Charlotte City Council FY2026 Budget Workshop - March 24, 2025

The Charlotte City Council held its second budget workshop for fiscal year 2026 development on March 24, 2025. The workshop covered three major topics: the Financial Partners Program, Solid Waste Services, and the Capital Investment Plan. Council members discussed funding constraints, program effectiveness, and future priorities. No formal votes were taken during the workshop; the meeting concluded with a closed session regarding economic development incentives.

Discussion Items

Financial Partners Program

• Staff presented the FY2026 application cycle: 50 organizations applied (a 177% increase over FY2024), requesting a total of over $8.6 million – the largest request in program history. Current available discretionary funding is approximately $1.5 million.
• A new scoring system was introduced using a cross-departmental team of 19 staff members, with each application scored by six people on a 65‑point scale. Criteria included submission completeness, performance and equity measures, and alignment with council’s strategic priorities.
• Council members expressed varied views: some emphasized the need for objective, data‑driven selection; others warned against penalizing smaller or newer organizations. Mayor Vi Lyles suggested refocusing the program on investments that lead to sustainability or integration into the city’s formal budget.
• Councilmember Mayfield raised concerns about organizations requesting more than the 30% cap of their budget and about duplication of services. Councilmember Driggs called for a more objective value‑added assessment.
• City Manager Marcus Jones noted that the budget gap remains in the single‑digit millions and that property taxes will not be increased. He stressed that city programs and partner funding would face cuts based on outcomes.
• Next Step: The Budget, Governance, and Intergovernmental Relations (BGIR) Committee will refine selection criteria and bring recommendations in April, prior to the May 5 budget proposal.

Solid Waste Services

• Residential solid waste services (garbage, yard waste, recycling, bulky items) cost about $86 million annually. Fees cover only 46% of that cost – a low recovery rate compared to peer cities. The city is analyzing splitting fees by service type (curbside roll‑out vs. dumpster).
• Staff highlighted ongoing initiatives: transition to paper yard‑waste bags (improving worker safety), a pilot for yard‑waste carts, and the need for a solid waste transfer station (land not yet acquired). The interlocal agreement with Mecklenburg County expires in 2028, requiring negotiation on tipping fees and facility responsibilities.
• Council discussion focused on the equity of fee increases, particularly for residents already facing property tax increases from revaluation. Councilmember Mayfield asked about higher fees for multifamily and small businesses (currently $250/year, unchanged for years) versus residents. Councilmember Driggs supported moving toward higher cost recovery to avoid cuts elsewhere.
• Councilmember Watlington praised worker safety improvements and asked for data on potential fee impacts. Councilmember Anderson advocated for services for aging residents.

Capital Investment Plan (CIP)

• Staff reported that 152 active capital projects are underway: 138 on target, 13 at risk, and 1 over budget. In the past year, 17 projects were completed and 20 new ones started.
• The COPs (Certificates of Participation) capacity remains at about $26 million per year, totaling $130 million over the five‑year plan. FY2026 is not a bond year.
• Advanced planning projects include: an animal care and control satellite facility (earmarked $30 million, currently in design, expected completion Q2 2028) and a CMPD helicopter hangar. The Northwest Division police station (last of six) is at risk but is expected to access previously approved funding.
• Councilmember Driggs requested a macro‑level quantification of at‑risk and over‑budget projects to assess overall stability. Councilmember Ashmira questioned the value of advanced planning given continued risk, but City Manager Jones and Councilmember Mitchell defended the process, noting it has reduced large cost overruns by basing budgets on 30% design.
• Councilmember Mayfield raised concerns about the animal control facility focus on adoption versus the need for more shelter space, and about investment in the fire training facility (simulator heat issues, water tower leaks). Councilmember Anderson echoed the need for improved fire training facilities.
• Councilmember Mitchell commended staff for completing 17 projects while adding 20 new ones, with only one over budget – a strong performance in a challenging construction market.

Key Outcomes

• Financial Partners: The BGIR Committee will develop refined prioritization criteria and report back in April before the May 5 budget proposal. Council intends to avoid last‑minute “add‑and‑delete” decisions.
• Solid Waste: Staff will return with more detailed fee impact analyses and a timeline for potential rate adjustments, including separate rates for roll‑out vs. dumpster service and an increased small‑business fee.
• Capital Planning: Council directed staff to provide a consolidated summary of at‑risk and over‑budget project totals. Discussion on the fire training facility and animal control design scope will continue.
• Closed Session: After the workshop, council moved into closed session to discuss economic development incentives as authorized by N.C.G.S. § 143‑318.11(a)(4).