The Stafford City Council adopted the city’s fiscal 2025–26 budget on Monday after council members approved a set of amendments that increase employee cost‑of‑living adjustments, allocate a one‑time street and drainage pilot, and reallocate proposed city attorney funding.

The council voted 6–1 to approve the budget as amended. Mayor Matthew moved the motion, which included removing the proposed in‑house city attorney line, adding a 2% cost‑of‑living adjustment for employees instead of 1%, and setting aside $750,000 for a residential streets and drainage pilot program funded in part from the city’s recent sales‑tax audit revenue.

The amendments were presented and debated at length before the final vote. Councilman Tim Bostick proposed the $750,000 residential streets and drainage pilot, saying, “I’m gonna propose that we add additional $750,000 to a pilot residential street drainage program, from the $1,300,000 in revenue that we have.” CFO Alka Shaw provided fund‑balance figures during the discussion, saying the “ending fund balance available ending fund balance will be 11,100,000.0,” and explaining how proposed uses would change the city’s reserve levels.

Why it matters: council members and residents framed the vote as a choice between using one‑time funds to address long‑deferred infrastructure and preserving fund balance to avoid recurring commitments. Several speakers urged prioritizing street and drainage repairs; others warned that recurring pay increases without new revenue could strain future budgets.

Key facts and figures: CFO Alka Shaw told council the proposed budget plans to use $3,274,057 from the general fund balance, split roughly as $1,070,847 for recurring needs and $2,203,210 for one‑time capital. The council majority approved moving the employee COLA from 1% to 2%, an incremental cost of about $192,762. Council discussion referenced roughly $1,300,000 recovered from a sales‑tax audit; council members said $589,000 of prior street program funds would roll over from last year and that the additional $750,000 would be a one‑time allocation for a pilot residential street/drainage program. Fire‑department reclassification and driver/pumper program costs were estimated at about $103,000; police salary and benefit line items were discussed as increasing by roughly $988,000 (salaries/benefits) with a total police‑department increase cited around $1,700,000 over the prior year.

Discussion highlights: Public commenters raised concerns about unfinished street projects from the prior budget and asked whether unspent street funds would be carried forward. Resident Mark Black asked if approved 2024–25 street repairs would be moved into the 2025–26 program or left incomplete. In council debate, some members urged caution, saying the $750,000 figure lacked project‑level detail and should be considered in a future workshop or committee; others argued the money should be placed in the budget now so the city can begin repairs.

On employee pay and retention, council and staff discussed multiple proposals from the police and fire departments. The police chief presented alternative options — a step increase program and a market adjustment — and indicated he would forgo a step program if market raises were provided. The fire chief described a request to reclassify six firefighter positions to driver roles and said the $103,000 estimate was a high‑end placeholder pending HR verification.

Formal action: The council motion to adopt the budget with the stated amendments passed by voice vote with a 6–1 tally. Council instructions included returning some budget items (project specifics and funding breakdowns) to committee or a future meeting for more detailed review.

Votes at a glance
- Ordinance adopting General Fund and related budgets for fiscal year 2025–26 (amended): Motion by Mayor Matthew to approve the budget as presented with the following amendments: remove proposed in‑house city attorney (reallocate $90,000 to administration and $145,000 net to contingency), increase COLA from 1% to 2% (additional $192,762), and add $750,000 for a residential streets and drainage pilot program. Second: not named in the record. Vote: approved, 6 yes, 1 no. (Vote names were not recorded in the transcript excerpt.)

What the council directed next: Council members who opposed or expressed concern asked staff to return with project‑level scopes and costs for the proposed residential streets/drainage program and to bring personnel reclassifications to the appropriate committee for review before final implementation.

Context and next steps: Several members emphasized the difference between one‑time capital use of fund balance (which they viewed as acceptable) and using reserves for recurring operating costs (which they said would require new revenue). Some council members suggested revisiting recurring personnel costs in the next budget cycle and considered a future discussion of revenue options that had been raised in prior finance‑committee work.

Ending: The council adopted the budget as amended and directed staff to publish the revised budget documents; council members said specific program details (which streets, scope, and timing) would be returned for further action in upcoming meetings or committee reviews.