Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Local Budgeting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clermont council adopts tentative 4.59 millage after debate over cuts and reserves

City of Clermont City Council · September 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Clermont council adopted a tentative millage rate of 4.59 mills and approved the accompanying tentative budget after debate about using reserves, reducing health-care projections and a proposed city-run EMS transport program.

The City of Clermont City Council voted 4–1 to adopt Resolution 2025027 setting the tentative ad valorem millage rate at 4.59 mills for fiscal year 2025–26 after a public hearing and council debate.

Finance Director Scott Ward told the council the 4.59 mills is below the rollback rate of 4.6185 and was the maximum rate noticed to property owners. Ward noted the council may lower the rate but may not increase it before final adoption; he said the final millage will be adopted later this year. Resident Brian Bain urged the council to approve the proposed rate, saying a healthy budget supports police, fire, parks and basic services.

Council debate centered on whether to drop the rate further now or wait for concrete revenue commitments. One councilmember moved to adopt a reduced millage of 4.4 mills and discussed tying reductions to specific budget changes; others said they were unwilling to cut the rate without firm evidence of replacement revenues such as grants or county reimbursement for EMS transport. The mayor closed public comment before the vote.

After discussion and an initial motion to consider the lower rate, the council approved the advertised 4.59 mills on a 4–1 roll-call motion, with staff confirming the tally. The action was recorded as Resolution 2025027 and will be finalized at the statutory final-adoption hearing later this year.

The council’s conversation made a clear distinction between one-time uses of reserves and ongoing operating costs: several members said they would consider using reserves for one-time projects but voiced concern about relying on reserves to cover recurring expenses.