Bristol council rejects proposed FY2026 tax increase after heated public hearing

The Bristol, Tennessee, City Council voted down Ordinance 25-13, the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and tax rate, after an extended public hearing and council debate on June 19. The ordinance would have set a citywide property tax rate above the certified rate; the motion to adopt the budget at a $1.92 tax rate failed on a roll call vote.

The budget presented by Finance Director Holly Barron totaled $155,339,488 for FY2026, which Barron said reflects a roughly 4.1% increase from the prior year and includes market-pay adjustments and department-specific salary changes. City Attorney Daniel Smith told the public the county reappraisal raised Bristol property values from about $744 million in 2024 to about $1.18 billion in 2025, and that state law produces a certified tax rate intended to leave revenue neutral after reappraisal; Smith cited TCA section 67-5-1702 and explained the certified tax rate for Bristol would be approximately $1.5397.

Residents and business owners filled the public-comment period and the certified-rate hearing to press the council on affordability, appraisal errors and city spending priorities. Speakers who identified themselves as Bristol residents described rapid increases in assessed values and projected tax bills, asked whether the city budget was balanced and urged the council to seek alternatives before raising the city tax rate. "Is the budget balanced?" resident Blair Henley asked. Jesse Campbell, who said he raises his family in Bristol, told councilors the proposed rate "isn't just numbers" and argued policy choices had shifted burdens onto homeowners and fixed-income residents. Several speakers suggested pausing or scaling back plans for projects the city has taken on, including recent property purchases and a proposed public–private baseball stadium.

Council discussion referenced both operating needs and capital plans. Barron said the FY2026 proposal included a 4.7% pay increase for most city departments and carried forward earlier police and fire compensation adjustments; she said roughly $4.5 million in additional revenue above the certified rate would be available if the council set the rate at $1.92, and that about $3 million of that amount would go to payroll. Council members discussed the city reserve requirement (a minimum three months), the use of reserves to smooth year-to-year gaps, and the desire to avoid cutting services while also not overburdening taxpayers.

An amendment to lower the proposed tax rate to $1.89 was moved and seconded but failed on a roll call. The subsequent vote on Ordinance 25-13 as proposed (tax rate $1.92) also failed on a roll call vote, ending the council's attempt to adopt the budget and tax rate that night.

The meeting record shows substantial public concern about the county reappraisal and the effect on individual tax bills; speakers recommended clearer public outreach and asked the council to reexamine recent property purchases and discretionary spending. The council did not adopt the FY2026 budget or tax rate during the June 19 meeting and indicated further work sessions and follow-up would be required before the city takes final action.

Looking ahead, council members and staff said they will continue budget work and public outreach. City staff noted the certified-rate process and ongoing assessment appeals at the county level are factors in the timetable for adopting a final rate.