Durham city manager proposes $722 million budget emphasizing safety, housing and infrastructure

Durham City Manager presented a proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget totaling $722,000,000 that the administration says balances new investments in public safety, housing and infrastructure with revenue changes from a recent county property revaluation.

The manager described the proposal as “reflecting this new vision” for the city and told councilmembers the plan is informed by resident input, the city’s strategic plan and the results of a property revaluation that raised assessed values across Durham.

The proposal asks the City Council to adopt a revised property tax rate intended to produce revenue for services and capital work while reflecting the reappraisal. The manager said the staff-calculated revenue-neutral rate is 0.3823 (38.23 cents per $100 of assessed value) and recommended a proposed rate of 0.4371 (43.71 cents per $100), a change the presentation described as necessary to fund operating needs, pay increases and capital programs including voter-approved bonds.

Why it matters: the plan would fund expanded crisis-response teams, housing-stability programs and large water and sewer projects while also directing bond proceeds to sidewalks, streets and parks projects voters approved in November.

Key elements of the proposal

- Total proposed budget: $722,000,000 (the manager described this as roughly a $54,000,000, or 8 percent, increase over current spending levels). The administration attributed part of that change to the county revaluation that raised assessed values citywide. - Property revaluation: staff said a county revaluation increased assessed values by about 71.6 percent and that produces an estimated $47,000,000 of additional property-tax revenue before adjusting the rate for neutrality. - Proposed tax-rate decision: staff presented a calculated “neutral” rate of 0.3823 and proposed a council rate of 0.4371 (both figures stated as cents per $100 of assessed value in the presentation). The manager said the proposed rate “allows investment in the services and infrastructure our community has requested.” - Public safety and crisis response: the proposal funds an expansion of the city’s Hart crisis-response program (the presentation called for an initial daytime expansion and funding for 17 new positions, including crisis responders and outreach staff) and continued support for the city’s non-police responses to nonviolent calls for service. - Housing and eviction prevention: the draft budget includes $754,000 to continue the city’s eviction-prevention program and invests federal ARPA funds (the manager said roughly $27,000,000 countywide) in housing preservation and new affordable units referenced in the Forever Home Durham program. - Capital investments: the capital-improvements program (CIP) and bond-funded work were highlighted; the manager listed an approximately $158.8 million water-and-sewer capital program, $23,000,000 in CIP launches and continued bond projects (the presentation listed $200,000,000 in voter-approved bonds for streets, sidewalks and parks and named several park projects and a new aquatic center). - Transit and streets: the budget continues fare-free bus service, proposed planning staff for rapid transit and funding for Vision Zero safety improvements (staff said the CIP will fund sidewalks, street repaving and pedestrian/cycling safety projects). - Employee pay and benefits: the draft includes a modest across-the-board pay adjustment (the manager described a 1.45 percent market-based adjustment plus merit increases and an increase to the city’s living-wage baseline), and the presentation emphasized retention and recruitment.

Public comment and council reaction

Residents who signed up to speak during the public-comment portion urged the council to guarantee specific Vision Zero street-safety investments in the adopted budget. Mary Fontana asked the council to include funding for street redesigns that she said are part of the Vision Zero action plan; other speakers representing neighborhood interests and safety advocates reiterated the need for targeted funds to fix high-injury corridors and to accelerate sidewalk work.

Councilmembers generally praised the manager for the proposal but said they expect detailed deliberations in upcoming work sessions. Several councilmembers thanked staff and noted the need to balance city priorities with the tax-rate decision and the effects of the reassessment on homeowners; staff reminded the public the council will hold two budget work sessions (May 28–29, per the manager’s presentation) and a public hearing on June 2 before making a final decision.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of consent agenda (motion to approve consent agenda with items 4 and 18 removed for discussion): motion made and seconded; council approved the consent agenda as amended (recorded on the meeting minutes). The meeting transcript shows the council moved to approve the consent agenda with those exceptions; the specific roll-call tallies were not recorded in the portion of the transcript provided. - Transfer of skate-park facilities to Scrap Exchange Inc. (Agenda item 18): the council adopted a resolution to transfer the skate-park facilities to Scrap Exchange Inc., citing GS 160A-280. The council voted to adopt the resolution; the transcript records the adoption as passing unanimously. - Resolution in opposition to state House legislation (identified in the meeting as HB 765/767 in different places of the transcript): the council adopted a resolution opposing the referenced state bill that would change local development regulations; the motion passed unanimously in the meeting record provided. The transcript contains two slightly different bill numbers in different remarks; the council’s resolution was adopted as presented at the meeting.

What’s next

Councilmembers and staff scheduled two work sessions to review budget details and the capital-improvement plan; the council will hold a public hearing on the proposed budget before a final vote. Staff directed residents to the city website for full budget documents and to announced public engagement dates listed in the presentation.

Attribution: reporting in this article is based on the City Manager’s budget presentation to the Durham City Council (presentation opened at the public meeting) and on statements from residents and councilmembers during that meeting. Direct quotations and paraphrases are taken from the city manager’s formal presentation and the public-comment record.