Reno council directs staff to advance FY2026 tentative budget, raises appeal fee to $200 with waiver process

On Monday, May 5, the Reno City Council directed staff to advance a tentative $321 million fiscal year 2026 budget and accompanying fee schedule, approving a staff- recommended package and an adjustment to the appeal filing fee by unanimous vote.

The budget, presented by Vicki Van Buren, the city’s director of finance, uses about $9.5 million in one-time funding and carries roughly $16 million in program and service reductions to balance proposed appropriations. Council also approved raising the fee for filing a development appeal to $200 and asked staff to implement a waiver process for applicants who demonstrate financial hardship.

The vote followed a three-hour workshop in which staff outlined revenue constraints and proposed reductions. Van Buren said the tentative budget assumes slower revenue growth in sales and property taxes and relies on one-time monies to close a near-term gap: "We have $321,000,000 proposed for fiscal year 26. We have $9,500,000 in one-time funds proposed to balance it," she said.

City manager Jackie Bryant and department directors told council the package aims to preserve mission-critical services while limiting new hires. City staff proposed a targeted strategy of frozen or unfunded positions rather than blanket cuts; the list attached to the tentative budget identified about 19.75 positions to be held vacant (described in council materials as roughly 20 positions). Van Buren said the city is not recommending any new citywide positions in the general fund for FY26, while two positions were proposed specifically for the redevelopment agency.

Council members and staff repeatedly flagged the mismatch between continued inflation-driven cost increases and flattening revenue. Van Buren called attention to rising construction costs — "anywhere from 40 to 60%" — and said contingency and annual capital funding were eliminated from the tentative budget to reach balance. The budget relies on a mix of fund transfers, sale proceeds and use of fund balance; Van Buren said the city’s general fund balance percentage would fall from the previously adopted 15% to about 12.5% if the plan is adopted.

The meeting also included discussion of several program-level changes and fee updates: Lindsay Hatfield, the budget manager, reviewed fee schedule changes such as the building valuation table update from the International Code Council; new administrative fees for enforcement processing; a modest CPI-based utility increase; and an amended special-events fire-permit fee. Staff announced that parking enforcement will move administratively to the Police Department in the adopted structure.

A central debate at the workshop focused on raising the fee to file an administrative land-use appeal. Chris Pingree, director of development services, told council the city’s current appeal fee recoveres only a fraction of staff costs, and that the department’s review estimated the average appeal consumes about $7,500 in staff time: "An average appeal is probably $7,500 in staff time alone," Pingree said. Several council members pushed for an incremental increase rather than a large initial jump; others said the fee needed to reflect the real administrative cost and reduce frivolous filings.

After extended discussion, council accepted a compromise motion to raise the appeal filing fee to $200 (instead of the $500 figure proposed earlier by staff) and to implement a fee-waiver process for applicants who can show financial hardship. Councilmember comments reflected the split: Councilmember Ebert urged preserving access for lower-income residents, saying, "This increase will absolutely make it so the people in my ward cannot afford to file an appeal." Supporters of a higher fee emphasized staff time and subsidy concerns.

Council members also discussed non-fee topics tied to the budget: a 90-day pause and review of boards and commissions to assess staffing and public-engagement practices; reductions to discretionary council member allocations; and the ongoing focus on public-safety and infrastructure spending, which accounts for the largest share of general-fund expenditures. Parks, facility maintenance and deferred capital projects were noted repeatedly as service areas that will face delivery delays under the proposed reductions.

Public commenter Bill Shrimp urged council to treat the budget as a statement of priorities, criticizing some prior spending decisions and urging support for boards and commissions as avenues for public engagement. "A budget is about priorities," Shrimp said during public comment.

Outcome and next steps: Council voted unanimously to direct staff to proceed with the FY2026 budget and fee schedule package with the $200 appeal fee and a waiver mechanism. Staff will return to council for final budget adoption at the public hearing scheduled for May 21 and must file the adopted budget with the Nevada Department of Taxation by June 1. Van Buren said staff would incorporate feedback from the May 5 workshop into the final documents.

Votes at a glance: The motion to advance the FY2026 tentative budget and fee schedule (including the $200 appeal fee with waiver) passed by unanimous vote.