Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thomasville officials outline 4.3% utility rate proposal and several fee increases
Summary
Finance Director Thomas Avant presented a 4.3% proposed utility rate increase (about $3.74 per month per customer), adjustments to meter and setter recovery fees, and long-term capital financing scenarios; council discussed reserve balances and largely opposed lowering the property tax rate after revaluation.
Finance Director Thomas Avant told the Thomasville City Council at its Jan. 24–25 planning workshop that the city is proposing a 4.3% utility rate increase next year to maintain the utility enterprise’s financial health. The increase would amount to about $3.74 more per month for the average customer, he said.
The proposal is based on a five‑year rate study meant to preserve reserves for upcoming capital projects. Avant outlined several fee schedule adjustments to better reflect actual replacement and labor costs: recovery for a damaged three‑quarter‑inch setter would increase from $250 to $450; the meter box or lid charge would rise from $85 to $100; and the routine labor rate would move from $30 to $35 per hour to reflect full-time equivalent costs.
Avant also reviewed tax set‑asides and reserve balances tied to long‑term planning: two cents of property tax are allocated for police department debt service (to be paid off by 2038), three cents for a recreation reserve (approximately $137,000), half a cent for economic development (about $330,000), and one cent for a street‑paving reserve. The Powell Bill reserve, held for road infrastructure needs, currently stands at just under $800,000.
Council members discussed revenue trends, including average annual property tax growth of 6–7% since 2020 (with 2022 an outlier due to revaluation), sales tax slowing to about 2% year‑over‑year growth, and a sharp rise in interest income from $44,000 in 2022 to roughly $1.67 million more recently. Avant described projected debt service for potential capital projects (for example, a $7 million facility could carry annual debt service between about $760,000 and $850,000 depending on term and rates) and said a 2‑cent tax increase could help finance such projects.
A majority of council members signaled they were not inclined to lower the tax rate after county revaluation, citing the opportunity to retain additional revenue for operations and projects. Avant said he expects revaluation numbers by January 2026 and presented scenarios showing substantial additional revenue if the current rate were maintained.
The council recessed the meeting overnight and reconvened the following morning to continue budget and staffing discussions; no formal vote on the utility rate or tax rate was recorded in the workshop minutes.
Next steps: staff will incorporate council feedback into upcoming committee budget discussions and provide more detailed financing options and timing for any formal rate or tax proposals.
