GLENN HEIGHTS – The Glenn Heights City Council ultimately approved its fiscal year 2026-27 budget and property tax increase Tuesday night, but not before a series of procedural complications that saw an initial budget motion fail for lack of a second, the city attorney intervene and council members reject a tax increase ratification measure they later returned to approve.
The Sept. 15 meeting marked the culmination of months of budget discussions involving employee compensation, police vehicles, public works equipment, staffing and other supplemental spending requests.
By the end of the evening, the council had adopted the budget and approved a property tax rate of $0.590821 per $100 of assessed valuation, up from the previous year’s rate of $0.562795.
Getting there proved considerably less straightforward.
Months of spending discussions lead to stalled budget vote
City Manager Clifford Blackwell presented a general fund with approximately $16.5 million in revenue and nearly $15.9 million in expenditures before final supplemental allocations.
The proposed additions included an additional police dispatcher, a municipal court position, employee compensation adjustments, a virtual 911 system, right-of-way mowing services and automated external defibrillators.
Council members also considered using general fund reserves for several one-time purchases, including $250,000 in concrete repairs, three police patrol vehicles, a backhoe, a jetter, an excavator, a Ford F-350 equipped with a crane, two Ford F-150 pickup trucks, an additional police criminal investigations vehicle and a replacement code enforcement vehicle.
Blackwell projected that the purchases would reduce the general fund balance to approximately $8.8 million, leaving roughly 195 days of operating reserves.
The council had previously discussed the supplemental requests and was presented with six options for allocating approximately $21,656 remaining in the operating budget.
The options included reclassifying a financial analyst position, adding funding for third-party planning and inspection services, supporting community engagement or hiring an in-house building inspector.
Some options would have required removing the proposed virtual 911 system to accommodate additional staffing.
Following discussion, council members settled on Option B, which included the financial analyst reclassification and an additional $10,000 for Planning and Development’s third-party services.
The option preserved funding for the virtual 911 system.
Despite the extensive discussion, the council’s first attempt to adopt the budget failed when the motion received no second.
Council members prepared to move on to the next agenda item.
The city attorney intervened, explaining that the council could not proceed with adopting or levying property taxes without first approving a budget.
The council returned to the budget item.
A second motion was made to approve Ordinance O-10-26, adopting the fiscal year 2026-27 budget with Option B and an Oct. 1 effective date for employee step-pay increases.
This time, the motion received a second.
The budget passed 4-1.
A proposed tax ceiling becomes the adopted rate
With the budget approved, the council turned to adopting a property tax rate of $0.590821 per $100 of assessed valuation.
Blackwell explained that the proposed rate consisted of approximately 52.3804 cents for maintenance and operations and 6.7 cents for debt service.
The proposed rate was equivalent to the city’s calculated voter-approval rate.
During the discussion, council members questioned why the full rate previously established as the proposed maximum was being presented for final adoption.
Blackwell confirmed that the council’s earlier action in August had established a ceiling rather than a final tax rate.
One council member questioned how the city had moved from establishing a maximum rate that could potentially be lowered to recommending adoption of the full amount.
Blackwell said the council had not discussed adopting a different rate and explained that the approximately 59-cent rate had been included in previous budget presentations.
The discussion also turned to the timing of the decision, including the deadline for submitting the adopted rate to the tax assessor-collector.
Council members questioned the financial impact on homeowners and whether the city could afford the supplemental spending requests without increasing taxes.
Blackwell attributed the increased costs in part to personnel expenses and the supplemental requests incorporated into the budget.
When asked whether the city could afford the supplements without raising taxes, Blackwell confirmed that it could not under the proposed budget.
He also explained that the adopted rate would be the city’s official tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year, rather than merely a maximum that could later be reduced.
The council ultimately adopted the property tax rate by a 3-2 vote.
Council approves tax rate, then rejects ratification
The next agenda item called for approving Resolution R-32-26, ratifying the property tax increase reflected in the newly adopted budget.
Blackwell described the measure as a separate transparency requirement under state law.
Before the vote, Glenn Heights resident DaMarcus Offord addressed the council in opposition to the increase.
Offord said he had learned about the proposal through Facebook shortly before the meeting and questioned whether residents had been adequately informed about the proposed tax increase.
He cited rising household expenses, housing affordability and the potential impact of additional tax increases on working families, seniors and other homeowners.
Offord urged the city to examine spending priorities, pursue operational efficiencies and encourage economic development before placing additional financial burdens on residents.
Following his remarks, a motion was made and seconded to approve the ratification resolution.
The measure failed 2-3.
The vote produced an unusual sequence of outcomes.
The council had approved the budget 4-1 and adopted the property tax rate 3-2, only to reject the separate resolution ratifying the tax increase reflected in that same budget.
The matter did not end there.
Later in the meeting, the council returned to the issue and ultimately approved the ratification measure, completing the tax-related actions.
Months of deliberation end in procedural confusion
Tuesday’s meeting followed months of budget workshops, presentations and discussions over supplemental spending, employee compensation and the proposed property tax rate.
Despite that preparation, the council’s final adoption process was marked by a series of procedural complications.
An initial budget motion failed for lack of a second. The city attorney intervened when the council attempted to proceed with the tax levy before adopting a budget. Council members then questioned why the proposed tax ceiling had become the recommended final rate, prompting Blackwell to explain that the rate had been included in previous budget presentations.
The council subsequently approved the budget 4-1 and adopted the tax rate 3-2, only to reject the separate tax increase ratification resolution by a 2-3 vote. Members later returned to the item and approved it.
The final outcome was an adopted budget and a property tax rate of $0.590821 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The council reached that outcome only after revisiting agenda items, receiving procedural guidance from the city attorney and reconsidering a ratification measure it had initially rejected.
The meeting concluded a budget process that had occupied the council for months, with the final votes requiring considerably more procedural maneuvering than the initial agenda anticipated.
