Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardner council votes to exceed revenue-neutral rate, adopts FY2025 budget with flat mill levy
Summary
After a lengthy debate over taxpayer burden and bonding capacity, the Gardner City Council adopted a resolution to exceed the revenue‑neutral rate and approved the FY2025 budget that keeps the city’s mill rate at 18.319, with staff projecting a roughly 33% general‑fund reserve at year‑end.
The Gardner City Council on Tuesday adopted Resolution No. 2,150 declaring the city will exceed the revenue‑neutral property‑tax rate and approved the fiscal 2025 budget that maintains a proposed mill rate of 18.319.
City finance staff explained that the Johnson County Clerk calculated Gardner’s revenue‑neutral rate at 16.825 mills and that the proposed 18.319 mill rate captures valuation increases that produce an approximate 5% increase in property‑tax revenue. ‘‘The city’s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget is based on a proposed mill rate of 18.319, which exceeds the revenue neutral rate,’’ staff said during the presentation.
Why it matters: Councilmembers split on whether to accept the higher effective tax take caused by rising property valuations or to lower the mill levy to provide immediate relief to homeowners. Opponents argued the council should reduce the mill levy by a quarter or half‑mill to lessen burdens on fixed‑income residents and call any large bonding decisions to voters; supporters said keeping the flat mill is necessary to capture growth revenue and preserve bonding capacity for infrastructure projects.
During debate, Councilmember Steve Schuh said he opposed the proposal and warned that ‘‘we can afford to lower this mill levy’’ and that the city should seek voter approval for bonding capacity rather than holding revenue in reserve. Other councilmembers warned of inflationary pressures and cited the city’s need to preserve capacity for roads, public safety and other projects. Staff estimated the average household impact at roughly $42–$49 per year under the proposed rate.
The council moved and seconded a resolution to exceed the revenue neutral rate (motion moved by Councilmember Deaton, seconded by Councilmember McNair); the resolution passed. The council then considered and adopted the FY2025 budget by roll call. In presenting the budget, staff noted the plan is ‘‘structurally sound’’ with a projected general fund balance of about 33% of expenditures at the end of 2025, and included planned utility rate increases: a 3.7% water rate increase and a 4.2% wastewater rate increase to support capital projects including the Hillsdale Treatment Plant expansion and the Kill Creek Water Resource Recovery Facility.
What’s next: With the resolution and budget adopted, staff and council members will continue work on capital‑planning priorities, with bonding and project timing to be discussed in future meetings.
