Response from Kim Roney

Friends & Neighbors of GAP AVL, thank you for reaching out about the city budget–a moral document that reflects our community values.

The City Manager’s budget as proposed includes a 3.26% property tax increase. You can see the presentation on tonight’s agenda here.

I have suggested to use a continuance budget strategy as the Council did in 2020, which could allow 30-90 days to continue operations before approving the budget. My intention with this suggestion was to put the ball back in the State’s court to pass NC HB 1012, which includes revenue replacement for cities recovering from Helene. The funding is there, the need is here, but the General Assembly continues to delay action needed to prevent property tax increases post-Helene.

Unfortunately, there is not Council support for this strategy.

I share your concerns with property tax increase and the disproportionate impact on residential & commercial renters as well as historic, legacy neighborhoods.

I am deeply concerned that the current budget cuts Strategic Partnership Funds to $0, funding dedicated to addressing the opportunity gap in our schools. I will continue to push for those funds to be returned as soon as possible.

Response from Bo Hess

Thank you so much for taking the time to reach out and share your concerns—I truly value your engagement and the thoughtful questions you’ve raised.

You’re absolutely right that our fund balance exists to help us weather emergencies, and that’s exactly what we did after Tropical Storm Helene. In fact, one of the reasons we’re now at 12% instead of the recommended 15% is because we used that reserve to jumpstart critical recovery efforts—including infrastructure repair, emergency public safety responses, and continuity of essential services. That funding was absolutely vital in the immediate aftermath.

Now, however, we are in a situation where bond rating agencies like Moody’s are watching closely to ensure we replenish those reserves. If we don’t act now to restore the fund balance and balance our budget, our credit rating could be downgraded. That would raise interest rates on future borrowing—costing taxpayers significantly more in the long run and potentially forcing even steeper tax increases in the years ahead. Fiscal responsibility now is essential to protecting affordability later.

I hear your concerns about the disproportionate burden tax increases can place on lower-income residents and Black homeowners. We are working hard to protect those most vulnerable by strengthening and expanding tax relief programs for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and income-qualified residents. We also continue to raise concerns about equity in the property appraisal system at the county level. These are critical conversations that I’m committed to continuing.

We are also actively advocating for municipal revenue replacement at the state level. If we receive those funds—as we are hopeful we will—we will amend the budget and provide relief for residents. Until then, we must ensure our city remains on stable financial footing.

Lastly, I want to emphasize: this proposal is not about politics or personal agendas. It’s about making sure the workers who showed up for us during a natural disaster—our firefighters, police officers, sanitation crews, and water department employees—are supported and compensated fairly. This is a collective moment for all of us to step up for those who stepped up for us.

These decisions are never easy, but I believe deeply in leading with integrity, transparency, and long-term vision. Thank you again for your feedback and for your care for our city.

Response from Maggie Ullman

Thank you again for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I truly understand and share your frustration about the possibility of tax increases—especially knowing that our residents are also county taxpayers and already carry a significant burden.

To your question about the fund balance: yes, that is essentially the city’s reserve or savings account. Based on guidance from city staff and the UNC School of Government, we’re advised to use fund balance only for one-time expenses—things like infrastructure projects or emergency needs—not for recurring costs like payroll or utility bills. The reason is simple: using reserves for ongoing costs only postpones an inevitable tax increase once those savings run out.

In this year’s budget, we’ve already cut all one-time spending down to the bare minimum. That means the remaining gap lies in recurring expenses, particularly staffing, which we can’t defer any longer.

It’s also important to note that last year, even before the storm, we used some of our fund balance to address longstanding pay discrepancies in our fire and police departments. That was a necessary step for equity and retention, but it has added pressure to this year’s budget—especially after the financial impact of the recent disaster.

Lastly, because our fund balance dropped below a recommended threshold, we’ve received a warning from the bond rating agencies that assess the city’s financial health. If we don’t act responsibly in this year’s budget, we risk a downgrade, which would make future borrowing for city needs more difficult and costly.

I know these are hard decisions, and I appreciate you staying engaged and asking thoughtful questions. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d like to discuss this further or have additional input.