.jpg)
COLUMBUS — Columbus City Council unanimously approved a 5.48% tax rate increase Monday, Sept. 28, significantly below the 34% increase originally proposed by the city.
The council adopted a tax rate of $0.301172 per $100 of property valuation along with a surplus budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year. The city’s 2025-26 property tax rate is $0.284554.
Under the adopted rate, taxes on the median Columbus residence homestead would increase from $665.20 last year to $709.23 this year, an increase of $44.03, or 6.62%. The median taxable value of a residence homestead increased slightly from $233,768 to $235,490.
The city adopted its surplus budget for the 20262027 fiscal year on Sept. 24, ahead of the tax rate as required by state law. Although the property tax revenue will be less than the revenues from the tax rate the council originally proposed, the total revenues for the general fund will be $51,136 more than the budgeted expenditures, according to City Secretary Bana Schneider.
“As has been the city’s custom, budget amendments are made only when expenditures are to be increased, not when revenues are decreased,” Schneider said. “While we follow the budget, it is merely a guideline for how city funds will be dispersed. Life has taught all of us that things happen, and adjustments must be made.”
The city originally proposed the de minimis rate of $0.379629 per $100 valuation. Mayor Lori An Gobert said the city proposed the higher rate to allow the council to continue budget discussions while meeting state-mandated deadlines.
“We’ve been able to edit the budget down, so we don’t need to do that. But at the time, we had to publish that rate because we wanted to be able to discuss it for the additional amount of time,” Gobert said. “…We knew we could always come down (on the rate), but we couldn’t go up from there. We wanted every option so that we could do our due diligence and be fiscally responsible.”
The adopted rate is above the city’s voter-approval rate of $0.289370 per $100 valuation but below the de minimis rate.
Columbus residents protested the initially proposed de minimis rate during public comments at a hearing Thursday, Sept. 24, and again at the Sept. 28 meeting. Some residents had prepared to circulate a petition if the council adopted a higher rate. Others raised concerns about transparency surrounding city spending and a recent ordinance amendment affecting public information requests.
“Our families are already paying more in gas and luxuries and everything else. They aren’t getting 10 times more income to pay inflation. People in this room are not getting 33% raises,” resident Bobbie Gustus said Sept. 24. “…How do they afford a 33% increase? And they shouldn’t be asked to without account on why. ‘We need more’ is not a budget.”
Gobert said the city has been transparent throughout the process and encouraged residents with questions to contact city officials directly and attend council meetings during the two-month budget planning period. The city’s proposed and adopted budgets, taxrate worksheets and other financial information are also available on its website.
STREETS REMAIN A CONCERN
Before settling on the adopted rate, council members also discussed a rate of $0.335000 per $100 valuation, which would have represented an increase of about 17%.
City officials said the primary difference between the two options was whether the budget could comfortably fund street improvements near the end of the 2026-27 fiscal year while maintaining a fund balance of approximately $1 million — roughly three months of operating expenses — for emergencies. Schneider said the additional tax revenue from the originally proposed de minimis tax rate was intended to replenish their fund balance.
The proposed street work would include repaving and seal coating a large portion of city streets as part of the city’s ongoing policy of rotating through sections of streets with the goal of repaving them every 10 years.
“If the street project is not done, we don’t do it … and everything else remains constant, then we would be at a million dollars,” Schneider said.
Schneider said funding for street improvements could still become available through higher-than-estimated sales tax revenue and careful spending. However, the scope of the project could be reduced to match available funds at the end of the fiscal year, or the work could be postponed entirely.
Schneider clarified that the potential street improvements are the only portion of the budget affected by adopting the lower tax rate. The budget maintains funding for employee recruitment and retention; an issue council members focused heavily on when they initially proposed the de minimis rate.
Council members also noted that the tax rate could potentially decrease during the 2027-28 fiscal year when a bond payment drops off the city’s budget. Officials emphasized, however, that future tax rates will also depend on property valuations and state law.
Both Gobert and Schneider said they appreciated the greater-than-usual public participation in the budget process and encouraged residents to continue attending council meetings.
“Thanks for coming out, for being patient with us through this process. I know it was very confusing, but we had to do what we needed to do to get us to this endpoint,” Gobert told the audience. “We would love to see you on a regular basis anytime you want to come. We really do value your input.”
