Johnson City advances FY27 budget with proposed tax increase and debate over $37M aquatic project

The Johnson City Commission on June 4 advanced the city's fiscal year 2027 budget on first reading, setting the stage for two more votes after additional public comment and staff follow-up. City Manager Ball and Budget Director Dustin Thompson presented a proposed general-fund budget of about $130 million and recommended a 27.85-cent tax increase that would fund core services, infrastructure and debt for a multi‑phase aquatic center.

The proposed tax package allocates about 8.85 cents toward the full buildout of the aquatic facility; other portions would replenish a stabilization fund, add $500,000 for paving and fund new positions and core-service crews, Thompson said. The package includes a targeted property-tax relief program for qualifying elderly, disabled and veteran homeowners; staff estimated roughly 1,000 eligible applicants and an annual cost near $111,000 if approved.

The public hearing drew more than a dozen speakers. Opponents warned the tax increase would burden fixed‑income residents and argued the aquatic project would create long‑term debt and recurring operating deficits. "A permanent tax increase should be reserved for clear public necessities," Danielle Goodriidge, chair of the Washington County Republican Party, told the commission, citing the project's projected operating shortfall. Michael Sterling and other residents urged alternatives such as repairing existing facilities, phased construction or public–private partnerships.

Supporters and several commissioners framed the aquatic center and other investments as long‑term amenities that produce tourism and youth programming benefits. Chris Carajio, a local swim coach, said the new facility would expand lesson capacity and regional competition opportunities and argued the aquatic component is only a portion of the requested increase: "Only 8 cents of that increase is for the aquatic center," he said.

Commission debate focused on infrastructure needs, long‑term affordability and accountability. Commissioners and staff discussed capital‑replacement practices (cash‑funded capital rather than borrowing for single pieces of equipment), the impact of inflation on vehicle and equipment replacement costs, and the role of annexation and organic growth in revenue trends. Several commissioners emphasized that the vote was a first reading and that more information would be provided before final adoption.

Next steps: The commission approved the budget on first reading and will consider second and third readings at forthcoming meetings. Commissioners requested additional detail on municipal subsidies, the triggers and scope of required traffic and infrastructure studies tied to development, and more granular justifications for discretionary expenditures raised during the public hearing.