At the May 27th Mayor & Council meeting we voted to approve the budget for the current fiscal year. In Brunswick, the fiscal year begins at the start of July, so this one (fiscal year/FY 2026) started on July 1, 2025, and goes until June 30, 2026.
Before that, we voted on various things that shape the budget: trash rates, water and sewer rates, the property tax rate, the system improvement fee, the trash collection and pool contracts, staff and police salaries, etc. All of those votes were unanimous or ended up that way (we had a bit of a two-step with the trash contract that you can read about in the June issue of the Brunswick News-Journal). But since the budget is probably the most important thing we vote on each year and the thing that has the most direct effect on everybody, I’ll give a rundown of my thoughts.
Operational Budget
The bulk of the budget goes to the City’s day-to-day operations. That’s important, because while the General Fund (everything except water and sewer, which make up what’s called the Enterprise Fund) is about $10 million, most of that is tied up in just keeping things running.
One item involving operational costs where we had room for discretion was a proposed 2% across-the-board increase to City employee salaries to account for the rising cost of living. I was in favor of it, as were my colleagues. Although salary increases are a consequential investment, I believe the return on investment is worth it. Decent salaries help slow the rate of staff turnover and attract good hires. Our departments are more effective when they have experienced hands and their new hires are qualified and capable of learning quickly. The 2% increase helps Brunswick to remain competitive with other municipalities while not breaking the budget.
Capital Budget
The portion of the general fund that is allocated to projects and major equipment is called the capital budget (the water/sewer enterprise fund also has its own capital budget). This year, the general fund capital budget is about $2.7 million. The biggest item in it, at nearly $1.4 million, is “Phase 1” of the new sports complex on the east side of town off 13th Ave. Phase 1 isn’t an exercise on paper—it involves the construction of refurbished softball diamonds, paved walkways, an access road, and parking.
If you’re like me, though, you might be thinking, “$1.4 million? I thought this thing was grant-funded.” And there’s the catch. It is funded to a considerable extent by a grant, but the grant comes with a requirement for the City to cough up (“match”) some of its own funds. In other words, it is much cheaper for Brunswick than it would be if we were doing it on our own, but it is not free for the City, either. The same goes for many other grants, though not all.
When I look at a $1.4m grant match (*see note below) and compare it to the roughly $160k budgeted for sidewalk improvements this year, it gives me some pause. But I didn’t think it warranted a vote against the budget. There is much to be said for seeing projects through to completion, and the Mayor & Council and City staff have been working on the Sports Complex since well before I was elected. It will be useful to our local sports leagues and could serve to attract visitors, with the economic benefits that brings.
Sidewalk funding is also moving in the right direction. Between revenue from the system improvement fee and a recurring grant program that has (so far) endured the turmoil around federal funding, the City will have more than $200k next year to devote to sidewalk projects. Similar amounts should be available from those sources each year after that, and we can build on that base.
Now, there is another catch: the funds available when the capital budget was passed were about $174k short of what is needed to complete all of the budgeted projects. That doesn’t mean Brunswick will be taking on debt for it. The City’s revenues sometimes exceed forecasts (especially for things like development fees whose timing varies with construction progress), and expenses for other items are sometimes less than what was budgeted. In those cases, the surplus becomes accumulated reserves. Those reserves can be used to plug the capital budget gap if they are sufficient. If they are not, my understanding is that some of the projects envisioned in the capital budget would be delayed until funds become available.
That forward-leaning approach to spending, which the Mayor and City Administrator discussed in their budget presentations (linked below), ensures the City isn’t leaving large sums of money unused on the table. In other words, it makes sure our tax dollars are being put to work for public benefit rather than sat on. It is, I think, a sound strategy for a time when we are trying to kick-start Brunswick’s revitalization.
The risk over time, of course, is of being caught by some unforeseen event (such as a natural disaster) with insufficient cash on hand. That risk can be exaggerated, and hoarding cash can be counterproductive if it results in putting off spending on things like infrastructure and equipment maintenance. Still, as the City’s revenue increases over the next several years due to the two new residential developments, it may be worth taking the opportunity to plan for a modest rainy-day fund.
Taxes, Rates, and Fees
So: taxes, rates, and fees. There are some increases and some things that are holding steady. The one that makes the biggest difference—the property tax rate—remains unchanged at 41 cents per 100 dollars of assessed property value, where it has been for years. For comparison, it’s higher than Emmitsburg’s (~34 cents) but considerably lower than Frederick’s (~70 cents).
We raised the in-town water and sewer rate by 3% across all tiers and the out-of-town water rate by 5%. That’s in line with the strategy the previous Council adopted last year following a study of our water and sewer finances and needs. The strategy is to enact gradual, predictable rate increases to keep pace with operating costs and avoid sudden, sharp rate hikes down the road. I think that approach is sensible.
We also enacted an annual $50 system improvement fee for maintaining water and sewer and sidewalk infrastructure, which I explained in an earlier post. Doing that has two advantages over raising the property tax rate: 1) it is a predictable amount that doesn’t rise automatically with property values, and 2) it makes sure that money is going to two of Brunswick’s biggest needs.
The trash rate is also going up slightly: an increase of $2.25 per quarter, bringing it to $37.25 per quarter. That bill does not cover the full cost of trash pickup. Rather, the goal is to cap the amount the City spends on trash pickup from the general fund (i.e., though general taxation) at $125,000 this year. In recent years, it had climbed to about $250k (for comparison, the budget for paving roads has been $300k for the past couple of years). The $125k cap makes trash collection a predictable budget item that doesn’t crowd out the City’s ability to fund other public services such as road repair. The City was able to enter a trash contract on favorable terms with a new company this year, which reduced the rate increase needed to achieve that cap.
Lastly, the fees to use the pool are staying the same. The City is contracting with the YMCA to operate the pool. My understanding is that this could be a step toward re-establishing some YMCA programs in Brunswick.
I see this all as coming down to a few things. We need to raise revenue to keep up with rising operating costs and start getting ahead of the curve on infrastructure. Brunswick may not be able to rely as much on grants due to the Covid-era stimulus finally petering out, the federal government becoming less predictable, and the state government dealing with its own budget difficulties. Gradually increasing utility rates and implementing the system improvement fee instead of raising property tax rates prioritizes predictability for the City and residents (we know how much we’ll be paying, the City knows how much it will be getting) and helps the City spend consistently on things requiring long-term attention, such as water and sewer and sidewalks. For now, I think this approach makes sense.
Looking Ahead
Looking ahead, there are a few things on my mind when I think about future budget cycles. One is keeping an eye on debt servicing costs: they’ve been floating around 4% of total expenses in the general fund for the past six years, up from around 1.5% between 2014 and 2019. This is, as I understand it, entirely manageable in terms of maintaining sound finances, but I’d not want to see debt service start to crowd out new spending on capital projects if it creeps upward over time.
Another is how we’ll use the impact fees for the Vista Pointe and Cooper Farm (now called “Springdale Summit”) developments as they start to come in. I talked about the water and sewer tap fees in my post about their annexation agreements, but there are also other impact fees that the developers will pay for parks and recreation, police, facilities, and services. The services impact fee can be used for a range of things from infrastructure to affordable housing and chipping in for schools (which are mainly funded by the county and state). Thought will need to go into planning how to best spend them.
I’d like to build on the current momentum for sidewalk projects and keep focused on maintaining our most important physical infrastructure: water and sewer and roads. Along with a capable municipal staff and police force—and trash collection—those things are must-haves. Many other things are nice to have, and we should try to get them too when we have chances.
One other thing on the horizon is reforming the retirement system for our police officers. The Brunswick Police Department uses a 30-year retirement plan, but other departments have adopted the 25-year Law Enforcement Officers’ Pension System (LEOPS). That’s a factor we need to consider in order to hire quality new officers and convince them to spend a career here. It’s no small expense, though, amounting as I understand it to a few hundred thousand dollars each year.
I also haven’t forgotten that bridge over the railroad tracks. Brunswick did not receive some hoped-for federal grant funding for it this past year, but there may be an opportunity to try again. For an expense that large, giving the grant another shot is worthwhile. Let’s see what this year brings.
[*Note: Part of that $1,389,680 grant match (roughly $560k) is itself being covered through other grants: some of the remaining federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and Project Open Space funds from the state. Devoting that grant funding to matching the Sports Complex grant means not using it for other things, of course. The other roughly $820k for the match comes from a combination of general fund revenue and a municipal bond that the City had issued previously.]
To see the City budget presentations, watch the archived videos of the April 16 Finance & Utility Commission meeting or the May 13 or 27 Mayor & Council meetings.
To view the line-by-line budget, see the packet for the May 27 Mayor & Council meeting (pages 87-107).