Durham City Council adopts $700M-plus budget, keeps buses fare-free and raises city worker pay

The Durham City Council unanimously adopted the fiscal 2025–26 budget and the 2026–31 capital improvement plan on June 24, approving a package that pushes the city’s total budget above $700 million.

Council members described the ordinance as a response to rising needs for housing, transit, public safety alternatives and worker pay. The budget keeps GoDurham buses fare-free for another year, boosts the city’s minimum livable wage for employees, increases pay for part-time workers, expands the HEART (Health, Engagement, Alternatives and Response Team) footprint and funds a range of capital projects including parks, sidewalks and stormwater work.

Why it matters: Council members said the budget balances requests from residents and the constraints of local revenue, including a recent property revaluation. The package also implements elements voters approved in last fall’s bond referendum, which accounts for roughly half of the increase in capital spending, councilors said.

Key provisions and context - Fare-free transit: The council retained fare-free service for GoDurham buses for a second consecutive year. Council members argued free fares benefit low-income riders, shorten boarding time and reduce conflicts between drivers and passengers. - Worker pay: The budget raises the Durham minimum livable wage for city employees and increases part-time pay, a change councilors framed as a moral and pragmatic investment in the workforce that delivers city services. - HEART expansion: The budget funds a larger footprint for HEART, the city’s crisis response unit focused on nonviolent behavioral health calls, with councilors saying the program will be phased toward 24/7 capacity. - Capital projects: The CIP includes funding for streets and sidewalks tied to last year’s bond and adds $7 million toward park remediation (including lead remediation), several fire/EMS and public works investments, and targeted stormwater and water-reclamation projects.

Council discussion and fiscal approach: Councilors repeatedly described the choices as difficult given limited municipal revenue tools (primarily property and sales taxes) and chronic underfunding of federally supported programs. Several members urged residents to use city and county relief programs available to lower-income homeowners and renters. The manager and budget staff said they prioritized holding down tax impacts where possible while funding core services and capital needs.

Public reaction and next steps: Council members thanked staff, neighborhood leaders and nonprofit partners for input during the budget process and said they expect implementation to include follow-up reporting and outreach about new programs. The ordinance passed by unanimous vote.