Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Transportation Utility Fee topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clinton council discusses Transportation Utility Fee for roads but flags state law and public perception concerns

Clinton City Council · May 26, 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 26 work session Mayor Marie Dougherty proposed funding road maintenance via a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) to free General Fund slurry seal allocations; councilmembers raised compliance questions under recent state law, audit and reporting concerns, and warned residents might see the fee as duplicative. No formal action was taken.

The Clinton City Council discussed a proposal to shift slurry-seal road funding out of the General Fund and into a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) at its May 26 work session.

Mayor Marie Dougherty said she would like the council to consider removing the city's current slurry-seal funding allocation from the General Fund and instead fund road maintenance through a TUF, an approach she said could free General Fund revenues to address other needs such as police wage adjustments and operational deficiencies.

Councilmembers warned there are legal and public-relations constraints to that approach. The council discussed recently adopted state legislation that governs Transportation Utility Fees; members said the law requires municipalities to demonstrate that TUF revenues supplement rather than supplant existing road funding and noted potential audit and compliance-reporting burdens.

Members also emphasized the importance of transparent communication to residents so the fee is not perceived as duplicative of property taxes already dedicated to streets. Councilmember Adam Larsen said he generally favors purpose-specific revenue sources because they provide more accountability and help taxpayers understand what services the fees support.

Councilmembers acknowledged that a TUF alone may not address broader long-term budget challenges and that future property tax increases or other funding discussions may still be necessary. No formal motion or vote occurred during the work session.