Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton council adopts tentative 2025‑26 budget and sets truth‑in‑taxation process; vote splits 3–2
Summary
After a lengthy budget presentation and outside expert briefing, the council adopted a tentative FY2025‑26 budget and voted to begin the truth‑in‑taxation process, approving a 10% preliminary property‑tax increase in a 3–2 vote.
The Clinton City Council adopted a tentative budget for fiscal year 2025‑26 and voted to initiate the truth‑in‑taxation process after hearing a presentation on municipal budgeting and long‑term fiscal planning.
Most important: The council’s motion to adopt the tentative budget included a proposed 10% increase to the property tax revenue projection for planning purposes and a direction to staff to schedule the required public hearing(s) under Utah’s truth‑in‑taxation statute. The motion passed, 3–2.
Why it mattered: City staff and an outside budget speaker from Midvale City told the council that slowdowns in sales tax and fluctuating building permit revenue have reduced the city’s most variable revenues and that personnel and inflationary pressures are driving ongoing cost increases. Staff said steady, modest property tax increases are preferable to infrequent, larger hikes because they give residents predictability and allow the city to rebuild fund balances gradually.
Expert briefing: Mariah Hill, director of finance and administrative services for Midvale City, presented an overview of municipal budgeting concepts including types of funds, property‑tax mechanics, the role of fund balance and reserves, and approaches to forecasting. Hill recommended conservative revenue assumptions and using a multi‑year capital plan to guide transfers to capital funds.
Council discussion: Council members debated several alternatives (no increase, 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 15%). Staff told the council that a roughly 7.5% increase would cover projected personnel cost increases and provide a modest transfer to capital. The 10% scenario in the tentative budget would produce a larger transfer to capital projects. Several council members asked staff to prepare a multi‑year projection model to test smaller and staged increases across several years.
Public comment: Adam Larson spoke during the public hearing on the tentative budget, urging the council to adopt a strategic plan that shows how revenue choices tie to service and land‑use decisions.
Vote and next steps: The council adopted the tentative budget and approved proceeding with the truth‑in‑taxation schedule in a roll‑call vote that recorded: Council member Dane Searle — yes; Council member Spencer Arvey — no; Council member Gray — yes; Council member Marie Doherty — no; Council member Tyler — yes. Staff will receive the county certified values in mid‑June and will return with final adoption options and truth‑in‑taxation notices if a tax increase remains under consideration.
Ending: Staff said they will create a multi‑year capital replacement and projection tool to help the council weigh options before a final budget or tax‑rate decision.
