City Council Work Sessions

City of Greensboro Meeting Minutes - Final City Council Work Session June 11, 2026, 3:00 p.m. Plaza Level Conference Room 300 West Washington Street Greensboro, NC Present: Mayor Marikay Abuzuaiter, Mayor Pro Tem Denise Roth, Councilmember Hugh Holston, Councilmember Irving Allen, Councilmember Crystal Black (via Zoom), Councilmember Cecile Crawford, Councilmember April Parker, Councilmember Adam Marshall, Councilmember Tammi Thurm Also Present: City Manager Nathaniel (Trey) Davis, City Attorney Lora Cubbage, City Clerk Tory Frink, and Deputy City Clerk Destiny Stansberry _____________________________________________________________________ A. Call To Order This City Council work session of the City of Greensboro was called to order at 3:01 P.M. in the Plaza Level Conference Room of the Melvin Municipal Office Building. Mayor Abuzuaiter confirmed the Councilmembers who were in attendance. Nathaniel "Trey" Davis, City Manager, provided opening remarks outlining the framework for the budget work session and explained that the budget team had prepared materials to guide the City Council through each section of the discussion. City Manager Davis stated that he and staff had developed a recommended budget that reflected the City's current fiscal realities while positioning Greensboro for long-term success. He noted that a significant development had occurred following the presentation of his initial recommended budget. He explained that the North Carolina General Assembly's action the previous day to delay countywide property revaluations created uncertainty and substantially reduced the property tax revenues originally anticipated under the revaluation process. 1  City Manager Davis advised that Jon Decker, Director of Budget and Evaluation, would provide additional details regarding the nearly $50 million tax revenue gap resulting from the delay. He emphasized that the shortfall was not the result of new spending priorities but rather a revenue gap caused by changes in the assumptions available to local governments. He stated that the budget presentation remained relevant; however, Council needed to consider the impact of the state-level action on the City's financial outlook. City Manager Davis emphasized the importance of addressing the funding gap in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. He explained that his recommendation addressed approximately three-fourths of the revenue gap created by the revised property tax assumptions. According to City Manager Davis, the organization would absorb the remaining one-fourth through delayed service enhancements, operational reductions, vacancy management, compensation adjustments, and other internal cost-saving measures. He stated that city staff was prepared to demonstrate to the City Council and the public that the organization was exercising fiscal discipline. City Manager Davis acknowledged the organization's responsibility to address the financial challenges. He recognized that continued budget reductions would eventually erode service delivery, weaken the workforce, and limit the City's ability to invest in infrastructure and other priorities essential to Greensboro's future. City Manager Davis stated that the proposed budget was guided by the principles of budgeting for progress, preserving momentum, and investing responsibly in people and infrastructure. He said those principles informed a disciplined budget recommendation designed to position the City for continued success. B. Presentations B.1 2026-487 Budget Discussion Larry Davis, Assistant City Manager, introduced the presentation on the fiscal impacts of delaying the property tax revaluations. He emphasized that the primary figure for the City Council's consideration was the estimated $48.8 million revenue reduction resulting from applying prior-year property values at the current tax rate. Assistant City Manager Davis stated that city staff would recommend covering approximately three-quarters of the revenue loss through a property tax rate increase. Assistant City Manager Davis stated that an estimated $14 million funding gap would be addressed through budget adjustments. Assistant City Manager Davis introduced Jon Decker, Director of Budget and Evaluation, to present the financial analysis and potential budget reduction strategies. Mr. Decker reminded the City Council that the total Manager's Recommended Budget was a little over $913 million. He mentioned that this was an increase of $82.7 million (9.9%) over fiscal year 2025-26. He reported that the general fund recommended budget was almost $486 million, a $45 million (10.3%) increase from the prior fiscal year. Mr. Decker explained that the recommended budget reflected the City's anticipated expenditure needs. He mentioned that the recommended budget had been developed using the updated property tax values of approximately $56.1 billion. Under the rollback scenario, assessed property valuations totaled approximately $40.1 billion, reducing taxable value by roughly $16 billion. Mr. 2 Decker noted that a 1-cent increase in the property tax rate would generate approximately $5.6 million under the revaluation, compared to approximately $4 million under current values. He explained that funding the recommended budget without the benefit of revaluation numbers would require an estimated 12.1-cent property tax increase. He noted it brought the total property tax rate to 74.85 cents. He reviewed the revenue impacts of rolling back property tax values. Mr. Decker compared property tax projections across both valuation scenarios. He added how changes in assessed values affected revenue capacity, tax rates, and the remaining budget gap. The City Council and city staff reviewed several funding scenarios and discussed the distinction between the Manager's Recommended Budget and the no-revaluation scenario. City staff explained the projected impacts of a 9-cent property tax increase. He explained how additional revenues and expenditure adjustments were needed to address the remaining shortfall. Mr. Decker advised that a 9-cent increase would still leave a budget gap. He presented a package of recommended reductions and revenue enhancements totaling approximately $12.5 million, including:  Eliminate/Delay FY 26-27 service Enhancements - $3.50 million  Increase Solid Waste availability fee by $2/month - $1.80 million  Reduce planned compensation increases to 2% increases - $3.50 million  Reduce other contracted services - $1.00 million  Reduce outside agency support - $0.25 million  Freeze or eliminate vacant positions - $2.50 million Mr. Decker further explained that compensation adjustments would reduce planned merit and cost-of-living increases. He noted that continued hiring restrictions and the elimination of long- term vacant and lower-priority positions would save the City approximately $5.9 million. Mr. Decker reviewed the financial implications for the Nussbaum Fund and Transit Fund, emphasizing that each fund must be balanced independently. He reported that the Transit Fund would experience an estimated $5.6 million funding gap under the rollback scenario. He commented that either additional revenues or significant service reductions would be required. He outlined the potential operational and financial impacts associated with available balancing options. Councilmember Holston asked whether the Manager's Recommended Budget assumed implementation of the new property tax revaluation. Mr. Decker confirmed that the recommended revenues reflected the revalued property assessments. Assistant City Manager Davis stated that, without the new property tax revaluation numbers, the City's recommended budget still required an approximately 12-cent tax increase to maintain the proposed service levels. Mr. Decker clarified that the projected impacts assumed reliance on property tax revenue as the primary funding source. He reiterated that the proposed reductions were intended to limit the required property tax increase to approximately 9 cents. 3 Mayor Pro Tem Roth requested discussion of the pending state legislation affecting property tax revaluations before the City Council's upcoming budget adoption meeting. Lora Cubbage, City Attorney, explained that Senate Bill 889 imposed a 12-month moratorium on property tax revaluations for certain North Carolina counties. She stated that the Governor had ten days to sign or veto the legislation, or the bill would become law. City Attorney Cubbage also noted that a proposed North Carolina constitutional amendment, appearing on the ballot, would further limit local governments' authority to raise property taxes. Mr. Decker advised that current state law required local governments to use the adopted property tax revaluation unless the law changed before budget adoption. Mayor Pro Tem Roth inquired if the legislation had not taken effect by the Council's next meeting, the budget would still be considered using the current values as the legal basis. Mr. Decker confirmed that was correct. The City Council discussed comparisons with peer municipalities and emphasized the importance of clearly communicating to residents the financial impacts of proposed changes to the tax rate. Councilmembers also discussed how the proposed recommendations aligned with City priorities, including employee compensation, housing investments, neighborhood services, and the maintenance of essential City operations. Members considered additional revenue options while seeking to minimize reductions in core services. Councilmember Thurm expressed concern about reducing housing funding and stated that she did not support the proposed 9-cent increase. She suggested considering a 12.75-cent tax increase to address the Nussbaum Fund better or identifying additional expenditure reductions. Councilmember Parker emphasized prioritizing core governmental services and neighborhood traffic safety initiatives, and maintaining progress toward the City's $21.25-per-hour minimum wage goal. She expressed support for the proposed firefighter separation allowance but questioned funding both merit increases and broader pay plan adjustments. Councilmembers Crawford and Parker asked whether city staff intended to provide the public with updated information. Assistant City Manager Davis stated that any additional public communication would be based on Council direction. He explained that the Manager's Recommended Budget remained unchanged and that only the funding methodology had changed as a result of the rollback. Mayor Abuzuaiter noted that City Manager Davis had already presented the recommended budget during the public hearing and emphasized that the current discussion focused solely on how to finance it. Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated that communicating the proposed tax rate and its dollar impact on taxpayers would be particularly important. Assistant City Manager Davis reiterated that the budget itself had not changed, other than incorporating two previously requested additions from the City Council. He stated that staff needed Council direction on the preferred property tax increase. He asked whether the City Council was comfortable with the 12.1-cent amount or a lower amount to prepare any necessary expenditure reductions. 4  Councilmember Marshall stated that he supported the 12.1-cent tax increase in light of the evolving state situation. He noted that the proposed budget already reflected cost-saving measures while continuing to provide additional services. He emphasized that the Council had exercised fiscal restraint in response to public expectations. Councilmember Black also expressed support for the 12.1-cent increase and cautioned against making further reductions without careful evaluation. She recommended reviewing departmental operations over the coming months to identify additional efficiencies before considering deeper cuts. Mayor Abuzuaiter observed that a majority of the City Council appeared supportive of staff's work on the budget proposal, which is based on a 12.1-cent tax increase. City Manager Davis concluded by announcing that he would deliver a 15-20 minute presentation at the next City Council meeting outlining the proposed 12.1-cent tax increase and the additional actions needed to address the Nussbaum Fund's financial needs. C. Adjournment Councilmember Holston, seconded by Councilmember Marshall, moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The work session adjourned at 4:44 P.M. 5