Fairmont City Council Meeting - April 21, 2026: Levy Rate Adoption
Fairmont City Council Meeting - April 21, 2026
The Fairmont City Council met on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, at approximately 20:26 UTC, with Mayor Bollyard presiding. All council members were present (Rice, Moran, Horton, Wade, Weber, Sowell, McDaniel, Newsom). The primary agenda item was a public hearing and adoption of a resolution setting the city's levy (property tax) rates for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 (FY27). After a brief discussion, the resolution was approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Mayor Bollyard opened the public hearing on the proposed levy rates. No members of the public spoke in favor of the resolution. One councilmember (unidentified in the transcript) then raised questions during the council discussion segment, effectively serving as the only substantive input.
Discussion Items
- Levy Rate Resolution: Mayor Bollyard described the resolution as the final step in months of budget work, setting the levy rates for abnormal taxes and finalizing the FY27 budget.
- Councilmember Questions: One councilmember inquired about two line items: (1) the animal control tax, noting that the city contributes approximately $61,800 (listed as "dog warden and humane society") while the county provides the same amount; the member expressed concern that animal control services are sometimes unresponsive. (2) An $11,000 allocation for arts and humanities, which the member had not recalled discussing. The mayor and/or city staff responded that the animal control funding is partly mandated by state law and based on a contractual relationship with the county (comparing it favorably to Weirton's higher costs), and that the $11,000 for arts and humanities (with $10,000 being a recurring grant) has been in the general fund for several fiscal years.
- The councilmember requested a detailed breakdown of animal control expenditures. Mayor Bollyard agreed to discuss it offline, noting the levy hearing itself focused on property tax rates.
Key Outcomes
- Adoption of Levy Resolution: After the public hearing was closed, a motion to adopt the resolution was made and seconded. Council voted by roll call: all eight members and the mayor voted "yes." The resolution passed unanimously.
- Adjournment: A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and carried by voice vote.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. I'd like to call the Fairmont City Council adjourned, meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, April twenty first, twenty twenty six. The city clerk would do a roll call of members, please. Mayor Bollyard. Councilmember Rice. Councilmember Moran? Here. Councilmember Horton? Yes. Councilmore Wade? Here. Councillor Weber? Here. Councillor Sowell? Here. Councilmember McDaniel? Here. Councilmember Newsom. Here. Thank you. We have one public hearing before us this evening. If the city clerk would read that by title, please. Proposed levy rates beginning July first, twenty twenty-six. The resolution before you is the final step to complete many months of work. It sets the levy rates for the abnormal taxes and it finalizes the budget for fiscal year 27. I want to thank you for your input and your support during this budget process. Thank you. Anyone else present to speak in favor of the resolution? As seeing none, anyone present to speak in opposition to the resolution. Mayor, do we have to speak totally in opposition, or we can be well the next is discussion from council, so we'll move on to discussion from council regarding the resolution. Okay. I've always had a question about the animal control tax and how much we put into animal control from the city because the county does the exact same amount. So if you look at the expenses for animal control, which are over 120,000 for the year. And yet I've had reports from people saying when they call animal control, they really can't do anything. So it's not that I'm an uh opposition to animal control, it's just the amount of money which that we put into it and what the county puts into it. Um that's one of my so if you look at the um estimated current expenditures, uh it's uh 61,800. Um but that says dog warden and humane society, but the the county doesn't have that in there, they have theirs is different. Um another thing is uh I didn't know we voted 11,000 uh for the arts and humanities. Not that I don't think that they uh deserve a hundred uh eleven thousand dollars. I just don't remember talking about that particular number. All that was in our budget workshop, and what we have to provide to the animal control is prescribed by state law. There's four external funding sources that we are required by state law to provide funding for. No, just that the eleven thousand dollars, I believe uh ten thousand dollars of that is a um has been a reoccurring item uh of grant dollars. I don't believe any was it has been expended this year to date uh under the existing fiscal year budget and was included and I believe has been included within the city's general fund budget for I'm gathering several fiscal years now, um, and one um one way or another, especially as it relates to the arts and humanities uh commission. Um on the the dog warden side, we have a con contractual relationship with the county. Um I know at times it has been a hotly debated uh issue. Um I would say it it is there have been times where it's not functioned as well as it should, and then we've been able to have conversations between both parties and um uh and the group contracted uh to handle those uh items, and it's gotten better at times. Um but it is based on a contractual relationship to provide that service. And I I will say, having worked um in the city of Weirton, we maintained our own dog warden, and I will tell you at a much more significant cost uh than what um either both the county or the city of Fairmont are spending towards um those services.
openpublica.com