[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6682839,"mediaKeyId","2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0","parentId",2312661,"title","Council approves tax-levy special revenue and departmental funds; health-insurance fund used to buy down levy","audioSeconds",375,"startMs",4174000,"endMs",4549000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0&start=4174&end=4549","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0/thumbnail_4174000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6682839/Clinton-City/Clinton-County/Iowa/Council-approves-tax-levy-special-revenue-and-departmental-funds-health-insurance-fund-used-to-buy-down-levy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682839-3946b93321e4bf9af11917080dc75784/orig.mp4?Expires=1775171077&Signature=CI1nqTlsy8PVrL-gNfGlGpSbDtUXbSAW~pseUCLJ1X5uysR7mPEH91-MmqmI5tTjITjfNun4Wu5ye-u72Gt7ccHrX5Z0Az27poc1vDEwkA3JCPkcH4G9dlEXplBVlDy0ET75xcCzS1e61MNoaS8S~oOiVU92fPy2YtlUEwPK0GFG6OkIuusns7xb36AJQUTR0ntdW6PO0BhtUrlJx2o8PlrclXwWo5pozWcT~B-CfJCZIbWua81kj5O~16~GHpPRNuk8U7l4nhyFAOTL1NWMGsoWJ5NJ7xV7r5nWGry-8DIGU7S3g5Z8oJ5UWJzMZETWQ5S5qEmIMZNTRpnJjjrlfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clinton","date","2025-02-13T23:06:59.117Z","article","At the Feb. 13 budget workshop, the Clinton City Council approved a set of tax‑levy special revenue funds, the city’s self‑funded health insurance fund transfer to reduce the proposed levy, and a package of departmental special‑revenue funds.

Levy buy‑down from self‑funded health insurance reserve

Finance staff explained that the city will use a portion of the self‑funded health insurance fund’s reserves to “buy down” the proposed property‑tax levy for FY 2026. Staff said the self‑funded health plan carried an expected ending balance of about $3.9 million after this year’s projected revenues and expenses; the presentation showed an expected balance as of June 30, 2026 of about $3.9 million and said the plan holds roughly six months of reserves under the city’s policy. Staff cautioned this is a one‑time buy‑down strategy: using reserves to lower the proposed levy this year reduces available fund balance and may mean less headroom to reduce the levy next year.

Special revenue funds and departmental budgets

Council approved a set of departmental special‑revenue funds (police grants and programs, recreation program fees, library trust and donation funds, fire department donation funds, and similar items) and the tax‑levy special revenue funds that pay property and liability insurance and the police/fire retirement fund. Staff also presented the road‑use tax fund adjustments and minor edits that reduced a previously proposed $500,000 street maintenance line to $300,000 for certain contract painting and striping work; council approved the road‑use tax fund as presented.

Council action

The council approved the following by roll‑call vote (all approvals were unanimous among members present): the tax‑levy special revenue funds and the related self‑funded insurance buy‑down, the departmental special revenue funds listed in the packet, and the road‑use tax fund. Council directed staff to produce updated levy calculations showing the buy‑down’s effect and to return final documents in time for the March proposed‑levy posting deadlines.

Staff cautions and next steps

Staff warned that the reserve used to lower this year’s levy is finite; while it reduces taxpayer bills this budget cycle, it reduces the amount available to offset future levy increases. Finance staff said they will prepare a version of the levy without the buy‑down so council can see the difference before final adoption. The council also asked for a follow‑up showing the health‑fund buy‑down’s impact on the next fiscal year’s levy planning.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Budget Meeting - Feb 13 2025 - Attachment for 8.a Updated","oneSentenceSummary","At the Feb. 13 budget workshop, the Clinton City Council approved a set of tax‑levy special revenue funds, the city’s self‑funded health insurance transfer to reduce the proposed levy, and a package of departmental special‑revenue funds.","taxTitle","Clinton City, Clinton County, Iowa","taxId",55531,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6682846,"Council reviews $11.18 million CIP borrowing and wastewater financing; staff detail SRF, rates and debt capacity",3773,181000,3954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0&start=181&end=3954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0/thumbnail_181000.jpg","/articles/6682846/Clinton-City/Clinton-County/Iowa/Council-reviews-1118-million-CIP-borrowing-and-wastewater-financing-staff-detail-SRF-rates-and-debt-capacity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682846-23c0d40d2edc9736f048a4f2fe166027/orig.mp4?Expires=1775171077&Signature=Q4A6h0TBPCxCiSR4pqs2gzximWbAoD5caTWJrNTgm0wgZY9ek1JPRt7x~Gx2RSgl5KGFduyc8SMq7FufpNgcRf~pd9CWkx2f4GWxNXDDJBr0w4x~tYCumR01-0~0zT9UQYux~51dHzTkgaKyhVcyxPjqMF1CAxQmi9RKPYhcHhnh8zvwxtwoAqpzsxIOZCrrI18I1r8ZFMk~ghW8t3WC~VAGasGpbvE~1dK~MT5Dud6wwYqHPBC5JhpWuOKQE0cEaH4uzFA30KT6n2pQ-9mqVU2qi0Vos0XJFaXabtusZU2XaisnkEs6wHE-ZJNvObydeq0AEn8TtvPpvIqIJqcbow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clinton City Council members spent the opening portion of a Feb. 13 budget workshop focused on the capital improvement plan and the debt implications of an $11,181,000 borrowing the city is considering for fiscal 2026.

The discussion centered on how a roughly $11.18 million issuance would affect the city’s general obligation debt totals, the tax levy and legal debt capacity; how the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans and a proposed conversion of one SRF note to a GO bond would change sewer fund ratios; and how planned sewer projects and an industrial-rate arrangement with a large customer would pay for a new biogas project.

Why it matters: the city’s consultant and staff said the borrowing is large enough to change debt ratios and the pre-levy amount the city must include in the proposed levy. The financing plan also ties closely to wastewater rate decisions and a separate SRF note the council would convert to a GO bond to preserve the city’s SRF borrowing capacity for a biogas project tied to an industrial customer (referred to in the meeting as “ADM”). Those rate and SRF decisions affect both ratepayers (sewer rates) and property taxpayers (debt-service levy).

Details of the CIP and debt book

Staff member Matt (finance staff) and Anita (finance staff) reviewed PFM’s modeling showing a CIP borrowing figure that prints on the agenda at about $11,000,181 (PFM’s package grossed the borrowing to about $11.4 million to cover issuance costs). The presentation showed the city’s existing general-obligation (G.O.) debt outstanding and an illustrative post-issuance total, and noted an available legal capacity in the neighborhood of $22 million. The far-right column in the packet showed debt as a percentage of the legal limit; staff said that percentage would be roughly 79.79% in the projection shown.

Anita pointed to the debt policy the council adopted a few years ago, which directed the city to maintain a target available capacity, and said the current plan would meet that target in the near term while the council takes on required projects.

The debt book segment explained how PFM structures offerings: in some years interest-only payments (a pre-levy interest-only amount for FY26 was discussed by staff as “about $475,000”) are required before principal begins. Staff noted that PFM smooths payments when possible but structure varies by issue; the group discussed examples where principal payments “skip” in the early years of older issues because of earlier structures.

Sewer funding, SRF notes and the biogas project

City staff said the SRF loans (which the wastewater fund repays from sewer rates) are separate from the G.O. borrowing but that SRF sizing and timing affect the sewer fund’s debt ratios. The packet included a planned change that would move about $2.0 million from an SRF note to G.O. bond debt (a “refund” of the SRF into a GO bond) so the city would have a stronger sewer‑debt ratio when seeking an SRF loan for a biogas project. Staff said the conversion was intended to make the SRF application for the biogas project approvable by the SRF program’s ratio tests.

Staff described the biogas project as rate‑based: the city plans an industrial biogas rate for the large industrial customer (ADM) tied to the renewable natural gas sales and Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) revenue the plant may produce. Anita said the sewer fund currently shows a deficit balance but that American Rescue Plan (ARP) receipts of roughly $3.8 million had funded several sewer projects earlier and that project timing and billing flow affected the current capital balance. According to staff, the city intends the biogas project and a possible federal tax credit to improve the sewer fund balance over time; the industrial customer would pay a dedicated industrial rate for flow that produces biogas, and that rate would adjust on the back end if renewable fuel sales and RINs revenue materialize.

Council questions and next steps

Council members pressed staff on timing and levy impacts. Staff said they would need PFM to provide the pre‑levy payment amount quickly so the finance office could finish the proposed levy documents for publication. The packet and discussion made clear no final bond sale was being approved at the workshop; the discussion was to finalize CIP priorities, understand levy pre‑levy impacts and decide whether to move the SRF-to-G.O. refunding and the SRF application forward.

What the council approved that night

The council voted to approve four capital project funds as presented (the motion passed on roll call with all members present voting yes). Council did not take a final vote to issue bonds at the workshop; staff said any final bond resolution, official statement or sale would return to council for formal action once the financing structure and PFM figures were finalized.

Looking ahead

Staff asked for PFM to provide the precise pre‑levy interest number and the final modeled payment schedule so the proposed levy filing (a required Department of Management posting) could be prepared on schedule. Staff also said they would return to council with firm SRF application materials for the biogas project and with a revised CIP that moves items into the railpark fund or other proprietary funds where appropriate.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the workshop presentation and are identified as staff-level participants in the transcript. No final bond sale was approved at the meeting. The council asked staff to bring final numbers back before publication deadlines for the proposed levy.","Clinton City Council members spent the opening portion of a Feb. 13 budget workshop focused on the capital improvement plan and the debt implications of an $11,181,000 borrowing the city is considering for fiscal 2026.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6682834,"Council flags general‑fund reserve risk and franchise‑fee receipts shortfall; asks staff for deeper review",2241,3843000,6084000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0&start=3843&end=6084","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0/thumbnail_3843000.jpg","/articles/6682834/Clinton-City/Clinton-County/Iowa/Council-flags-generalfund-reserve-risk-and-franchisefee-receipts-shortfall-asks-staff-for-deeper-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682834-2c5ed83bcf1a8c4491f425bee0628c60/orig.mp4?Expires=1775171077&Signature=g8v1c0iDsxAhnxXfNDQUseZeDDHoLFTPKMRtS~w21yH-aM9ng1H2PLuZi9tK0u6VzTOCaNyKti6HTkfbrZlgyWm8O-t16bZ13oBaaEH6AsHgqBJNHqDOejmbKYDFy0F32avFq3TA0myAHm62O2upYBTmm0SVR5dcObbb7tyqjLtpkXbbWevvsVm4lWcM9FUU31SZZIFoEjQSmvlHoVODKOQTuXHWIEzrbXzTgS1wW57YynO6~g7guvOp0eiXv6wXOSB0Jevrvyut~Usk2Bvx2prE05tT0dA~p6Yko66E0YwJ~04iPSRqgyI~6T0jjWTu~tiUwaAuI11noOApsdvsiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A recurring theme at the Feb. 13 budget workshop was concern from council members that the city’s general fund has repeatedly run deficits in recent years and that, unless spending controls are strengthened, the city could erode reserves.

Key points from the discussion

- General-fund reserve: Staff reported a general-fund cash balance of roughly $1.7 million at the time of the workshop and reminded council of the city’s reserve policy (the policy percentage was discussed in the meeting; staff said they would confirm the exact percentage and the dollar target and circulate that data). Council members said $1.7 million provides limited flexibility for unplanned costs and suggested the city should aim for a noticeably larger annual budget surplus to rebuild reserves over time.

- Historical deficit pattern: Council members and staff reviewed five‑year budget trends that showed multiple departments running over their adopted budgets in the presented period. Staff cautioned that some department overruns are offset in city accounting by transfers from other funds or one‑time receipts in other years (for example, ARPA/CARES-related dollars in FY21), and said staff will present a clearer, reconciled five‑year accounting that shows recurring versus one‑time effects.

- Franchise fees and utility receipts: Finance staff highlighted that franchise-fee receipts (payments the city receives from utilities such as Alliant Energy and REC) were lower than the packet’s original FY25 assumption; staff said receipts received so far and recent quarterly payments point to FY25 franchise revenue being below the budgeted $4.3 million and that FY26 was conservatively budgeted at $3.7 million. Staff said they will reach out to utility representatives (Paula at Alliant was named) to ask why receipts are lower and to reconcile payment timing, seasonal effects, and any structural changes (for example, customer billing patterns or transmission changes). The council asked staff to report back with a reconciliation and a recommendation.

Council direction and next steps

Council asked staff to run a deeper multiyear expense review for department heads, focus on low‑value recurring operating lines (printing, office supplies and similar commodities), and return with a set of achievable reductions the finance director can implement administratively and with the department heads’ cooperation. Staff said they will also model levy outcomes if the city does not use the health‑fund buy‑down and will return the final numbers in time for the March proposed‑levy posting.

No vote was required on the reserve discussion; council set a path for staff follow‑up and asked that the updated analysis be available before the next public‑hearing and levy‑setting actions.","Council members raised concerns that steady budget overruns across departments and lower-than-projected franchise-fee receipts could deplete the general-fund reserve; staff were asked to run deeper expense reviews and return options ahead of levy deadlines.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6682843,"Council approves transit capital and operating budgets, debates pursuing electric‑bus grant",829,5207000,6036000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0&start=5207&end=6036","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2312661-8221fcdc011700e083e7ecf95106bee0/thumbnail_5207000.jpg","/articles/6682843/Clinton-City/Clinton-County/Iowa/Council-approves-transit-capital-and-operating-budgets-debates-pursuing-electricbus-grant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682843-6b2d139aa4e804acdbcb98d796f3022f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775171077&Signature=XxyzLideTGG5cF-Hs431Pej6L8BlNi5KlSLXsbILNW3DYG9NDFL4l00QeKQn5cVmq0nsAdrNbTa0as2e~Wu9R94SO-xN45XOD3p4fQZapHDQuACrZ9vPK2SocZ9uua1JO7jJ839ZvtxJhEF1LakF-AGdqdhPDMaythTNsIf09WFRHVEPy2lfV6Eyppqqs0W7MletpsR8TSiCoyTz1ANZ-~QxZ1zxrMoG4vRk4mIkuoPCMtfqvaruowiYWixHw8DLDCi2h7DwJAsTON1FWB5v-yV9l96rtPVUxqKJXZ7FrzkXYFWucyxj2t7dqVt4~Xa~mRpf5wJOL1QwtATO1f4LSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clinton City Council members voted to approve the transit operating and transit capital funds during the Feb. 13 budget workshop while also debating whether to pursue a state/federal electric‑bus grant the council had previously endorsed.

Why it matters: transit capital choices affect the transit budget now and operations later. An electric-bus procurement carries extra costs for charging infrastructure, different maintenance skill sets for mechanics and a local match; council members said the city should be clear on long‑term operations and mechanic training before committing to an electric fleet.

What staff proposed and what council approved

Staff presented a transit capital package that covers local matches for vehicle replacements and smaller paratransit/light‑duty vehicles. The packet included two higher‑priority items (local matches for larger replacement buses) and two lower‑cost light‑duty vehicles the city hoped to acquire sooner if available federal/state funding allowed. Staff said the budget as presented included local shares for two larger buses and a near‑term plan to acquire two smaller vehicles if grant opportunities or leftover federal CARES/ARPA operational funds could be shifted to capital.

Grant and electrification discussion

Dennis (transit staff) reviewed the prior council decision to pursue an electric‑bus grant that would have covered most capital costs but required the city to pay a local match for buses and install chargers. Dennis said the city’s mechanics have limited experience with electric‑drive heavy buses and that the grant’s required charging infrastructure (and ongoing maintenance) would add responsibilities to the transit division.

Dennis told the council that if the council decided to decline the electric‑bus grant now, that request would go back into the competitive funding pool at the state; the city could still buy diesel replacements or smaller vehicles later through other grant cycles. He also said there may be a narrower option in the grant (a smaller vehicle/van instead of a heavy or medium-duty electric bus) but that staff needed state confirmation.

Council action

The council voted by roll call to approve the transit operating fund and the transit capital fund as presented. The roll call was unanimous among members present.

Outlook

Staff said they will pursue available grant options that match council direction and will return with any required resolutions if the city decides to accept an electric‑vehicle award or change the local‑match plan. Transit staff also asked council to consider long‑term funding and workforce training if electric buses become a future priority.","Council approved the transit operating and capital budgets that include local matches for vehicle purchases and discussed whether to pursue a competitive electric‑bus grant that would require charging infrastructure and maintenance changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves tax-levy special revenue and departmental funds; health-insurance fund used to buy down levy

Council reviews $11.18 million CIP borrowing and wastewater financing; staff detail SRF, rates and debt capacity

Council flags general‑fund reserve risk and franchise‑fee receipts shortfall; asks staff for deeper review

Council approves transit capital and operating budgets, debates pursuing electric‑bus grant