Clayton officials present FY 2025–26 budget with proposed 49¢ tax rate; public hearing opened

Town Manager Rich Capold opened the Town of Clayton’s first public hearing on the fiscal year 2025–26 budget on May 20, presenting a manager-recommended spending plan and asking council to review staff recommendations.

Budget Manager Todd Milton told the council the recommended general fund is balanced at roughly $67,200,000 and that the town manager is proposing a 49¢ per $100 valuation tax rate for FY 2026. Milton said the recommendation also includes a 10.2% combined water and sewer rate increase (about 6% for water and 12.5% for sewer), a 2% electric rate increase, and capital outlay in the general fund of roughly $7,900,000, including $7,500,000 set aside for land banking for economic development.

The budget presentation laid out why the package matters. "The budget process is one of the most important responsibilities we have in local government," Capold said, noting the town is operating three major funds totaling more than $100 million. Milton said staff moved to a base budgeting technique using three-year averages to constrain line items and began using ClearGov to budget by position and later link strategic-plan initiatives to budget lines.

Key details and assumptions

- General fund manager recommendation: approximately $67,200,000. - Proposed property tax rate: 49¢ per $100 valuation (manager recommendation). - Revenue neutral tax rate reported by staff: about 45¢ per $100 valuation. - Water and sewer combined recommended increase: 10.2% (roughly 6% water, 12.5% sewer). - Electric fund recommended rate increase: 2%. - Capital outlay: general fund ≈ $7,900,000; water/sewer fund ≈ $2,200,000; electric fund capital ≈ $6,200,000. - Land-banking allotment included: $7,500,000. - Positions: seven new positions recommended (four in general fund, two in water/sewer, one in electric) for a total added personnel cost of just over $700,000. - Average assessed single-family home value cited: $355,629 (post-revaluation figures cited in the presentation).

Why it matters

Milton and Capold framed the package as a response to sustained town growth and rising costs. Milton said the town used conservative revenue assumptions — for example, budgeting a 2.5% sales tax increase and a 14.6% ad valorem growth assumption — while noting a large portion of the town’s real property (about $484 million) remained under appeal, so staff included a 1¢ reduction assumption in some calculations.

Council discussion and follow-up requests

Council members thanked staff for the analysis and asked for additional detail. Council Member Porter Casey praised the three-year averaging approach and asked whether underspent funds from a project that comes in under budget would roll back into the capital improvement program; staff confirmed that underspending typically reduces the project budget and can free funds for other CIP needs.

Council members asked for more granular line-item detail in the budget document, with examples such as training and professional development. Milton said staff examined three-year averages for professional development and reduced the FY 2026 recommended amount by 20% where past spending warranted it, while departments were given the opportunity to justify higher needs for specific line items (for example, hiring new firefighters increases that department’s professional development needs).

Council Member Ruth Anderson asked staff to provide, at a future work session, historical personnel totals and salary-and-benefit totals by department for several years and to show homestead-exemption construction totals by year; staff agreed to prepare that information.

Process and next steps

Capold and Milton emphasized this was the first of at least two public hearings on the budget and that the council will have additional opportunities to adjust the manager’s recommended budget before adoption. The presentation materials and the ClearGov-based linking of budget to the town’s strategic plan were described as ongoing work. The public hearing was closed later in the meeting after no members of the public spoke.

The council did not take a formal vote on the FY 2025–26 budget during the May 20 meeting; the session was recorded and staff noted they will return with additional documentation and respond to the follow-up requests raised by council members.