Reading property owners will pay 6% more in real estate taxes in the coming year.
After weeks of budget workshops, City Council voted 4-3 on Monday to cut the proposed 9% property tax increase to 6% and approved a 2026 spending plan with a tax rate of 19.217 mills.
This means the owner of a property assessed at $100,000 will pay $1,922 per year, about $109 more than the current amount.
The property tax increase is the city’s first in four years.
Council members Jaime Baez Jr., Rafael Nunez and Melissa Ventura voted against the reduced rate hike, saying they favored the higher number proposed by the administration.
“We can’t continue to cut operations and pretend that the remaining tax increase will stabilize our budget,” Baez said, noting a smaller increase this year means a larger increase in the future.
The smaller increase, he said, threatens funding for essential services such as police, fire and public works.
“This is not long-term planning, folks,” Baez said, “and I will not support decisions that look good on paper while placing our city in financial risk, as residents, everyone deserves honesty and stability, not temporary relief that leads to a future crisis.”
The administration had framed the higher increase as necessary to keep up with wages and benefits while the city continues to face a structural deficit.
But the majority on council opted to roll back the increase to lessen the impact on residents.
During a committee of the whole also held Monday, council members worked through a final round of amendments. Most targeted modest cuts rather than sweeping reductions.
Several members aimed to eliminate the proposed budget analyst position, which carried a salary of about $67,000.
Ventura said she did not see a clear justification for the job, noting the position was presented without a full scope of duties.
Baez and council President Donna Reed disagreed, saying the role was intended to strengthen the city’s financial reporting and departmental oversight.
“A big problem when it comes to budgets and understanding budgets is we don’t have the staff onboard to handle that,” Baez said, adding that the position would help the city avoid deeper problems in the long run.
The majority ultimately backed removing the job from the budget.
A similar debate took place over council’s and the mayor’s community engagement funds, roughly $30,000 used for meetings and neighborhood events.
Councilman O. Christopher Miller said cutting the line item would show taxpayers that council was willing to trim its own spending. He supported wiping it from the budget entirely and covering outreach with sponsorships instead.
Baez argued that engagement is a way for council to stay connected with the public. Eliminating the funds, he said, would hurt council’s ability to reach residents where they are.
Still, a majority supported the cut.
Council also removed funding for a planned outdoor skating rink and reduced the city Environmental Advisory Council’s allocation after committee members said they did not need the full request.
Other reductions were off the table, including contracted services for the Human Relations Commission, which staff said were needed to meet the city’s grant obligations.
While the dollar amounts were relatively small in the context of the city’s roughly $234 million spending plan, budget officials warned that the reductions, combined with the lower tax hike, will require the administration to reassess staffing and service levels.
Finance Director Jamar Kelly said further analysis would follow and emphasized the importance of maintaining the city in a functional state.
Managing Director Jack Gombach reiterated that shifting budget lines without clear direction would be disruptive for staff, noting that broad cuts could cripple the staff.
After voting on the amendments, council approved the 2026 budget and tax rate.
Several council members said they expect to face bigger financial decisions next year.
Ventura, who opposed the lower tax increase said she struggled with the trade-offs, noting that residents are already straining under rising costs.
Baez, who also opposed the lower increase, warned that delaying difficult choices could lead to steeper hikes later. The city must confront its structural deficit directly and avoid short-term fixes, he said.
Council members who favored the smaller increase said it balanced fiscal responsibility with residents’ concerns, even if it will not solve the city’s long-term budget pressures.
Administrators said they will begin reviewing staffing and service levels to determine how to absorb the lower revenue projection.
Mayor Eddie Moran released the following statement Tuesday regarding council’s action: “While this marks the conclusion of a long process, the amendments approved last night are concerning and represent a step backward for our city.
“We have been clear and transparent about Reading’s financial realities. The 9% tax increase we originally proposed was the lowest responsible path forward and designed to protect public safety, maintain city services, and avoid larger disruptions in the future.
“While the amendments may provide temporary relief, they reduce some of our administrative and community engagement capacity, which are essential to serving residents effectively. This includes cuts to community promotion budgets across the Mayor’s Office, City Council, and other departments, as well as the removal of funding for programs like the seasonal ice rink.
“Our city faces rising personnel costs, union-negotiated wage increases, and healthcare expenses. The amendments approved last night do not address these realities. Despite this outcome, my administration remains fully committed to responsible leadership, fiscal accountability, and delivering high-quality services to every neighborhood. We will continue advocating for our community, ensuring that Reading remains a city where residents are heard, supported, and valued.”