Residents and council spar over proposed FY27 budget and property-tax hike

Grantsville City Council spent much of its May 20 meeting debating how to close a roughly $952,000 shortfall in the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and whether to pursue a large property-tax increase.

Kevin Casey, a resident who opened public comment, criticized the timing and transparency of the budget process and the posting of meeting materials. He said the tentative FY27 budget appeared to already include a substantially higher property-tax projection compared with the FY26 adopted budget and urged the council to show both the certified-rate budget and the budget with proposed increases so residents could compare. "Minimum compliance is not transparency, and residents should not be treated like an afterthought in a process they're being asked to fund," Casey said.

The council's financial director, Aspen, recounted adjustments made since the initial tentative budget and walked council through options to close the gap: eliminating a proposed cost-of-living increase (COLA) for staff (estimated savings of about $193,000 if removed), phasing smaller annual increases (for example, a 5% increase now with additional increases in later years), drawing modestly from fund balance (an example transfer of about $386,000 was discussed), or using proceeds from previously sold water rights (the city has reported about $18 million in proceeds) for one-time relief while retaining funds for matching grants or capital projects.

Several public commenters and council members stressed the human impact of any tax move. Britney Cobell, a resident on a fixed income, described the prospect of a large tax increase as unaffordable and urged the council to consider lower-income households in its decision. Other residents repeatedly raised concerns about rising costs, infrastructure needs — especially water and schools — and the fairness of applying a large tax increase to families already struggling with higher living costs.

Council members pressed for a pragmatic approach. Several members said they favored protecting staff morale and retention by preserving at least some pay adjustments, while also minimizing the hit to homeowners. Council discussion included a hybrid option: adopt a smaller increase now (several members suggested an initial 5%) while using a limited portion of the one-time water-credit proceeds and a modest draw from fund balance to smooth the fiscal transition. Staff will present an interim budget at the June 3 meeting that reflects the council's direction and a revised property-tax impact schedule; the council tabled Resolution 2026-37, which formalizes the tax-impact notice, until that meeting.

The next steps are procedural: the city must adopt an interim budget to operate July 1 and can then run a truth-in-taxation process this summer if it pursues an increase. Council members emphasized the need to keep the public informed and promised to return a clearer, revised package for the June 3 public hearing.

An internal staff note: the council and staff identified roughly $3.33 million in federal/local relief funds previously received that have helped the city's financial picture; the treatment of those dollars and the $18 million water-credit proceeds remain central to how much the city asks taxpayers to contribute going forward.

The council directed staff to prepare the interim budget and updated property-tax schedule for the June 3 meeting; a separate truth-in-taxation hearing would follow in August if the council moves forward with an increase.