Farmer
CLAYTON — After voters defeated an income tax levy during the March 19 primary by 140 votes seeking an increase from 1.5 to 2.5 percent on taxable income while providing for the restoration of the 100 percent tax credit paid to other municipalities where residents work, the city of Clayton will be placing the levy back on the Nov. 5 ballot.
According to city officials, the amount of taxes being raised by the current levy are insufficient to meet the city’s operating expenses and other expenses paid from the general fund and to support needed capital improvements.
The additional one percent increase would be split evenly to fund the operations and functions of the police and fire departments. The other 1.5 percent would generate money to place in the city’s general fund.
City council adopted an ordinance under emergency status to amend its income tax sections and passed a resolution to place the question on the Nov.5 ballot. If approved by voters, the increase and 100 percent income tax credit would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.
“This is the topic we had a work session on back on May 16 when council made the decision that we would look at putting on the ballot an income tax increase where a half percent is dedicated soley to police, and a half percent is dedicated soley to fire while restoring the income tax credit at 100 percent,” said City Manager Amanda Zimmerlin.
She explained the ballot language and the language in the city’s code would state, “The income tax credit could not be reduced without the approval of the voters.”
Councilman Ryan Farmer voted against both the emergency ordinance that would amend the city’s income tax sections and the resolution that would place the issue on the ballot.
“I was a man on an island tonight voting against the levy, and probably some of you are wondering, ‘why are you doing that?’ So, I just want to read something to you so you can get my insights,” Farmer said during the council comments at the end of the meeting.
Farmer said he had “sat on the fence” on the levy issue for weeks and got a lot of input from residents. Farmer represents Ward 1 in the city, the residents of which mostly voted against the levy increase in March.
Farmer read a statement saying that voting whether or not to put the levy on the ballot was one of the more difficult decisions he has had to make so far since taking office.
“This might seem like a no-brainer, but like other issues taking the time to think through the presentation and measure made me take pause in its meaning and statement,” Farmer said. “At first glance, who is going to vote against police and fire, especially when the voting language could come across as additional to what they get already?
“But it won’t be additional to what they get already, it will be additional to the overall tax percentage,” he continued. “I bring up that percentage on what the expected revenue is to be, leaves me to think that we are already providing that level to police and fire in that amount of funding. There may be a case where one may not require as much, so what is going to happen to that additional money that has to go to them under this obligation?”
Farmer said his understanding of these figures came after the city held a workshop about the levy. He felt council was provided figures and options and was asked to craft ballot language for the proposed levy in one work session to act upon at a future meeting as an emergency.
He felt an additional month of lead time probably would have allowed council to have a better understanding of the meaning and implications of the proposed options. He felt that, “staff and council working together would have resulted in the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.”
“In the wake of two ‘no’ votes, the levy approach seems to be how to make the request different without explicit explanation of what we will lose without the levy,” Farmer said. “But, I will tell you this – police and fire will get what they need, period. The question really is, anything that is not police and fire, will they get what they need?”
Farmer stated that in his opinion, council needs to set up a ‘Plan B’ showing the city’s plans if the levy is not passed.
“If we have, I haven’t seen it,” Farmer stated. “Having such a plan would reduce the uncertainty of our city’s future on ground lost without a tax increase and a path ahead for gain if it passes.”
He further said that he is in favor of city staff to consider this approach as he believes it would give the city the greatest chance to gain the trust of its residents to approve a city tax increase.
“Without this Plan B, Ward 1 does not really have an incentive to change its position,” Farmer said. “Last November Ward 1 voted 63 percent no, and in March it voted 57.8 percent no and I will respect those two election results. That’s why I voted not to put it on the ballot at this time, but if we do develop this plan I am open to changing on behalf of the ward.”
Reach Ron Nunnari at (937) 684-9124 or email [email protected].
