Clinton council adopts tentative budget, votes to pursue 15% property tax increase and set tax hearing

Clinton City Council adopted a tentative fiscal year 2025–26 budget May 13 and voted to enter the truth‑in‑taxation process, setting a public hearing on the final budget that includes a proposed 15% property tax increase.

Budget staff opened the discussion by flagging recent sales tax receipts that were lower than the prior year (a roughly $52,000 drop, about an 11.5% fall for the most recently reported month) and showed a projected ongoing deficit driven largely by rising personnel costs. Finance staff and the city manager reviewed options to reduce operating expenses (training reductions, maintenance deferrals) and to scale back capital projects (street resurfacing, park equipment) to narrow the gap. Staff also proposed transferring $500,000 from the general fund to capital improvement funds as part of the tentative budget.

Council members spent more than an hour debating tradeoffs between cutting services, using reserves and raising property taxes. Several council members argued that Clinton has fallen behind comparable cities in property tax collections over many years and urged a multi‑year approach to restore long‑term fiscal balance. Others favored deeper operational cuts, further delay of discretionary capital projects and additional analysis of fees and enterprise funds before asking residents for another tax increase.

Council directed staff to run scenarios at multiple levels so the council could compare outcomes. Staff said they would provide budget views showing the effects of 5%, 10% and 15% property tax increases and update the council with a five‑year view and a balance sheet going back several years.

After debate the council voted to adopt the tentative budget and enter truth in taxation with a 15% preliminary property tax increase for public notice and a hearing. Staff said the final budget adoption and truth‑in‑taxation hearing are planned for the June meeting cycle (staff to confirm noticing and exact hearing date). The motion passed; council members asked staff to return with refined scenarios, a five‑year capital plan and enterprise‑fund fee studies (including a transportation utility fee study that staff estimated could take three to five months to complete).

Why this matters: City leaders say personnel costs have steadily outpaced stable revenue sources (property and sales tax) and the city is relying more heavily on reserves and one‑time transfers to finance infrastructure and services. The council's decision to open truth in taxation will allow staff to notify the public and hold a hearing about the possible increase; any final tax rate will be set at a later meeting.

What to watch next: staff modeling of 5/10/15% options, a five‑year capital plan, a transportation utility fee study and the council public hearing for the final budget and any truth‑in‑taxation resolution.