Goldsboro manager presents $93.18 million proposed budget with tax-rate and fee changes
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented a proposed FY 2025–26 budget of $93,180,000, highlighted by pay adjustments, three new positions, a proposed vehicle license fee increase (from $10 to $30), street repaving funding, and a 9% utility rate increase to aid a large water reclamation facility expansion.
City Manager’s office and finance staff on May 5 presented the Goldsboro City Council with an overview of the manager’s proposed fiscal year budget totaling $93,180,000, an 8.5% increase from the prior year.
Finance Director Katherine (last name not specified in the record) said the budget is balanced with no use of fund balance for operating funds and includes a recommended 3% cost-of-living adjustment and additional salary adjustments. The proposal includes three new positions: a second assistant city manager and a deputy police chief funded from the general fund, and a stormwater administrator funded by the stormwater fund.
Major line items described in the presentation include a $1,200,000 cash-funded street repaving allocation and $3,400,000 in rolling stock and equipment to be funded with debt. Staff proposed a 9% increase in water and sewer rates, which the presentation linked to the need to finance design and construction for an approximately $120,000,000 expansion of the water reclamation facility; staff said about $11,400,000 in design fees will be required in the near term.
The presentation also proposed increasing the vehicle license fee from $10 to $30 per vehicle, with revenue from that increase designated to fund the $1.2 million in street repaving. Staff noted that the revenue-neutral property tax rate was calculated at 0.5632 and that the manager recommended a drop “to 0.69” from the city’s current “82 and a half cent” rate as stated in the meeting record; staff reiterated that one penny equals roughly $386,000 in revenue under the current valuation assumptions.
Katherine said staff used conservative revenue estimates, avoided using fund balance, and aimed to provide more time for council review by releasing the budget materials early. The council scheduled a more detailed presentation on May 19 and discussed possible additional work sessions before a planned adoption on or about June 16.
Council members asked clarifying questions during the presentation; staff encouraged council to submit questions in writing to facilitate follow-up research and answers before the formal public hearing and adoption timeline.
No formal action was taken on the budget at the May 5 meeting; the council received the overview and directed staff to return with the full presentation and subsequent hearings.
