Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clinton council seeks to close $1.6 million budget gap, favors fees over a property-tax hike
Summary
At a April 28 work session, the Clinton City Council reviewed a projected $1.6 million shortfall for FY2026–27 and signaled a preference for fee-based fixes — notably a transportation utility fee — limited, one-time use of fund balance, and protecting police services from cuts.
Clinton City Council members met in a work session April 28 to address an estimated $1.6 million gap in the proposed FY2026–27 budget and discussed a mix of fee-based options, limited use of the city’s fund balance and avoiding cuts to public safety.
Mayor Marie Dougherty provided a revenue analysis that, according to material cited at the meeting, shows Clinton “among the lowest in overall revenue per capita among similarly sized cities.” The mayor said property-tax and utility-fee levels are roughly mid-range within Davis County, while sales tax receipts are comparatively low, constraining the city’s ability to close the shortfall through organic sales-tax growth.
Councilmembers reviewed a set of strategies including raising property taxes, increasing or implementing fees, reducing services or programs, using fund balance for one-time needs, and pursuing longer-term economic development to boost sales tax. Council discussion repeatedly emphasized political sensitivity around property-tax increases and a desire to avoid burdening residents with higher property-tax bills.
City staff recommended considering a transportation utility fee as a targeted, service-based mechanism to address road maintenance funding. Staff said the fee would require a formal rate study, could be implemented within a few months, and would allow rates to be tied to system impacts (for example, differentiating residential from commercial users). Councilmembers expressed support for further study of that option.
Public-safety costs were identified as a principal budget pressure. At the meeting councilmembers noted that police salaries have risen by about 80% over seven years and that fire and EMS costs are increasing statewide; members signaled a clear preference not to cut police services when weighing reductions.
Council also examined expenditure reductions and concluded that minor cuts would not close the deficit; larger reductions would likely require service-level cuts or program eliminations that could affect community services such as recreation. Staff reported approximately $6 million in unrestricted fund balance and the council agreed that the fund balance should not fund ongoing operations but could be used to offset one-time expenses or capital needs.
On road funding, the council heard that current levels fall short by more than $1 million annually and that deferred maintenance would raise long-term costs. Council discussion reiterated support for maintaining or increasing road funding and noted the transportation utility fee as a preferred, transparent funding path to close that gap.
Council members and staff also noted that cities have limited authority to raise local sales taxes and that any changes to sales-tax mechanisms would require state legislative action.
The council left the work session with a direction to pursue additional analysis, including the transportation-fee rate study and clearer resident communication about options; no formal votes or policy changes were adopted at the April 28 work session. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
