate over use of fund balance and pension costs.

City officials and residents said the votes matter because the budget funds pay increases and other investments city leaders say are needed to recruit and retain police and fire personnel and to maintain infrastructure. Opponents said the package raises costs for taxpayers and expands pension obligations.

Finance Director Steve Phoebus told the board the administration recommended “a tax rate of dollar 66 per $100 of assessed value for 2025 taxes.” The board adopted Ordinance 25-02 (the fiscal-year budget) as amended; the motion to adopt the ordinance was made by Alderman Reeves and seconded by Alderman Griffin. The amended budget passed by unanimous vote, 5–0. The separate ordinance to levy ad valorem taxes for 2025 (Ordinance 25-03) passed 4–1.

Supporters of the budget emphasized public safety and employee retention. Seth Smith, a Bartlett Fire Department employee, said he supports the budget as both a resident and a public-safety employee and listed equipment and wellness investments for fire and police personnel. Lieutenant Matthew Griglio, a police supervisor, told the board: “To maintain the quality of officers who protect us, we must offer competitive compensation that reflects their skills, great personal risk, and dedication.” Sean Phillips, a vice president at an insurance firm, told the board the city’s emergency services contribute to low insurance premiums.

Opponents questioned the size of pay increases and long-term pension costs. Christine Richards, a Bartlett resident, said the pay proposal “is above market. It is 53%.” Richards said the change to the city’s defined-contribution pension (from a 5-5-5 plan to a 5-7-5 plan, as described in public comments) will add a continuing cost to taxpayers and argued for a smaller raise.

Alderman Reeves offered an amendment to the budget to create a full-time economic development manager position and to require an audit of the Bartlett Chamber of Commerce and the Bartlett Chamber Foundation and mutually agreed key performance indicators (KPIs) before further chamber funding is disbursed. Reeves said the city needs “somebody to do that full time” for business recruitment and retention; the board incorporated that amendment into the adopted budget.

Board members also debated alternatives to raising the tax rate, including a proposal from Alderman Quinn to set the tax rate at $0.56 and use roughly $1.29 million of the city’s fund balance to cover one-time costs. Finance staff and the mayor’s team warned that using fund balance to support recurring expenditures—in particular a $1.2 million annual paving allocation—could draw scrutiny from the Tennessee Comptroller and rating agencies. The city’s fund balance policy requires maintaining 25% of next year’s expenditures plus $1,000,000 in committed funds, finance staff said, and the comptroller discourages using fund balance for recurring costs.

The budget also included a small fee schedule amendment after the state increased a court cost by $1; staff told the board the city court fee moved from $107.50 to $108.50 in the amended schedule.

The board adopted Ordinance 25-02 (fiscal-year budgets for general fund and multiple enterprise and special funds) by a 5–0 vote after the amendment was read into the record. The board later adopted Ordinance 25-03 setting the tax rate at $0.66 per $100 assessed value by a 4–1 vote.

Next steps: city staff will begin implementing the adopted budget, post the ordinances and fee schedule, and start the procurement/hiring process for the economic development manager. Council members flagged that decisions on long-term funding for capital improvements and annual paving will return to the board in future budget cycles and noted potential impacts on bond ratings if fund balances are drawn down for recurring expenses.