Fayetteville staff recommends $312 million budget, recommends 44.95¢ tax rate — lowest in 30 years

City staff presented a recommended fiscal 2026 budget totalling $312,000,000 and a proposed ad valorem tax rate of 44.95¢ at a May 2025 special budget work session.

The recommended rate, staff said, is “the lowest numeric tax rate that the City of Fayetteville has had in more than 30 years,” and the proposed budget is smaller than the current fiscal year’s total, which staff cited at about $321,000,000. “What we have presented to you is a budget that totals $312,000,000,” City staff speaker Mr. Yates told council members. “Your budget last year was $321,000,000.”

Why it matters: staff framed the plan as a middle path between preserving core services and accommodating new service demands driven by growth and inflation. At the recommended rate, staff estimated general-fund operating revenues near $186.6 million at a revenue-neutral baseline and projected a recommended general-fund operations total near $205,000,000. Staff also told the council the largest single cost is public safety — roughly $114 million of the general fund.

Key details - Total recommended budget (all funds): $312,000,000 (staff presentation). - General-fund revenue at revenue-neutral rate: about $186,600,000 (staff estimate). - Estimated cost to maintain current service levels (including inflation): roughly $203,600,000. - Recommended general-fund operations in the proposed budget: about $205,000,000. - Proposed tax rate: 44.95¢ (staff characterized this as the lowest numerical rate in 30+ years). - Recommended one-time fund-balance uses: about $5,238,500 (including a roughly $3.3 million payment tied to the Civil War History Museum and roughly $900,000 to finish an ERP project).

Staff also outlined a set of recommended new investments and service restoration items that are included in the recommended budget and a second list of departmental requests that were not funded. New investments called out in the presentation included construction-management staff, additional inspectors in development services, IT security roles, and marketing/communications positions to increase public outreach. For example, staff said roughly $1 million of the new additions would support construction management, and about $600,000 would support additional development-services inspectors and career progression for inspectors.

Discussion and next steps Council members asked for more breakdowns and asked staff to put outstanding questions into the meeting "parking lot" for the next work sessions. Staff committed to follow‑up materials: (1) a clearer list of director requests that were not funded, (2) a detailed breakdown of the recommended new positions and costs, and (3) comparative tax‑rate data for peer cities.

Staff noted schedule and process: the council will focus its next meeting on public safety, then reconvene after the public hearing to address remaining budget questions and parking-lot items.

Ending Staff emphasized that the recommended figures are a starting point for council deliberation and that several items remain on the parking list for potential addition or removal as council weighs priorities. Direct requests and technical questions will be answered in follow-up materials before the council’s next budget work session.