Mebane council adopts FY26 budget after splitting votes on staffing additions

The Mebane City Council adopted the city manager’s FY26 budget on June 7, approving the plan’s major spending lines while separating contentious personnel decisions for individual votes. City Manager Richard White presented the manager-recommended budget that included $37.4 million in general fund expenditures, $14.7 million for the utility fund and total expenditures of $52.3 million, and proposed no tax-rate increase (maintaining the rate at $0.37 per $100 of valuation).

The adoption followed extended council discussion over three staffing items in the budget: a planning technician, an HR analyst and a consultant-led staffing study. White told the council the planning technician would perform routine zoning and permitting work — “about 50% of their time reviewing zoning permits for single family homes, commercial industrial building, accessory structures, signage and business occupancy” — freeing senior plan reviewers to focus on plan review. He said the recommended budget includes a $1,030,003 transfer to the general capital reserve fund and that water and sewer inside rates were proposed at $9.15 and $9.82 per 1,000 gallons, respectively.

Council members diverged on timing. Several members urged caution about adding permanent staff while economic uncertainty persists; one member said a $30,000 to $75,000 placeholder for a staffing study could yield better evidence for personnel decisions. White said the city intends to complete a consultant-led staffing study within about 10 months so results would be available for the next budget cycle.

After debate, the council separated votes to expedite the overall budget. The council approved funding for the staffing study by voice vote. It then approved hiring the planning technician by voice vote (with at least two recorded nays during that motion). An attempt to adopt the HR analyst position as proposed failed for lack of a second and did not reach a vote.

The council then confirmed adoption of the FY26 budget and enacted several related items by subsequent motions, including the fee schedule for fiscal year 2025–26, the position classification and pay plan, and the capital improvement plan for 2026–30.

Council members and staff discussed budget details during the public hearing and Q&A. White highlighted adjustments in retirement rates set by the state treasurer, a 3% cost-of-living adjustment for staff, and proposed transfers into capital reserves. On utility finances, he told the council the utility fund expected a 10% rate increase in enterprise charges and projected additional water/sewer customers generating roughly $11.3 million in revenue. During the discussion, a reporter asked about appropriated fund balance usage and staff replied the proposed appropriation was $1.4 million and that the city has not drawn down appropriated fund balance in recent years.

What happens next: staff and the council will proceed with the staffing study and the planned recruitment for the planning technician; the HR analyst proposal was not adopted at this meeting.