By Tara Fischer

Staff Writer

(May 14, 2026) The Berlin Town Council voted this week to maintain its current tax rate of 0.8275 per $100 of assessed value for fiscal year 2027, despite push from town leaders and staff to consider a modest increase of a penny and a quarter of a penny.

Following a public hearing Monday night on the proposed real property tax rate for FY27, the Berlin Town Council voted unanimously to reject a fee hike.

The FY27 rate was proposed at 0.84 cents of $100 of assessed value, or an increase of a penny and a quarter of a penny over the current rate of 0.8275 cents per $100 of assessed value.

Had the council voted for the change to 0.84, the municipality would have generated $5.3 million in revenue for the town, compared to $5.25 million projected at the current, now-FY27-approved rate of 0.8275.

For a $500,000 home, the new rate would have cost residents an extra $5 per month, or $60 per year.

While Berlin Mayor Zack Tyndall and Berlin Finance Director Natalie Saleh advocated for the adjusted real property tax rate, the council maintained that it would not support an increase, citing tight financial times and rising costs residents are facing across the board.

Discussion at Monday night’s council meeting largely concerned a $280,000 FY27 budget shortfall. Consensus was ultimately reached to balance the budget by cutting a proposed public works truck at $65,000 and a street paving project at Esham Avenue at $225,000.

However, before the agreed-upon solution, Tyndall encouraged the council to consider a tax increase to help bridge the gap. He added that an incremental increase now could protect the town from a drastic hike in a future year. He referred to May 2019, when the council approved an almost 20% increase for FY20 to counter a debt of several million dollars.

“I don’t want to raise taxes, I don’t want to raise fees,” the mayor said. “But we have to be cognizant…I hear it; I know it’s uncomfortable, but at the end of the day, we’ve taken a proposed tax rate in the past and cut it. We’ve taken another proposed tax increase, and we said we don’t want it. I hear that, but at the end of the day, we can’t be financially stable…while dipping [into reserves] and cutting and doing those things. They don’t jive.”

Saleh noted that around 80% of the town’s revenue comes from property taxes. She added that an increase will be even more challenging to consider next year, when properties are reassessed, and values are likely to rise.

“If we won’t do it this year, what are we going to do next year?” she said. “Next year is a reassessment. A tax increase won’t even be on the table because it will be harder to discuss. And we are dipping into reserves, advancing spending, and not bringing in revenue. What is the source of revenue going forward? That’s my problem here.”

Despite pressure from the mayor and the finance department, the council maintained its intent to keep the tax rate unchanged.

Councilmember Shaneka Nichols said that many residents likely won’t see a salary increase this year, making it challenging to keep up with rising costs.

“Where we are right now, many of us who work for other entities aren’t going to get salary increases,” she said. “So, asking us to put forth more to pay our taxes and whatever else, that’s almost not going to happen…Those of us who have lived here for generations and generations, and are working at these jobs we’ve had for 10, 15, 20, 30 years, we aren’t getting the increases to allow us to afford the taxes you’re asking us to pay.”

While Nichols also acknowledged Tyndall’s point that cutting services is not a sustainable financial habit, she emphasized that companies and entities nationwide are being forced to consider budgeted areas to eliminate or delay.

“Right now we’re in crazy times in this country and we are having to pull our purse strings in every other area and to sit and think that we can’t do that as a municipality, which I know you guys are cutting, but we’re going to have to cut some more because I can’t see where I can make my paycheck stretch even further to afford where I live. And I’ve lived in the same house for 25 years.”

During public comments, resident Cindi Krempel noted that while $60 may be minimal for some, when discussing such an increase, the municipality should acknowledge that many residents rely on every dollar.

“By continuing to say, ‘it’s so little…it’s not a lot…,’ that is relative,” she said. “$60 in a year could pay for a pair of shoes for somebody. We may not be able to understand that. But we should deliver even the most minute amount of tax increase for an owner in an empathetic and more understanding way of how that’s going to affect someone.”

The municipality ultimately voted this week to maintain its current tax rate of 0.8275 per $100 of assessed value for FY27.