Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton council adopts tentative FY2025–26 budget and initiates truth-in-taxation process
Summary
After more than two hours of budget deliberations, Clinton City Council adopted a tentative FY2025–26 budget and directed staff to proceed with truth-in-taxation notices; council discussion focused on a projected sales-tax shortfall, use of reserves and options ranging from service cuts to staged tax increases.
Clinton City Council voted to adopt a tentative fiscal year 2025–26 budget and to proceed with truth-in-taxation procedures after a lengthy debate over the city’s long-term fiscal health.
Council members and staff spent most of the night reviewing revenue trends and potential responses. City finance staff reported recent sales-tax receipts were down about $52,000 for the most recent month of record (roughly an 11.5% decline) and said that, depending on incoming receipts, the council might need to recognize a $125,000–$200,000 revenue reduction in its projections. Staff also noted projected savings from employees’ open-enrollment choices could eliminate a $25,000 shortfall that had been temporarily shown in the draft numbers.
The council’s discussion centered on three approaches: continuing to cut discretionary and capital projects, enacting staged fee and utility increases (including an enterprise-rate approach), or raising the property-tax rate to create a steadier revenue base. Staff and several council members framed Clinton’s situation as a long-term “catch-up” problem created by years of property-tax rates not keeping pace with inflation and rising personnel costs. One councilor summarized the dilemma by noting the city is “playing a catch up game” and urged a structural fix rather than repeated stopgap measures.
Council members debated specific numbers. Staff offered illustrative outcomes: a 5% property-tax increase roughly equated to an estimated $200,000 in additional annual revenue (about $30 per household per year), while a 10% increase would approximately double that figure; staff also provided example scenarios incorporating enterprise fee changes and a transportation-utility fee. Councilors discussed bonding and whether a transportation-utility fee could be used to back debt for road preservation.
After discussion, the council voted to adopt the tentative budget as presented and directed staff to prepare truth-in-taxation notices; for the tentative materials the council asked staff to model a 15% property-tax increase so the public process could proceed with a high-end scenario available for public review. The motion to adopt and to enter the truth-in-taxation process passed; the city manager and legal staff were asked to finalize noticing and timeline details for the required public hearings and the formal final-adoption process.
The council’s action is procedural: the tentative budget and the modeled tax rate move the city into the formal public-notice and hearing phase. No final tax rate or spending package was adopted; the council retains authority to revise the tentative budget and proposed tax amount before final adoption during the required public hearings in June.
What happens next: staff will prepare budget scenarios showing the fiscal effect of 5%, 10% and 15% property-tax increases, provide a five-year capital/maintenance outlook requested by council members, and set up the public hearings required under Utah code to consider final adoption of the budget and any tax-rate changes.
