Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fountain Green council reviews tentative 2027 budget and delays a property-tax push amid new state rules

Fountain Green City Council · May 12, 2026
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

At a May 12, 2026 budget hearing, Fountain Green councilors reviewed a $1,285,540 tentative 2027 budget, discussed delaying any property-tax increase because of new state truth-in-taxation requirements, and agreed to set a follow-up public hearing (planned for June). No formal votes were taken.

Fountain Green held a budget hearing on May 12, 2026, where councilors reviewed the city’s tentative 2027 budget and decided to delay pursuing a property-tax increase because of recent changes to the state’s truth-in-taxation process.

The presentation by the city’s budget presenter noted tentative revenues and expenditures of $1,285,540 — "the highest our budget has ever been," the presenter said — and detailed separate fund totals including a roads fund revenue/expenditure of $189,009.45. The presenter also reviewed current FY2026 figures, noting some line items are over budget while others remain underspent.

Why it matters: city officials and an outside advisor warned that the legislature recently altered truth-in-taxation filing and noticing requirements, creating a heavier administrative burden for communities that want to pursue property-tax increases this year. An agency advisor recommended starting the taxation process as early as January if the council wants to pursue an increase next year; council members agreed it would be difficult to complete the new requirements in time for this year.

Council discussion covered trade-offs between meeting service needs (roads, 9-1-1 funding and wages) and the difficulty of running the new taxation process. One council member said she favored gradual, small increases over time rather than a single large jump to avoid significant bills to residents.

Procedural steps: the council discussed setting the required next public hearing date and filing budget documents in a public meeting; presenters indicated they would set the subsequent public hearing at the June meeting (council members referenced "the eighteenth" during the discussion). No formal adoption of the final budget or votes on a tax increase took place at this session; the presenter said the council will adopt the tentative budget at the next meeting and hold a later public hearing prior to final adoption.

Budget specifics: the presenter walked through revenue and expenditure tables (FY2026 and the tentative 2027 figures) and noted $15,000 in unbudgeted wildland-fire charges already incurred that will be charged to the fire line. The council also reviewed the general fund balancing requirements and confirmed enterprise funds (water/sewer) do not need to balance with the general fund.

Next steps: staff and the advisor recommended that the council begin preparatory work early (January) if it intends to pursue a property-tax increase in a future year; the council agreed to schedule the next public hearing and to bring the tentative budget back for formal action at the next meeting.

The hearing portion of the budget meeting concluded without recorded votes.