Board reviews 2025–26 budget workshop; discusses $25M bond, Greenway engineering, stormwater rate and police equipment

The Board of Mayor and Aldermen met in a budget workshop to review preliminary fiscal 2025–26 fund budgets, projected revenues and proposed capital projects, including a $25 million bond for streets, engineering carryover for a Hurricane Creek Greenway Phase 2, consideration of a stormwater-rate increase and equipment requests for police and fire impact funds.

City staff presented line-by-line fund summaries and capital requests. Bruce, a city staff member, led the review of multiple funds and said the Streets Capital Projects Fund includes a $25,000,000 bond under revenue and a $2,000,000 transfer from the general fund “to pay the interest and principal for the first year.” Bruce said that, after accounting for bond proceeds, “revenue exceeds expenditures by $13,500,000,” largely because of the proposed bonds.

The Greenway Phase 2 project in the parks capital budget drew detailed discussion. David, a staff member, said he did not account for a $410,000 engineering carryover in his initial priorities and warned that more engineering work may be required. “Reagan Smith gave us a price for what they thought the Corps of Engineers would respond to in terms of engineering drawings. They sent them to the corps and they said, no. We need $300,000 more worth of drawings before we’ll even decide whether you can do it at all,” another staff speaker summarized. City staff estimated construction cost for the Greenway at about $2,000,000 if the board proceeds.

Parks priorities and potential trade-offs featured in the discussion. The parks list under consideration included completing Brookside Park playground work (about $90,000 previously allocated), replacing the football-field lighting with LED fixtures (an estimate of $175,000 was listed in the capital fund), and moving forward on Greenway design. David said Brookside Park and the football-field LED upgrade would likely be prioritized ahead of the Greenway, given uncertainty over federal/state easements and required engineering.

Stormwater funding and fees were raised repeatedly. Kyle, a board member, said, “We’re gonna be reviewing to see about increasing the rate, from the $3.50. Because if you look at the revenues and expenditures, we’re basically at a point where we will not even break even.” Staff confirmed a $150,000 carryover and a projected deficit (expenditures exceeding revenues by about $206,000) in the stormwater fund tied in part to a planned replacement dump truck.

Board members and staff discussed ditch drainage and professional services. Gary, a staff member, said the city completed a stream assessment and that “we should be able to knock about $50,000 out of that” professional-services budget line. Council members raised concerns about historical underspending on ditch repairs and possible miscoding of related purchases.

Banking and interest income were discussed in relation to general-fund earnings. Bruce and other staff said the city uses Truist (formerly SunTrust) and has not solicited formal bids from banks for many years. A board member asked whether the city should shop accounts; Bruce said changing banks would be difficult because the city maintains many accounts but agreed staff would request a meeting with Truist to discuss rates.

Police and fire impact funds were included in the packet. Bruce noted the Police Impact Fund includes small items of equipment (Motorola radios for five new officers) and five pursuit vehicles budgeted at about $107,000 each. The Fire Impact Fund shows turnout gear carryovers to outfit new positions.

Fee schedule updates and statutory limits on fines were discussed near the end of the workshop. Staff circulated a proposed fee schedule that retains current impact fees and flags the stormwater user fee for potential revision; the packet also proposed modest engineering-fee increases in the engineering department section. On fines, staff said many penalties are limited by state law and municipal code and that some state-imposed caps remain in place (staff indicated they would contact Representative Stevens for confirmation).

No formal votes were recorded during the workshop. Staff flagged items requiring further action: staff will (1) provide a detailed explanation for the FiftyForward/senior-center professional-services increase, (2) request a meeting with Truist about deposit rates, (3) include a stormwater-rate review in the fee-schedule process, (4) return with more detailed Greenway engineering estimates and permitting status with TWRA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (5) provide warranty and procurement details for proposed LED sports lighting and (6) confirm state guidance on court fines. The workshop adjourned with no formal board action recorded.

“We’ve had meetings with them that they seem likely to or they have stated that they would be on board with it, but we would have to have the design plans done for them to give us an official yes,” a staff member said about state and federal permitting for the Greenway.

The board directed staff to refine the packet and return with more detailed cost and funding options at a future meeting; no binding commitments or bond sales were finalized in the workshop.