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; staff pushes small annual increases to stabilize finances
Summary
Council tentatively adopted the FY2025–26 budget and directed staff to pursue truth‑in‑taxation with a range of options; staff recommended a 5–7.5% property‑tax increase to keep pace with payroll and maintain reserves, but the council tentatively approved a 10% scenario to seed capital and continue analysis.
Clinton — Faced with shrinking sales-tax projections and rising personnel costs, the Clinton City Council on May 27 voted to adopt a tentative FY2025–26 budget and to enter the truth‑in‑taxation process with staff‑recommended scenarios for property-tax increases.
Guest presenter Mariah Hill, finance director for Midvale City, briefed the council on the mechanics of property tax in Utah and urged caution about relying on one‑time revenues for ongoing expenses. "Just because something's allowed doesn't mean you should do it," Hill said, advising cities to maintain reserves rather than spend fund balance for recurring costs.
City staff then presented three property‑tax scenarios: a conservative 7.5% increase that would free roughly $500,000 for capital transfers, a 10% option and a 15% option with larger capacity for capital and fleet needs. Staff advised that a 5% to 7.5% increase would cover routine payroll and cost‑of‑living adjustments, with operations and capital needs addressed through a longer-term plan. "7.5 percent gives us a little more cushion," the city manager said in explaining staff's comfort range.
Council members debated tradeoffs between small, regular increases and rare, larger hikes. Supporters of incremental increases said residents prefer predictable, modest rises, while others argued the city must be prepared for sharper corrections if revenues fall further. Several council members asked staff to produce a multi‑year, visual projection model to show how different tax decisions affect reserves and capital needs over 5–10 years.
A council member moved to adopt the tentative budget with the more-aggressive 10% scenario as a working option; a roll call recorded mixed votes but the motion carried as the tentative adoption. The vote does not finalize rates — staff will receive updated county valuation numbers in June and return to the council before any final adoption. Council members directed staff to continue refining the five‑year capital and replacement plan and to bring forward clearer triggers for future truth‑in‑taxation decisions.
The council also discussed enterprise‑fund fee changes (water, sewer, storm drain and solid‑waste monthly adjustments) that were presented as part of the tentative package; staff indicated residential monthly impacts would be modest on the utility side compared with property‑tax changes.
