Mount Pleasant presents 2026 operating budget with focus on infrastructure, housing and public safety
Loading...
Summary
City staff outlined proposed 2026 goals and a draft operating budget that prioritizes water and wastewater projects, Mission Street redevelopment, and fire and police training; commissioners asked for clarity on grant reliance and next steps.
City Manager (Manager Descent) and Finance Director Lauren Pavlowski presented the City of Mount Pleasant’s proposed 2026 operating budget and a companion set of goals and objectives during the Sept. 22 commission meeting.
The proposal advances infrastructure, community development, public safety, civic engagement and organizational talent-development priorities. Staff highlighted projects planned or under way for 2026: DWSRF (drinking water) phase construction, Franklin Street reconstruction, a water meter transition to cellular reads, further planning around the former Mount Pleasant Center property, and continued work on the Mission Street corridor improvement plan.
Pavlowski said general fund revenues in the draft total about $19.3 million, with property taxes the single largest revenue source at roughly $8.8 million (about 46 percent). She reported an estimated beginning unassigned general-fund balance of about $7.3 million and a proposed 2026 ending unassigned balance of about $6.9 million — roughly 33–34 percent of proposed expenditures, above commonly cited best-practice reserves of 15–25 percent. Pavlowski recommended a full rate study for water and wastewater in 2026 to ensure long-term rate adequacy and noted recent demand‑charge rate increases: a proposed 9 percent demand increase for water and a 3 percent demand increase for wastewater in the draft budget.
On public safety and emergency services, staff proposed continuing work begun after a CPSM fire study, including improved training, equipment replacement under life‑cycle standards, and performance-accountability measures; community‑oriented policing activities and succession planning were also listed as goals.
Commissioners asked about dependence on state or federal grants. Director Pavlowski and Manager Descent replied that many large capital items — for example, DWSRF projects and proposed food‑waste/combined heat‑and‑power work at the Water Resource Recovery Facility — will require external grant funding or partner programs. Manager Descent said an AC (asbestos cement) water‑main condition study would be funded locally but pipe replacement would likely need external funding. Commissioner concerns focused on how the city would manage partially completed projects if outside funding fell short.
Pavlowski reviewed several special and enterprise funds: the recreation fund (which relies in part on tribal 2% grants for programs such as PEAK), storm‑sewer, major and local streets, component units including the DDA/TIFA/Brownfield funds, the airport (with local shares for runway rehabilitation and snow equipment tied to anticipated federal and state grants), and water and WERF balances tied to capital work in progress. She said staff will bring a more finalized draft to the commission and that a work session is scheduled for Oct. 13, a public hearing on the budget is set for Nov. 10, and the budget must be adopted by the last meeting of the year.
Why it matters: the draft links capital planning to the FY2026 operating budget and sets near‑term schedule items (work session, public hearing, rate study) while indicating the degree to which large infrastructure projects will depend on outside funding. Commissioners signaled support for the goals but pressed for clear contingency plans where projects rely on grants.
Ending: Pavlowski said she will circulate a more complete draft later in the week and that staff will run a formal public process on the FY2026 budget this fall.
