Clinton council adopts FY2026 budget, sets certified tax rate to raise property-tax revenue 7.06%

The Clinton City Council adopted the fiscal year 2026 final budget and certified the city's property-tax rate on Aug. 5, approving a plan that raises property-tax revenue by 7.06% (certified rate 0.002159).

After extensive public comment and a lengthy council debate, the motion to adopt Resolution 0825 carried 3-2. Councilmember Gary Tyler moved to approve the final budget and tax rate and to add one additional crossing guard; the motion also directed staff to adjust the mayor/council COLA line to the intended 2.5% (fixing a clerical discrepancy). On roll call the motion passed with Councilmembers Tyler, Gray and Searle voting yes and Councilmembers Doherty and Arvey voting no.

What staff said: City manager Trevor and finance director Aaron explained that earlier planning had considered a 10% revenue increase but that county new-growth figures and other adjustments lowered the necessary rate to 7.06%. Staff said new commercial growth contributed about $110,000 in revenue and that the city took a conservative approach to sales-tax forecasting after several months of collections trailed prior-year levels. Aaron told the council staff had trimmed roughly $860,000 from an initial draft and realized health-insurance changes yielded about $400,000 in savings.

Projected homeowner impact: Staff estimated the average household (county's median valuation used in analysis, roughly $480,000) would pay about $38.46 more per year — roughly $3.40 per month — though the actual change varies with each property's assessed valuation and the combined effect of school and district levies.

Public reaction: Residents were sharply divided. Cameron Frick and others questioned the sales-tax assumptions and urged staff to revise revenue projections rather than raise property taxes; Frick called the staff projection “questionable” and warned against imposing additional burdens on households already struggling. Several speakers including Hannah Clebe and Kelly Mitchell emphasized the cumulative cost burden on people on fixed incomes. Others, including James Moffitt and Daniel Martinez, said modest increases were acceptable to maintain public safety, roads and city services.

Public-safety and targeted changes: Police Chief Sean Stoker briefed the council on crossing guards and school-zone criteria, estimating a crossing-guard position would cost about $6,000 annually. The council's adopted motion included adding one crossing guard; staff said that small addition could be absorbed or addressed through a subsequent budget amendment if necessary.

Council debate: Councilmembers offered competing fiscal approaches: one camp favored drawing on fund balance or smaller immediate increases (5%) to avoid a tax hike this year; another argued conservative, regular revenue increases were necessary to avoid ongoing use of savings, stave off deferred capital needs (roads, facilities) and retain public-safety staff. Councilmember Doherty said she would support a 5% approach to limit the burden on residents; Councilmember Tyler argued that the 7.06% increase was necessary to maintain response times, equipment and services.

Next steps: With the certified rate adopted, the resolution finalizes the city's FY2026 budget and tax rate. Staff will implement the minor line-item correction for mayor/council COLA and proceed with any follow-up budget amendments to fund the additional crossing guard or other small items.