Goldsboro holds public hearing on FY 2025–26 budget; council hears opposition to water/sewer rate increase

Goldsboro City Council held a public hearing on the proposed FY 2025–26 budget on May 19 where city staff outlined a recommended property tax rate and proposed utility rate changes, and dozens of citizens and council members discussed competing priorities including public safety, streets, employee compensation and water/sewer rate increases.

Budget overview presented: Finance staff and the city manager briefed the council on the recommended budget, which showed a total budget of approximately $93.18 million and the proposed property tax rate of $0.69 per $100 of assessed value (the presentation stated a revenue-neutral rate around $0.5632 and noted the recommended 0.69 rate represents a decrease in the current rate when measured against certain prior values). The presentation highlighted major investments in the manager's recommended budget: a pay-classification (market study) and COLA adjustments, three new positions (2 general fund, 1 stormwater), a 1% increase to the city 401(k) match up to 5%, $1.2 million for street repaving, $3.45 million of equipment funded, and a 9% increase proposed for water and sewer rates as recommended by the utility consultant Stantec.

Why the rate increase was proposed: City staff explained the 9% recommendation was tied to utility system needs and long-term capital requirements, including planned expansion and repairs at aging water and sewer facilities. The manager reminded council that the city must invest in treatment plant expansions and aging pipes if it wants to support growth and economic development, and that prior years' rate increases had been intended to build reserves for such projects.

Public comment: The public hearing drew multiple speakers who urged the council not to support another water and sewer rate increase and expressed concern about increasing costs for residents on fixed incomes. Speakers cited state financial reports showing a large utility working-capital balance and questioned the timing and justification of further rate increases. Several speakers asked the city to show more detail about where prior rate increases were spent and suggested staff explore alternate funding sources or staggered approaches rather than a broad rate hike. Other commenters raised concerns about street conditions and urged council to prioritize repaving and neighborhood maintenance.

Council discussion: Council members thanked staff and public commenters and discussed priorities. Several council members urged that staff examine options for restoring a one-time employee bonus and for phasing in the pay-classification adjustments to protect lower-paid, front-line staff. Council asked finance staff and the manager to return with options on employee bonuses and to revisit fee structures for parks and recreation to capture greater nonresident cost-sharing. Council also discussed using utility reserves and the capital-improvement planning process to balance near-term affordability with long-term infrastructure needs.

Next steps: No vote on the budget was taken that night. Council encouraged staff to return with requested analyses (including options to restore employee bonuses and more detail on the utility fund and how increases would be used) and scheduled follow-up planning and budget sessions. The city manager and finance director agreed to provide supplemental documentation and to meet with council to consider amendments before a final budget adoption vote.

Quote: "If we don't expand our treatment plant in the next several years, we are not going to be able to approve development," City Manager Matt Livingston told council, linking utility rate and capital decisions to the city's ability to support economic growth.