[0:00] items as always. The little green lights

[0:04] in front of you, those are recording, so

[0:07] they should pick up everyone's voice

[0:09] fairly well. And we kind of scoop this

[0:12] up a little bit uh this time so that you

[0:15] pick up the voices better for the

[0:17] recording and for people that are

[0:18] listening online. And I'm using this uh

[0:22] handheld just because this helps a

[0:24] little bit as well. I think we should

[0:26] all talk at once

[0:29] >> cuz then they be happy.

[0:31] >> That's what Amry likes, right? Is when

[0:32] we all talk at the same time.

[0:33] >> I probably should have asked that

[0:34] before.

[0:35] >> It's great.

[0:35] because then it's very

[0:37] confusing.

[0:39] >> All your snacks on.

[0:40] >> So hopefully everyone can hear well. And

[0:44] with that, we'll just uh kick this off.

[0:48] Um the first thing we want to put on

[0:50] here is so the new state requirements

[0:54] and legislation on property tax uh

[0:57] require cities in their first meeting of

[1:00] May to notice if there's an intent um to

[1:06] do truth in taxation, do a property tax

[1:09] increase. Obviously, the council has not

[1:11] voted on anything yet or even seen um

[1:14] the the full budget, but uh as staff,

[1:18] the proposed budget that we're going to

[1:19] be recommending does include a property

[1:22] tax increase. And then the numbers that

[1:25] we're looking at, as you can see up

[1:27] there on the notice, it would be a

[1:29] 31.24%

[1:31] revenue increase. That is the exact to

[1:34] the dollar amount increase that was

[1:36] approved last year and then not not in

[1:40] the end approved by the state because of

[1:42] what we're all too familiar with. We we

[1:44] missed a couple of things on new

[1:45] legislation

[1:47] um specifically.

[1:49] We held uh other business on the night

[1:51] of the the the hearing.

[1:54] So, we're we're going to we're being

[1:55] very careful this year to make sure that

[1:57] uh when we if we do the truth and

[1:59] taxation, if the council does approve

[2:00] that, the hearing on August 6 would

[2:03] include nothing that night but the truth

[2:05] and taxation hearing. No other city

[2:07] business at all. Um but anyway, again,

[2:10] this is part of the state requirement to put this notice out. Again, that

[2:14] 31.244% 24 4% is a revenue dollar amount

[2:18] uh increase uh the exact dollar amount

[2:21] that we would have increased last year

[2:22] had that gone through with the state. Um

[2:26] that's that's that slide. I guess move

[2:28] on to the next slide. Okay. This is also

[2:30] part of that statement that's required

[2:33] by the state. Um I just point your

[2:35] attention to the the bottom right number

[2:38] there again that um $1,795,000.

[2:43] That's that's that 31

[2:46] um whatever it was 31.24%

[2:50] would equal 1.79 million in total

[2:55] revenue increase. And again that's the

[2:57] same number as last year. So

[3:01] for some of the reasons some of the

[3:02] other information up there is just we'll

[3:04] get into some of this later. Um but it's the same stuff that we increased

[3:09] the budget for last year. It was for the fieldhouse for the new staffing

[3:14] positions, the sergeant that was funded

[3:16] last year, the assistant attorney. Um,

[3:19] and then just general inflationary

[3:21] increases. Uh, that's all what's what's

[3:24] driving that that increase. So,

[3:26] >> Jason, you're going to send these slides

[3:27] to us if you haven't already, right?

[3:30] >> Yes. Everyone's got the paper sites in

[3:32] front of them right now.

[3:33] >> I have digital, too.

[3:34] >> And digital went out last night.

[3:36] So,

[3:37] >> Okay. Sorry.

[3:39] Yeah.

[3:42] » Um,

[3:45] >> so next slides. So um, now this will

[3:48] officially get into the work session.

[3:51] Um, we always start with our mission

[3:53] statement and and Marin has

[3:56] >> Yeah, it's my turn.

[3:58] >> Do you want the

[3:59] >> Oh, yeah.

[4:03] Oh, and by the way, John's horse had a

[4:06] baby this morning, so he's waiting for

[4:08] it to nurse and then he'll be here. If

[4:10] you didn't already know,

[4:14] » that's pretty cool.

[4:15] >> That is

[4:18] a month overdue.

[4:24] » Hi, welcome to budget number two. Um, I

[4:28] just wanted to share a quick thought.

[4:30] There's a saying, "The best time to

[4:32] plant a tree was 20 years ago. The

[4:34] second best time is now." This idea

[4:37] shows up everywhere, especially when it

[4:40] comes to finances and budgeting. Most of

[4:42] us can think of something we wish we

[4:44] would have started earlier. Saving more,

[4:47] investing sooner, tracking spending,

[4:50] paying something off. But this isn't

[4:51] about regret. It's about perspective.

[4:54] Because we can't go back 20 years, but

[4:56] we do have today. That's really what

[4:59] makes this budget meeting.

[5:01] That's really what this budget meeting

[5:03] is about. Not perfection, not fixing

[5:05] everything overnight, just making the

[5:08] next right decision with what we have

[5:10] now. Our mission statement is enhance

[5:13] the present and future quality of

[5:15] community life in Caseville through the

[5:17] delivery of effective, efficient, and

[5:20] equitable services.

[5:22] Every dollar we plan today, every

[5:24] adjustment we make, every small step,

[5:27] it's planting something. And those small

[5:30] choices are what turn into stability,

[5:33] flexibility, and options later. We have

[5:36] prepared a budget that isn't filled with

[5:38] fluff. It's filled with necessary

[5:40] projects, goals, and plans to enhance

[5:44] citizens lives while also creating a

[5:46] strategic plan to also enhance and

[5:49] create something better for the future.

[5:52] Every decision we make in this budget,

[5:54] how we allocate resources, where we

[5:57] invest, what we prioritize is part of

[6:00] delivering on that promise. It's how we

[6:02] balance the needs of today while still

[6:05] building something sustainable for

[6:06] tomorrow.

[6:09] Every budget reflects priorities, but it

[6:11] also reflects responsibilities.

[6:13] The decision we make today doesn't just

[6:15] affect this year's residents. They

[6:17] define the Caseville we can to the next

[6:19] generation. So wherever we're starting

[6:22] from, whether we feel behind, on track,

[6:25] or somewhere in between, the opportunity

[6:28] is the same. We plant the tree today.

[6:33] >> Very nice job. That

[6:35] >> was very inspiring.

[6:38] Good job.

[6:39] >> Oh, so I gave you a little seeds to give

[6:41] you a reminder to plant today. Plant in

[6:45] hands.

[6:48] >> Thanks, Maria. That's really cool. A

[6:49] great perspective. I love starting off

[6:51] these kinds of things with that kind of

[6:53] grounding of the big picture and the

[6:56] things that we're enjoying right now in

[6:58] Kesville. definitely are things that are

[7:00] because of people many many years ago

[7:02] that set that started that foundation

[7:04] and and invested into the community. And

[7:07] I love the mission statement here. I

[7:09] know we talk about it every time, but it

[7:11] is it's just so important um to think

[7:14] about uh what we're doing and the

[7:17] quality of life that we're charged with

[7:20] preserving for both the current and the

[7:22] future residents. And I I always think

[7:24] about, you know, sometimes you hear

[7:26] people say, well, we should run the city

[7:28] more like a business. And while it's

[7:30] certainly true that we are very we have

[7:32] to be very mindful of the the sacred

[7:34] public dollars that we're being as

[7:36] effective and efficient as we can be

[7:38] with those dollars, we also have to look

[7:40] at obviously other things that a

[7:42] business would look at. And it's it's

[7:44] beyond just the bottle. It's also

[7:46] ensuring that we're providing for public

[7:48] safety, that we're ensuring a quality of

[7:50] life. If if we were a business, the

[7:52] first thing we do is say, "Man, these

[7:54] parks are costing us a ton of money. Why

[7:55] are we is not not profitable at all.

[7:57] Sell these and and turn them into

[7:59] developments." And and I think public

[8:01] safety and and and other services would

[8:03] look much different if we were solely

[8:05] focused on the bottom line. Um but uh in

[8:08] addition to that, we we need to

[8:09] obviously think about

[8:12] protecting those those services and the

[8:15] quality of life that that residents

[8:16] expect. And so that's not cheap of

[8:19] course and that's why it gets kind of

[8:20] hard sometimes. But um with that we'll

[8:22] move into the schedule. Um so right now

[8:28] this is the only other work session that

[8:30] we are planning. depending on how today

[8:32] goes or other questions we could

[8:33] schedule an additional work session but

[8:36] our intent was um today would be the the

[8:39] second and final work session and then

[8:41] next uh Thursday next week we will have

[8:45] the tenative budget um proposed to the

[8:48] council and council would vote on on

[8:50] that. Um this is all driven by state uh

[8:53] requirements deadlines uh that we have

[8:55] to adopt the tenative budget um this

[8:58] month and so the next step after that

[9:02] would be to assuming there aren't any

[9:04] additional public hearing or sorry

[9:06] additional work sessions we would have

[9:08] the public hearing on June 4th and then

[9:12] uh vote on whether to proceed with the

[9:14] truth and taxation um at the the second

[9:18] meeting of June on June 18th and then

[9:20] the truth if that happens the truth and

[9:22] taxation would happen on August 6th. So

[9:24] that's the over overall schedule. Any

[9:27] questions so far? Okay, next slide. Um

[9:31] we've talked about the budget objectives

[9:33] all the time but these are the three key

[9:35] things. Um

[9:38] I think pretty familiar with those all

[9:41] three things are important. Operations,

[9:42] employees and capital make the city work

[9:45] and need to be sustainable and invested

[9:48] in. Uh so today's schedule we are going

[9:52] to talk about primarily enterprise funds

[9:54] today. Power, water, sewer, things like

[9:56] that. Um we will kind of circle back to

[10:00] general fund. We obviously last work

[10:02] sessions solely focused on general fund.

[10:05] We wanted to swing back to that and kind

[10:07] of hit on some follow-up things to make

[10:08] sure that we're still on track with what

[10:10] the council was hoping. Um but again,

[10:12] primarily today is about enterprise. So

[10:15] with that um op center or sorry no bluff

[10:19] um council member Oats always like to

[10:21] have a bluff statement meaning we mean

[10:23] bottom line up front. So what is what is

[10:26] the damage and we'll we'll get into the why behind all this in the coming uh

[10:32] couple hours here but right up front

[10:35] this is what the whole thing looks like.

[10:37] So again, property taxes, general funds,

[10:39] stuff, that stuff we we're not spending

[10:41] a lot of time on today, but the the

[10:43] proposed 31.24%

[10:47] uh revenue increase in property tax

[10:48] would result in about a $14.80 a month

[10:52] uh increase to the average resident.

[10:54] meaning the owner of a house valued at $690,000,

[10:59] which is the average home value in

[11:00] Cesville, they would see a $14.80

[11:03] increase. And again, I I know we say it

[11:05] over and over, but this is simply

[11:09] uh the the number that would have been

[11:11] approved last year had it gone through

[11:13] with the state, the number that you all

[11:14] voted for, and then it didn't happen. Um

[11:16] we're not spending proposing to spend a

[11:19] cent more in property tax increase uh

[11:22] this year than than what was proposed

[11:23] and approved last year.

[11:25] >> Okay. I do have a question. So last

[11:26] year, although the budget didn't change,

[11:28] I thought we still increase water,

[11:30] electric, sanitation, and sewer.

[11:33] Correct me.

[11:34] >> But all of those rates did get adjusted

[11:36] last year. Okay. Correct. Good point.

[11:38] >> So really these aren't included in these

[11:40] numbers this year.

[11:42] >> Okay. So I'm only right now. Okay. Good

[11:44] question. Right now I'm solely talking

[11:46] about property tax.

[11:47] >> Um

[11:48] >> Okay. So the only line we're looking at

[11:50] is number one.

[11:51] >> Right now I'm only talking about Yeah.

[11:53] The number one line property tax and and

[11:54] so yeah the 1480 that's so simply

[11:59] capturing what would have gone through

[12:01] last year and not nothing else. That's

[12:02] the 1480 the property tax. The rest of

[12:05] the numbers um are all enterprise funds

[12:08] and that's what we're here to talk about

[12:09] today. So we are proposing increasing um

[12:13] some of the fees to power, electric,

[12:15] water

[12:16] >> even though we already did it last year.

[12:17] >> We did it last year. Yes. But it's and

[12:19] we'll get into why we're proposing to

[12:21] continue to increase those this year and

[12:23] probably in the future years. Just

[12:26] that's that's today's discussion.

[12:29] >> Okay. So, as I have asked in the past,

[12:32] when you give this uh scale of the

[12:34] 690,000

[12:36] and tell you what it is, I've asked

[12:38] several times, could you please put more

[12:41] on there like a 80 800,000 to 9? Cuz

[12:44] there is not one house around me that is

[12:48] valued at that. And I'd like to be able

[12:50] to tell the people around me what their

[12:53] tax increase is going to be like. I

[12:55] don't know of one house west of I-15

[12:58] that values at 600 and

[13:03] good 690 where is put 600 something

[13:07] th000 I don't know of one that's down

[13:09] there so I can't legitimately tell

[13:11] people who have houses that are 800,000

[13:14] 900,000 million that their valuation

[13:17] what their taxes are going to be and

[13:18] what their increase is going to be so

[13:20] they actually know what it's going to be

[13:22] and I want to know what it's going to be

[13:23] if they come up Right.

[13:25] >> Yeah, we can do that. Sorry, Mike. The

[13:26] 690 came directly from the state as

[13:29] Quesil's average.

[13:31] >> I just don't see it around. I mean,

[13:32] there's not one house with 515 that is

[13:35] averaged at 690,000. To me, it's not a

[13:37] real number. So, that's why I'd like

[13:40] >> No, we can we can create that for sure.

[13:41] >> Thank you.

[13:43] >> And

[13:44] >> do you want to do one a little bit lower

[13:46] too for

[13:46] >> Yes.

[13:47] >> the house?

[13:47] >> I I thought I don't think there's a

[13:49] house in case value 690,000. There's the

[13:53] average. a lot from the state.

[13:56] >> But but it's a great point, Mike. If

[13:58] you're if you're on the east side, that

[13:59] might seem like a high number to some

[14:01] people. If you're on the west side, that

[14:02] seems obviously very low. Uh we I

[14:06] believe we did last year when we were

[14:07] putting out public information. We were

[14:09] breaking it down on okay, if it's this,

[14:11] you know, 800 is this, it's 700, and

[14:13] then there's a simple formula that you

[14:15] can also apply. But yeah, for today's

[14:17] purpose, we were just trying to um but

[14:20] yeah, well noted. Um so again today's

[14:24] primarily about enterprise funds and uh

[14:27] we are proposing increasing some of

[14:30] those fees to to be able to continue to

[14:32] invest and sustain those funds. So they stay in the the black. Um and so

[14:38] you can see the dollar increases to each

[14:40] of those. Water $163

[14:43] electric uh 31. This is again uh per

[14:47] month increases. the sanitation, you

[14:51] know, the Robinson waste and the sewer,

[14:53] those are pass through costs primarily

[14:54] from uh Central Davis and um from uh

[14:59] from Robinson.

[15:02] Anyway, the total impact of all things

[15:04] uh based to the average resident, again,

[15:07] a resident who owns the average house

[15:09] value of 690 and and consumes the

[15:11] average amount of of power, water, etc.

[15:15] would be $251

[15:17] uh a month. So, we wanted to just kind

[15:19] of put that into bottom line up front,

[15:21] what does this impact look like to the

[15:22] average person.

[15:24] Um, so with that, we'll kind of jump

[15:28] into some of the wise behind this. Right

[15:30] off the bat, we wanted to touch back on

[15:33] something we've we've talked about in

[15:35] prior years, the operation center. Um,

[15:38] last year was discussed ultimately not

[15:41] put on the budget uh due to so many

[15:45] things. We had the gymnasium and and

[15:47] other things. Um I think everyone's

[15:51] heard this before, but uh the operation

[15:54] center was built in the early '9s, so

[15:56] it's it's um obviously it's outgrown. It

[16:00] needs to be reinvested in. Uh primarily,

[16:04] I think it's a lot to do with square

[16:05] footage. I mean, we've grown as a city

[16:07] since the early '90s. Um and and as

[16:10] people that have been down there know,

[16:12] um there's there's not space for people

[16:15] to work. We've got the old um Davis

[16:18] School District out building that's uh I

[16:21] don't know how old that thing is now,

[16:23] but um it's it's very old. We're so

[16:27] we're just looking for for the space as

[16:29] we've grown as a city to to to expand.

[16:32] Uh, as everyone probably remembers, um,

[16:34] in years past when we've looked at the

[16:36] operations center, we looked at a much

[16:38] bigger comprehensive project and and

[16:40] that even as a year or two ago, it was

[16:43] about $39 million to do that version.

[16:47] Um, we found a way to scale that back

[16:49] obviously substantially to to about a

[16:52] $6.4 million project. Um, which would bump out the front of the building

[16:57] and add that square footage that we

[16:59] need. Um, it also includes, you know,

[17:03] covered storage for the yard. Um, which

[17:06] is important. We've got all this

[17:07] expensive equipment just sitting out in

[17:08] the elements. Um, we have a state

[17:12] requirement to upgrade our fuel island

[17:16] um by technically the deadline is July 1

[17:21] of this year, but they told us they

[17:22] would extend that to January 1st of next

[17:24] year. We we learned that last year, so

[17:27] we didn't have a lot of time to react to

[17:29] it. Um, but that $500,000 that that's

[17:33] required. We have no choice but to to

[17:36] comply with the state. They put us on

[17:37] notice. We've got to upgrade our fuel to bring it to current state standards.

[17:42] >> I have a question on that, Jason.

[17:43] >> Yes. So, when I was down at the league,

[17:45] I was talking to a couple cities about

[17:47] fuel stations and several of the city

[17:49] cities said that what they're able to do

[17:51] is use a fuel station that they have one

[17:54] in the city and they weren't tiny cities

[17:57] like you know in southern Utah and then

[18:00] they were able to open it up for state

[18:01] vehicles and opening it up for state

[18:04] vehicles allowed them to drop the rate

[18:06] for fuel down because the state is on a

[18:08] different contract than the cities are

[18:10] and then they were able to supplement

[18:12] some of the cost because the fuel was

[18:13] lower. I don't know if this is accurate,

[18:15] but this is what I was told cuz I said,

[18:17] "Yeah, we've got to move move our fuel

[18:18] station, it's going to be expensive."

[18:20] And they said, "Well, if you have one

[18:22] and you allow state vehicles to use it,

[18:25] and if it's on a route where they can

[18:26] stop by highway patrol or who I don't

[18:29] know who the state agencies are that use

[18:31] it, um, but it does reduce cost. Have we

[18:34] looked at that? And is that even viable?

[18:36] I don't know. I haven't asked anybody."

[18:38] >> A doesn't.

[18:40] >> Okay. Okay. And is it

[18:41] >> fill up throughout the state? It's kind

[18:43] of convenient.

[18:44] >> Okay. So, I'm just wondering if that's

[18:45] an option for Cisville to consider

[18:48] because especially where the fire

[18:49] station don't we have a fuel station

[18:51] there?

[18:51] >> Yes.

[18:52] >> Yeah. And it's on the main street. I

[18:53] realize it puts more traffic onto Main

[18:55] Street, but just as you know, by way of

[18:58] trying to figure out how can we benefit

[19:00] by some of these state contracts and the

[19:02] rates.

[19:03] >> Great. I love it. Yeah. Um I don't know

[19:06] that we've had any conversations with

[19:08] the state about that, but No, I'm

[19:10] certainly we could. It's uh it would

[19:12] just be the the fuel purchase price

[19:16] that would be where we'd get the help.

[19:17] >> But I mean it is

[19:18] >> interesting to look at though,

[19:20] >> but it is some help and I'm just

[19:21] >> sure. Yeah.

[19:22] >> Right.

[19:22] >> If if we can help ourselves at all, I

[19:24] think and it's viable. Let's consider

[19:27] it.

[19:28] >> Yeah, we can inquire.

[19:29] >> And maybe you guys already have and

[19:31] you're just like

[19:32] >> No, we have we haven't.

[19:33] >> Okay. Okay. That's that's what I've been

[19:35] told.

[19:35] >> Plus, we're taking classes. You know,

[19:37] St. George, a lot of us go down there

[19:39] for whatever conferences or whatever, we

[19:41] can hit points down there and get

[19:43] cheaper fuel.

[19:44] >> Yeah. And if they can benefit and we can

[19:47] benefit and it helps all of us,

[19:49] let's do it if it's possible.

[19:52] >> Absolutely. Yeah. I think that's great.

[19:53] Mayor, it's I love when we see

[19:55] governments working together. You know,

[19:57] we always talk about the fieldhouse.

[19:58] What a great, you know, opportunity that

[19:59] was to have you leverage um funds from

[20:02] two different entities and and if we can

[20:04] do something similar with state kind of

[20:07] help them and we they help us in terms

[20:09] of uh maybe paying a little when they feel

[20:13] >> even Davis Tech I think counts as being

[20:15] a state school. I I don't know for sure,

[20:18] but

[20:19] >> yeah,

[20:19] >> but um just state,

[20:21] >> right?

[20:22] >> Okay.

[20:22] >> I I I thought I'd heard that state um

[20:25] vehicles could fuel up at Davis Tech,

[20:28] but I might be mistaken on that.

[20:29] >> Okay.

[20:30] >> Um

[20:30] >> thanks.

[20:31] >> So, if that's the case, they've already

[20:32] got one, you know, in the area

[20:34] >> cuz they've got theirs. We'll definitely

[20:36] look into this.

[20:37] >> So, I think they fill up with RVs over

[20:40] here. They used to. All highway patrol

[20:42] would fill up with RVs and stuff.

[20:45] >> Buses. the buses are always there.

[20:49] >> Um so just looking at the cost of this

[20:52] operation center if if we were to build

[20:54] at 6.4 million to bond for that um we

[20:57] would spread that cost out over 20 years

[21:00] um and charge the different uh

[21:02] departments and funds that use the

[21:04] operations center. So, um, Maren and

[21:07] Cole and and the department heads have

[21:09] kind of gone through and try to figure

[21:11] out how much each department head or

[21:14] department uses, um, of the the total

[21:17] area of the operation center and kind of

[21:19] spread those costs out accordingly. So,

[21:22] what you're seeing there in the the box

[21:23] on the left is just the annual bond

[21:25] payments. The total bond payment for

[21:27] that bond over 20 years would be

[21:29] 463,000, but spread out again into those

[21:32] different departments. Um,

[21:35] so and and I would just stress that this

[21:38] is almost all enterprise fund, not

[21:40] general fund. So we're not looking at

[21:42] truth and taxation really here. We're

[21:43] looking at um funding this with with the

[21:46] enterprise funds and and rate increases

[21:48] to to support that, which is the

[21:50] appropriate place to to cost that to.

[21:55] Next slide. This is the Waterworth

[21:56] model. Um, some of you remember from

[21:58] last year, we we now contract with a

[22:01] company called Waterworth that works

[22:02] with a lot of cities in Utah and across

[22:04] the country. But what this does is helps

[22:07] us project out future costs for our

[22:09] infrastructure. In this case, our

[22:12] electric costs. Um, and

[22:16] so it's called waterwork cuz they

[22:17] initially started just doing water

[22:19] infrastructure, but they do electric and

[22:21] roads and other things. So the electric

[22:23] model here is as you look at that um so

[22:27] the the blues and the green are our

[22:30] costs. Um the light blue is is you know

[22:33] cost of staff and operating costs. The

[22:35] dark blue is the projected cost of our

[22:38] power purchases. So everyone knows we we

[22:41] buy our power. Um and then the green is

[22:44] our capital cost for future maintenance

[22:46] and and infrastructure improvements. And

[22:49] so what obviously you want to do is make

[22:51] sure that the orange bars um guess those

[22:55] are orange uh partly purple but those bars are our projected revenue and

[23:02] of course we want to make sure that our

[23:03] revenue is is covering the cost of

[23:06] providing the service. The enterprise

[23:08] funds are are viewed very differently

[23:10] than the general fund. enterprise are

[23:12] designed to operate much like a business

[23:14] where you make sure that your your costs

[23:16] are covered by your revenues. And so,

[23:20] um, what this model does is it helps us

[23:21] project out what our revenue needs are

[23:24] going to be and our and our future costs

[23:27] to make sure that we're we have a

[23:29] sustainable long-term plan. Um and so

[23:33] the the black line that you can see

[23:35] running through um that is our cash

[23:38] position and so kind of our fund balance

[23:40] if you will. We want to make sure that stays positive of course. So the there's two graphs there. The bottom

[23:47] one just shows if we we did nothing and

[23:49] you can see that over the next several

[23:51] years we'd see our our cash position go

[23:53] to zero and beyond. And so, um, what

[23:58] we're proposing here is a, uh, 5%

[24:01] increase to our rates, our power rates

[24:03] to ensure that we can cover those future

[24:06] costs and continue to be sustainable.

[24:09] Um,

[24:11] I think maybe we'll just jump to the

[24:13] next slide because it breaks down more

[24:14] of what this is about. Um

[24:19] so you can see that a 5% um increase to

[24:24] power rates would generate about

[24:25] $1,49,000.

[24:28] Um but we would still be required to use

[24:31] about $738,000

[24:33] of fund balance in addition to that um

[24:36] new revenue. So this isn't really this

[24:39] is really in a way just a um survival

[24:43] mode. It's not we're not trying to pad,

[24:44] you know, the the fund balance. Again,

[24:46] we're using 730,000

[24:49] $38,000 of fund balance as part of this.

[24:52] Uh this is just a way to sustainably

[24:55] keep that that revenue where it needs to

[24:58] be to ensure that we can we can continue

[25:00] to invest in our infrastructure. And so

[25:02] what's what's driving the the cost

[25:04] increases here? Um

[25:07] I don't know, Brian, do you want to kind

[25:08] of go down that list and explain some of

[25:10] those projects?

[25:11] >> Yeah.

[25:13] So, the the first one, the direct berry, outdated wire. Um,

[25:19] we've got we've got uh several places

[25:24] throughout the city where the wire is

[25:25] direct, meaning it's not in conduit. The

[25:28] wire is rated for 50 years. It's been in

[25:30] the ground for over 60. Um, and we're

[25:33] just starting to experience a lot of

[25:35] burnups, a lot of issues. It's so we're

[25:38] just uh starting that process. We're just about to wrap up the second

[25:42] section of the city that's uh 2400 uh

[25:46] system. So, the whole city will then be

[25:48] a more efficient uh 7200 volt system.

[25:52] >> Um we should be wrapping that up here in

[25:55] the next uh month or two to to finish

[25:58] that. Uh we have a boring contractor

[26:01] that we're that we're using right now

[26:04] for all of it. But the the 400 that 400k

[26:06] there is just going to be the beginning

[26:09] stages of taking all of the direct berry

[26:11] wire that we have in our city. We're

[26:13] starting with all the trouble areas

[26:16] first. Um just north of the botanical

[26:19] garden. There's uh we had uh five or six

[26:23] burnups in the same neighborhood last

[26:25] year. Um, so we're we're hoping to hit

[26:28] that neighborhood first so that this

[26:30] year maybe they can catch a break and

[26:32] not have uh several more. Uh, the

[26:35] reconductoring old old overhead wire.

[26:38] Uh, that's part of this the capital plan

[26:39] that we have uh that was part of the uh

[26:42] survey that was done back in 2019.

[26:45] Um, just uh upsizing some of our main fe

[26:49] main feeder lines between substations.

[26:51] Now that we have uh the ability to have

[26:53] more capacity in the shik sub and the

[26:55] burden substation, we now we now uh

[26:59] definitely need to entertain uh those

[27:02] main connector feeders between

[27:03] substations and upsize that that

[27:06] conductor.

[27:07] Um a battery control house, the west

[27:10] substation.

[27:11] Uh that one's not necessarily super

[27:14] pressing or or an emergency. The

[27:16] substation's operating just fine, but it

[27:18] does not have a control house. It's the

[27:20] only one we that we have the only

[27:22] substation that we have that does not

[27:24] have a control house or a battery uh uh system to make it so that

[27:30] we can operate and and uh use the

[27:33] controls within the substation if there

[27:35] if we lose substation power. Um

[27:39] the uh the op center we we kind of

[27:41] already talked about that earlier in

[27:43] this uh budget meeting. And then uh the

[27:46] increase in power purchasing from U amps

[27:49] that's just a 100k uh buffer that we

[27:51] kind of implemented not not knowing what

[27:54] uh what the future's going to bring with

[27:56] EDAM and the rate stabilization and

[27:59] equalization

[28:01] um that we have to do every single day

[28:03] now uh with the uh the new process of

[28:06] power resource distribut distributions

[28:09] with Kaiso and EDM.

[28:11] Um, that right there, just to give you a

[28:14] heads up, is

[28:17] it's just a guess. Um, I talked to

[28:21] probably 15 different uh cities uh over

[28:24] the course of the last

[28:26] I don't know, couple months. Uh, there

[28:28] was one city that made the comment to

[28:30] me, I have no clue what to do, so I just

[28:32] put a million dollars in there. Better

[28:34] be over than under. So, and I I don't

[28:38] feel that that was the answer. Um, but

[28:41] after talking to several different uh

[28:43] directors and several different power

[28:44] departments and running a bunch of

[28:47] numbers and and looking into how uh EDAM

[28:51] has worked for other organizations that

[28:53] have now been in EDM for several years,

[28:56] I felt like that 100K was a very

[28:58] reasonable and and good figure to to put

[29:01] in there. So,

[29:03] >> Brian, I have a question for you. Yeah.

[29:06] >> If now's an okay time of those projects,

[29:09] which projects are currently in process

[29:11] and which projects are planned?

[29:13] >> Yeah. So, the direct berry outdated wire

[29:16] for the boring that's that's in process.

[29:18] Okay.

[29:19] >> We we've already allocated uh money last

[29:22] year to to start this. We've already

[29:25] started uh or almost completed two

[29:27] sections of town of the town. We're

[29:29] about to start the third section uh here

[29:31] in about two weeks. And uh we've already

[29:34] awarded a contractor uh to to to do

[29:37] that. Um the reconductor old overhead

[29:41] wire, we we're always doing that. We're

[29:43] constantly doing that. Um just when we

[29:46] do when we're doing rebuilds where we

[29:48] can, we'll reconductor.

[29:50] >> Um that's

[29:52] the what we've done up till now. um is mainly just the regular rebuild

[29:58] maintenance type stuff that we put in

[30:00] part of the 630

[30:03] um code that is part of our every every

[30:06] year budget. This is a this is kind of

[30:08] new a little bit more additional.

[30:11] Uh the battery control house in the west

[30:13] substation is is completely new. That

[30:15] would be a um an item that is is

[30:20] completely brand new. Um the concrete

[30:23] fence around Burton Lane substation, I

[30:24] didn't touch on that one. Um that would

[30:27] be completely new as well, but as you

[30:29] guys are aware, the vinyl fence uh down

[30:32] there, the last time the last time that

[30:35] uh Cole's crew had that completely

[30:37] repaired, the very next day, there were

[30:40] several sections that were knocked out

[30:41] of it. Um if you go down there right

[30:43] now, you can see it's just a complete

[30:45] >> mess.

[30:46] >> Just a complete mess. And it happens

[30:48] within a week or two after putting

[30:51] thousands, you know, 7 $8,000 into

[30:53] rebuilding it.

[30:54] >> And it's not wind related.

[30:55] >> Yes. And it's not wind related. It's

[30:57] this is all all uh kids and uh

[31:01] destruction. So um we just feel that uh

[31:04] a really nice um concrete fence down

[31:08] there that that would last, you know,

[31:11] years and years would be would be

[31:13] appropriate. We do understand that we

[31:14] would be trading probably, you know,

[31:16] ripped down fence with with graffiti

[31:19] that would have to be addressed um and

[31:21] cleaned or or repainted, but uh the cost

[31:24] difference would in the long run would

[31:26] we feel like would be advantageous. So,

[31:30] >> okay, I have a question. Yeah,

[31:34] >> I don't know when the council gets asked

[31:35] questions, but uh Okay, so a 5% tax

[31:40] increase now would mean we have done a

[31:41] 20% tax increase in power in the last

[31:44] year and a half. We did it originally uh

[31:46] we were supposed to do a a five and a

[31:49] five, but we did a five and a 10 and now

[31:50] a five. And I'm trying to figure out

[31:53] with the 15% tax increase or increase

[31:57] power, not tax, power increases we've

[31:58] got to get the 22, how have we spent 2

[32:02] million and more additional dollars in

[32:04] this year? That's what I'm having a hard

[32:06] time with because we already have money

[32:07] budgeted for maintenance. We already

[32:09] have money for projects, but somehow

[32:12] we've managed to increase it almost $2

[32:14] million when we've already done 15%

[32:17] increase. That's my question.

[32:20] Is there are we just are

[32:24] >> are we doing more than we need to do

[32:27] because it's just we're just

[32:30] >> and I guess piggy back on that

[32:32] >> beat people up.

[32:33] >> How many of these projects could be

[32:34] postponed? I realize that fence at

[32:36] Burton looks like garbage. I live right

[32:39] there. It does look like like garbage if

[32:41] we can't electrify it.

[32:44] I'm just kidding. We wouldn't really do

[32:45] that. That that was bad. Just kidding.

[32:48] Um, but I mean it's going to just keep

[32:50] happening. So, how much could be delayed

[32:54] of those projects to it gets

[32:58] because you said they're new. The 250

[33:00] reconductor is new. Battery controls new

[33:03] concrete fence would be new. OPC center,

[33:05] you we didn't let you get through those

[33:07] two

[33:08] >> or maybe you did.

[33:09] >> I guess my question more so is is what

[33:12] happened to the 15% increase? Where did

[33:14] it all go? And why is it necessary to do

[33:16] another five? and how come the budgets

[33:18] increased another $2 million? That's my

[33:21] question.

[33:21] >> So, part of that budget gap includes

[33:24] fund balance and for fiscal year 26 we

[33:26] budgeted um 1.3 million of fund balance

[33:29] use. So,

[33:31] >> electric only

[33:32] >> for electric.

[33:34] So, we're use we're trying to budget

[33:36] half of the fund balance for fiscal 27

[33:39] that we used for fiscal 26. So, that's

[33:42] part of needing another increase.

[33:43] Shouldn't we be getting caught up before

[33:46] we start doing a whole bunch of

[33:48] additional things instead of using fund

[33:50] balance? And and I know you say eam you put $100,000 in to increase the

[33:54] power and you asked, but don't we

[33:55] already have $2 million in there that we

[33:57] keep in reserve to help for these types

[34:00] of things um that we already have

[34:03] >> in our fund there. Uh so yeah, I just uh

[34:08] I can't speak for power, but I I would

[34:12] think that we're in a similar situation

[34:14] with things like water and storm water.

[34:17] This isn't a commentary on on Larry or

[34:21] Gary who were here previous to me and

[34:25] Brian. Uh, but I've asked myself the

[34:29] same question like, hey, I look at old

[34:30] budgets and I look at what they are now

[34:33] with what we do. And

[34:35] there's an increase in spending. What is that? Like obviously costs are

[34:40] more than they used to be. That's part

[34:41] of it. But I know for water

[34:45] specifically,

[34:47] we've taken on a ton of projects that

[34:49] were like, hey, these would be awesome

[34:51] projects to do someday, but there's just

[34:53] no way to make it happen. tank

[34:55] automation, system upgrades,

[34:58] state requirements that just, hey, we're

[35:01] supposed to have our tank set up this

[35:02] way, but we can't afford it, so we're

[35:05] just going to do it. We're going to

[35:07] continue doing what we've been doing.

[35:09] >> Okay,

[35:09] >> we've come in and we have we have taken

[35:12] on a ton of this work. And again, it's

[35:14] not a commentary on Gary or Larry, but

[35:17] it's we've got the state that's

[35:19] breathing down our neck with compliance

[35:21] things. Uh we've got things that like,

[35:24] hey, instead of in the middle of the

[35:26] winter, we need to uh climb down in a a

[35:30] 15 foot vault to turn the water tanks on

[35:32] and off. We're going to automate these

[35:34] things. These are millions of dollars

[35:36] that, you know, we're it'd be nice, but

[35:40] we're not going to pursue them right

[35:41] now. We're not going to pursue them

[35:42] right now. And now we're at the point

[35:43] where things aren't working anymore.

[35:46] State requirements are changing and just

[35:49] like efficiencies. Why? Why would we

[35:52] continue doing this? This doesn't make

[35:55] sense. I But that that's what I point to

[35:59] in in terms of my department

[36:00] >> and I understand that and that's your

[36:01] job to come and tell us all these things

[36:03] that you want and think it make your

[36:05] operation better. But on the other hand,

[36:06] I'm representing the 33,000 people who

[36:10] live in this city who have to pay these

[36:12] bills who actually already got a 15%

[36:15] increase in their water last year.

[36:17] >> Yeah.

[36:18] >> So, so that's where I'm at. That's where

[36:20] I'm sitting here for sure.

[36:21] >> And and and I I think we're on the same

[36:23] page. I don't think we're diametrically

[36:25] opposed like but as a staff member and a

[36:28] resident, even if I was just a staff

[36:30] member, we're here to serve the

[36:32] residents of Cisville. And part of that

[36:33] is we want you to have power. We want

[36:36] you to have all these other services and

[36:39] we want them to be as efficient and

[36:41] equitable as possible. That mission

[36:42] statement drives what we do every day.

[36:45] >> Sure. Um, so as we're looking at these

[36:48] things, uh, you know, Brian substations

[36:52] transformers previously at like 130% of

[36:55] capacity, you know, we'll just push it

[36:58] off, push it off. Brian comes in like,

[37:00] I'm not comfortable doing that anymore.

[37:02] And and there's going to be costs that

[37:04] come with that. Unfortunately,

[37:06] >> $2 million transformers in the last

[37:08] couple of years. Y as we took on

[37:10] specifically last year rate increases,

[37:14] >> we didn't do the full rate increase of,

[37:16] hey, what would it take to get to where

[37:17] we need to be? We didn't do that last

[37:20] year. Like, what are we comfortable with

[37:23] placing the financial burden on

[37:25] residents?

[37:26] Let's start somewhere.

[37:28] >> And I and I guess where I'm coming from

[37:29] as a council member, you need to tell me

[37:32] where that 15% went. I need to know how

[37:35] much it generated and where did it go.

[37:37] Where did your 15% go? Where did it

[37:40] generate? Where did it go? Why are we

[37:42] now fight? You know, that's what I need

[37:44] to know. So that I have to go back and

[37:46] tell the people I need to increase your

[37:48] power. Cuz personally, myself, I do

[37:51] equal pay at Kazville City. My equal pay

[37:54] last year went up $450.

[37:56] I would imagine there's only two people

[37:58] in my house. That's probably pretty

[38:00] minimal to a lot of people's equal pay

[38:02] went up last year. That's who I'm

[38:05] sitting here today representing. And all

[38:08] I'm seeing so far is this this this this

[38:11] increase increase. I just don't want to

[38:14] be known as the council that broke

[38:18] Caseville City. Yeah. I think I think

[38:20] our council and and even staff to some

[38:23] degree is in a difficult position where

[38:26] I think a lot of these decisions have

[38:28] previously been like like yeah, we're not going to do it this year. And now that's falling on the current

[38:35] council to

[38:37] >> but it's always it's always been that

[38:39] way Josh. It's always been project

[38:43] always been that way projects

[38:45] >> and and now it it's trying to crawl out

[38:48] of the hole and trying to fix that is is

[38:51] how I view that.

[38:52] >> You know we have a difference of opinion

[38:53] on it's crawling out of the hole. Okay.

[38:56] I believe we try to provide much more

[38:58] than we used to try to provide. I think

[39:00] that we ran lean and so we did things

[39:02] that were lean. I think there are things

[39:04] that don't have to be done that can be

[39:06] put off. I mean, we don't need to have

[39:09] the best of everything. We just need to

[39:12] provide a service that's adequate to the

[39:14] people that they're comfortable paying

[39:15] for. That's what I

[39:17] >> Well, and and to add to that, um Josh

[39:19] and and Brian, it would be really nice

[39:21] to be able to say, okay, we raised your

[39:23] power rates 15% this last year. This is

[39:26] what it did for the city. these are the

[39:29] projects that it funded so that we can

[39:31] have a visual to say okay yeah we did

[39:33] raise your rates and this is where the

[39:35] money went towards and I realize it's

[39:37] kind of maybe hard to break it down per

[39:39] penny but just okay we did this this

[39:42] many feet of new line in an area that

[39:44] has complained in Kingclarian because

[39:46] their power goes out this is what it did

[39:48] for um public works it it provided

[39:51] safety it provided we need to be able to

[39:53] better tell the story instead of just

[39:55] saying you know what we we raised it at

[39:57] 15% it wasn't enough. So now we're going

[39:59] to try to raise another 15 because

[40:01] people are saying, "Well, it I I see no

[40:03] difference in my household because I

[40:06] don't know what you do." So if we could

[40:08] get better at telling that story, I

[40:10] think it would help it would it would

[40:12] really help answer these questions when

[40:14] we're going to be asked because we are.

[40:15] Last year we did we did raises. We

[40:18] didn't end up with our tax raise.

[40:21] And not one person came to me and said,

[40:23] "Gee, thanks so much for raising our

[40:25] rates because now my water flows better

[40:27] or I have greater greater capacity."

[40:31] >> I think it's one of the city's greatest

[40:33] like difficulties or or failures is

[40:37] >> it was just

[40:38] >> how well we we tell the story and share

[40:41] the information and educate.

[40:43] >> Yes. and we've talked about how we can

[40:45] maybe do that better, but I really think

[40:47] that will go really far in terms of

[40:49] telling the story because we might

[40:51] understand these conversations and

[40:53] literally there's a lot of it I still

[40:55] don't understand.

[40:56] >> When you talk about um a concrete fence,

[40:58] yes, I can visualize a concrete fence

[41:00] and I see all the holes. When you talk

[41:02] about a reconductor of an old waterhead

[41:04] line wire,

[41:06] what does that do for me? I don't even

[41:08] know where it's at. So, and I know it's

[41:10] more work on staff, but if we are trying

[41:12] to tell this story and make our case, we

[41:15] have to be more visual about it. Josh

[41:17] bringing in pipes was very influential.

[41:20] This is what it looks like under the

[41:21] ground. And then people thought, oh,

[41:23] well, shoot, that's a problem. So, to

[41:26] Mike's point, yes, we need to be better

[41:28] at doing that. And in order for us to

[41:30] get around you and support you, you got

[41:32] to provide it for us. And my point too

[41:33] is we have already budgeted in 26 25.

[41:39] There are line items that already have a

[41:41] lot of money in them that we have to be

[41:43] able to use. I mean it gets to the point

[41:45] where you get so much money in something

[41:46] you just don't even have enough people

[41:48] to spend it all to do that many

[41:50] projects. So then you say, well, we need

[41:52] to do more projects, we need more

[41:53] people. It just keeps climbing. And

[41:56] that's where I'm saying no, let's get

[41:59] caught up because I think and I don't

[42:01] want to go way off because you want to

[42:02] do this presentation cuz I'm actually

[42:04] going to ask for another budget session

[42:06] with just the council and you and Marin,

[42:08] you know, uh, and and Parker so that we

[42:12] can actually talk to the council and

[42:14] after you do because far pretty much

[42:16] we've come to your presentations. We

[42:17] really haven't had this is probably the

[42:19] most I've talked in the last two

[42:22] sessions. Um, but it it it's got to be

[42:24] something that we've got to sit down as

[42:26] a council and talk and hash this all

[42:28] out. And I think it's going to mean that

[42:30] we're going to have to schedule another

[42:31] work session to just hash it out. Okay.

[42:35] So, I don't want to keep going on and

[42:37] on, but um

[42:40] yeah, just just go ahead. Let's just

[42:43] move on. But

[42:44] >> so, uh, just building off of the

[42:47] comments that were just barely made, uh,

[42:49] everybody should have received a, uh, an

[42:52] annual report from Stacy, all council

[42:56] members and staff, uh, that a lot of the

[42:59] questions that you just barely and

[43:00] statements you just barely made, if you

[43:02] will refer to that annual report that

[43:04] each of you received, you will see a lot

[43:06] of the things in there that that we did

[43:08] do with the money from last year um, in

[43:11] our achievements. um you know the uh the

[43:14] reconductoring job of uh Burton Lane on

[43:17] a main feeder line. Um I didn't put

[43:20] prices on that but uh if you want prices

[43:22] I can but that that right there was uh

[43:25] probably you know 30 $40,000 just in

[43:30] that uh 250 ft of reconductoring

[43:34] um that that stretch. Um when we pulled

[43:38] that wire out, it would it had melted.

[43:41] The three phases had melted together.

[43:44] Um and if that had gone another year, it

[43:47] would have burned up for sure 100%.

[43:50] And uh people would have uh been out of

[43:52] power for probably

[43:54] 18 hours plus for us to be able to get

[43:58] that repair made. So um Brian, just a

[44:02] quick question. Is a lot of this because

[44:04] of adding more to our infrastructure or

[44:07] is this just maintenance type stuff?

[44:10] >> It's both. Yeah. Um I mean the west

[44:13] side, you look at how much it's built.

[44:15] Um it's it's done. And when our main

[44:18] feeder lines were were initially put in,

[44:20] they we've tripled quadrupled capacity

[44:24] on those lines. And so a lot of those

[44:27] lines have to be unsized. You can tell

[44:29] us all these projects you do and they're

[44:31] not going to mean a lot to us cuz we

[44:32] don't understand what you do out there

[44:34] that much. But what I'm most interested

[44:36] in is when you did this project, it was

[44:39] obviously funded in the budget. So you

[44:41] use that. So the next year that your

[44:43] budgeted the same amount in that thing

[44:44] and so you have other projects. What I

[44:47] guess I'm more interested in council is

[44:50] we did this in addition to so it cost us

[44:52] this much more and it came out of this

[44:54] line item of this account and we were

[44:57] under in this account. That's what you

[44:59] know that's what makes more sense to me.

[45:01] You can tell me all the things you went

[45:03] out and all the transfer you changed and

[45:05] how you placed wire and all that but the

[45:08] bottom line is when you did that project

[45:10] replacing that wire was it from a line

[45:12] item on a budget? Did you spend your

[45:15] budget? that will be again there again

[45:17] next year and you'll have another

[45:18] project that will take its place. That's

[45:21] where I'm coming from.

[45:23] >> Yeah. Well, we do have a lot of

[45:24] additional things that have been

[45:26] neglected. Like Josh said, a lot of

[45:29] things that have been neglected for

[45:30] years and years and years that now are being in addition to. Um, also just

[45:36] one more thing I wanted to just kind of

[45:38] point out and and you can leave it for

[45:40] what it is, but if you remember last

[45:42] year when we discussed the increase,

[45:45] um, I don't feel that staff was trying

[45:47] to hide this year's increase because we

[45:50] projected out the next 5 years or

[45:53] something like that. And this increase

[45:55] was included in last year's projection.

[45:59] that when you when you agreed upon last

[46:02] year's increase, it was very apparent.

[46:04] It was on the screen what what a

[46:06] proposal to maintain increased costs for operations and for everything else.

[46:14] >> That may mean a lot to you and how you

[46:16] see that, but all I see is you put this

[46:18] computer thing up here that says if you

[46:20] don't increase your fees this much every

[46:22] year, your money is going to go like

[46:23] this. So to me, that's just not an

[46:25] automatic increase. Okay. That might

[46:27] mean it to you, but it doesn't mean it

[46:29] to me.

[46:31] >> It's

[46:34] Yeah, I I hear I think I hear what

[46:36] you're saying. Um,

[46:39] if you look at that, I I know it's hard

[46:42] to We could sit here for literally the

[46:44] whole day and try to educate on every

[46:46] project and why it's needed and things

[46:48] like that. Um, but that's that's the

[46:51] intent of this model is going to show

[46:54] it's no surprise, unfortunately. It's a

[46:56] sad reality, but everything is going up.

[46:58] When we look at the cost of of power uh

[47:01] purchases, the cost of just operations,

[47:04] um inflation has been a real killer uh

[47:07] especially the last several years. Um

[47:11] those those capital projects, I mean,

[47:13] the green, you're not seeing any major spikes there. Uh you're seeing a

[47:17] relatively I think to your point, Mike,

[47:19] it's not like um

[47:22] there's but there there is an increase

[47:24] there. Um, I think it's primarily driven

[47:27] by in just eyeballing it, you can see

[47:30] those the dark blue. That's where you're

[47:32] kind of seeing I think most of that

[47:35] growth, the the cost of

[47:37] future power purchases.

[47:41] But

[47:43] what what we're trying to do as well is

[47:45] like Ren kind of said at the beginning

[47:47] just plant that tree now because

[47:51] we don't want to come back to the

[47:52] council and you know a couple years and

[47:54] say oh man now we need like a 30%

[47:56] increase because we didn't do you know

[47:58] last year the last year before that

[48:00] trying to just stay on top of that curve

[48:02] and and knowing that things are going

[48:04] up. But I know what you're saying is

[48:05] like help me understand where that

[48:07] money's going. Dan, because you know

[48:08] they I know Tammy's always said we

[48:11] should do truth and taxation every year

[48:12] or whatever to look at for inflation,

[48:15] but I've been here six years and we've

[48:17] done three tax increases. That's pretty

[48:18] close to every year.

[48:22] >> I I

[48:24] sorry you guys did not anticipate my

[48:28] mayor having a baby this morning and we

[48:30] had to pull it out and

[48:33] uh help it nurse and everything like

[48:35] that. So, apologize for being late, but

[48:37] we have a baby. Um,

[48:40] >> this is when you applause. Yeah.

[48:45] » So, I'm, you know, I'm not caught up.

[48:48] So, tell me if my comment here got out

[48:50] of place. One of the thoughts that I've

[48:52] been having and I think I expressed this

[48:53] to uh Jason Marin the other day was

[48:58] uh you know if the if the fire station

[49:02] passes on the ballot

[49:05] um I think that gives us one of the best

[49:08] opportunities to do the largest increase

[49:13] that would occur because it would uh you

[49:18] know it's like it would it would really

[49:20] be ripped ripping the band-aid off. Like

[49:22] we were talking about, we were

[49:24] discussing that you would do just the

[49:26] 30% for the building and then the next

[49:28] year like 30% for the employees. And I

[49:31] was like, no, you do the whole thing.

[49:35] You let people see because then you have

[49:38] a reason to say like, oh yeah, your your

[49:42] taxes went up but because of fire

[49:45] station. Otherwise, you're the next year

[49:47] you're like, oh, is the fire station

[49:49] again? John, I could never do that. And

[49:51] the reason I could never vote to do that

[49:53] is because people don't get their wages

[49:55] increased 30 and 40% at once. They they

[49:59] may get it done 15 one year, 15 another

[50:02] year, whatever. Five or if they're a

[50:04] state employee, they get three.

[50:06] >> Yeah. No, I I don't think anybody gets

[50:08] 70%.

[50:09] >> So, I would never look at hitting them

[50:12] with what you're talking about all in

[50:17] one year. I just couldn't do that.

[50:19] >> But the ratios are different. It's not

[50:21] like we were talking about this the

[50:23] other day, Mike. It's not like like if

[50:25] you got uh if you got a 3% increase in

[50:29] your $70,000 a year sal $70,000 a year

[50:33] salary. That's uh uh $210

[50:39] more a month that you're getting. Um, is

[50:43] that I mean 200,000

[50:45] what you're saying% doesn't mean what he

[50:47] says, but the 3% that I'm talking about

[50:49] is the part that pays for their gas,

[50:52] their food, their kids going to school,

[50:54] their clothing, their sho

[50:57] and as I I appreciate the conversation.

[50:59] I really

[51:00] >> Okay. This So anyway, the whole reason I

[51:02] was bringing this up, the whole reason I

[51:03] was bringing this up is that I'm trying

[51:05] to figure out like you're talking about

[51:07] this year,

[51:08] >> this year's 30 and then it would be 30

[51:11] with the with and then another 70 with

[51:14] the fire station at the is that I'm

[51:17] trying to figure that out. Or if the 30

[51:19] that you were talking about included the

[51:22] >> We will have a work item on next

[51:25] Thursday's Thursday's budget as well on

[51:27] the fire station. just might be a good

[51:29] time to revisit that discussion. I guess

[51:31] my point

[51:31] >> I know we got a lot of enterprise funds

[51:33] that work through this morning is if

[51:36] >> I guess my point is would why

[51:39] would it be conducive to if we had to

[51:46] delay doing a tax raise this year and

[51:50] maybe use different funds and then do do

[51:53] the raise at the time of the station.

[51:57] like do it all at the same time

[52:00] >> and would that make any sense?

[52:02] >> That's a huge conversation that I just

[52:04] don't know that.

[52:05] >> Okay.

[52:05] >> I mean, we could have that conversation

[52:06] for the next three hours,

[52:07] >> but what about

[52:08] >> it's it's uh I

[52:10] >> What are you talking about right now?

[52:12] >> We're talking about enterprise.

[52:14] >> Yeah. What you're talking about is

[52:15] general fund stuff.

[52:17] >> We weren't planning on talking about

[52:19] general fund this morning so much, but

[52:21] we could certainly schedule another

[52:22] meeting to to get into that.

[52:24] >> Gotcha. Okay. So Mike's saying you're

[52:27] saying you don't want to pass the

[52:28] enterprise.

[52:32] » Oh, I can catch up. Oh, that would be

[52:33] super nice.

[52:35] >> But Marin says we're going to talk about

[52:36] general fund later after after the

[52:38] review

[52:39] >> fun,

[52:39] >> right? We will circle back to sort of a

[52:41] recap on general fun at the end of this

[52:43] so we can kind of get into a little bit

[52:44] of that and then

[52:46] >> again we can we'll we'll plan on

[52:48] scheduling this other work session it

[52:50] sounds like to dive in agree. Right now

[52:53] we're just talking about electric rates.

[52:55] So

[52:57] >> um

[52:57] >> thank you.

[52:59] >> So that I guess any any more and Brian's

[53:03] got a meeting that I jump out for in a

[53:05] little bit.

[53:06] >> I'm okay for about 25 more minutes.

[53:08] >> So this is the next slide that we talk

[53:10] about the tiers and what we do with the

[53:13] >> So So our goal here, thanks Marin. Our

[53:15] goal here is to minimize the impact to residents. Um, as you can see the

[53:20] bottom right corner there. Um,

[53:26] » is this a time of usage or just a usage

[53:28] in general?

[53:29] >> Just just usage. We are not doing time

[53:32] of use.

[53:32] >> We're not. Doesn't that benefit the city

[53:34] to do time of use also? Like if I plug

[53:37] in my car and it's the middle of the

[53:39] night, that's a better time of use for

[53:41] energy efficiency than during the day,

[53:44] right?

[53:44] >> I I think we are long-term working

[53:47] towards time of use. We actually had

[53:49] probably dozens of hours of of work on working towards that.

[53:53] >> Um, working with uh on our the software

[53:57] ends of things and things like that. Um,

[53:59] but we're not quite ready to do that

[54:02] yet. A lot of cities are are kind of

[54:04] working like we are towards that

[54:06] eventually and and I think you're right,

[54:08] mayor, that that that is something we

[54:10] want to do because it'll help curb use

[54:13] during the the peak hours of the day. Um

[54:17] but but today we're we're just uh

[54:20] proposing to do an increase of 25 cents

[54:23] to the um the base charge for residents.

[54:27] And then really the goal here again is

[54:30] to minimize the impact. So

[54:33] um most of the the effect is going to be

[54:36] felt on on the commercial side which

[54:38] will be the next slide. But um

[54:40] >> actually maybe we should jump to the

[54:41] next slide. Oh, I'll open up.

[54:43] >> So, thank you so much. Beautiful

[54:47] presentation.

[54:49] >> Um,

[54:50] >> gorgeous.

[54:50] >> Sorry.

[54:52] See that?

[54:55] » Oh, that is mine. Thank you.

[54:58] >> You ought to

[54:59] >> try to find that slide that had the the

[55:01] impact to the average resident. Oh,

[55:04] >> that was on the pre that's the previous

[55:06] one.

[55:06] >> Oh, thanks.

[55:09] These are going to die.

[55:10] >> Fine.

[55:12] Oh, sorry about that. So,

[55:14] I guess one thing we wanted to pointed

[55:16] out pointed wanted to point out on this

[55:18] slide was that well, we want to get away

[55:21] from seasonal charges, a summer and a

[55:23] winter rate, and just go to a a straight

[55:25] rate across the board just to increase

[55:27] predictability. This doesn't really

[55:29] change revenue or impact on residents.

[55:31] Um you can see that the average resident

[55:34] there um pays about $115

[55:38] uh in the winter and $11623

[55:41] in the summer. And we're just proposing

[55:43] kind of a middle rate of 11610

[55:46] um year round. And again, this isn't

[55:48] about really upping uh rates. It's just

[55:51] kind of smoothing it out over the years

[55:53] so residents have more predictability

[55:54] and trying to remember why what month is

[55:56] it? What am I paying this month versus

[55:58] last month? So other cities like Doniful

[56:01] do this as well and it's just a good way

[56:03] to smooth it out for residents. So this

[56:05] is a benefit we think to residents to

[56:07] smooth it out. Again the the real impact

[56:10] uh we're seeing is to the commercial

[56:12] side and so going back to the slide.

[56:15] Yeah. Um so in the past we we kind of

[56:20] dive dove into this and looked at the

[56:22] rates in other cities that the

[56:23] commercial users are paying. Um, we

[56:26] found that case sales rates are really

[56:28] low for commercial and high-end users.

[56:31] Um, and you know, we've tried to find

[56:33] out why that is. Uh, it's our

[56:34] understanding that we've tried to keep

[56:36] that lower just because we we don't have

[56:38] a lot of business and we've tried to

[56:40] attract more business. Um, but in

[56:42] reality, I don't know that this is

[56:44] really moving that needle very much. The

[56:47] bottom line is we we don't want the

[56:49] residents to be subsidizing

[56:52] uh the commercial entities in town. Um,

[56:55] and I think that's in effect what's

[56:56] happening when we're not charging um the typical rate for the commercial

[57:01] users. So when you see those big

[57:03] increases like on the top line there,

[57:05] 22% and 27%

[57:08] um those those seem really large, but in

[57:11] reality we're just kind of bumping those

[57:13] rates up to um where they typically

[57:15] would be in other uh cities. And so

[57:19] again, most of the brunt of this impact

[57:21] u of of that that overall 5% revenue

[57:24] increase. When you say 5%, a lot of

[57:26] people think, oh, you're raising rates

[57:27] 5%. No, that's a revenue increase. And

[57:31] then we're getting that 5% revenue

[57:32] increase by shifting most of this burden

[57:34] onto the commercial users, which again

[57:37] haven't been paying in my opinion or all

[57:40] of our opinions. I think their fair

[57:41] share of of the rates. Um

[57:46] so with that any any questions?

[57:50] >> Uh is this one of the things that you

[57:52] have to declare during truth and

[57:54] taxation or

[57:55] >> No, this isn't related to truth and

[57:56] taxation rate change

[57:58] >> just a rate change uh for for the

[58:01] enterprise.

[58:02] >> Does it

[58:03] >> it'll be in the tenative budget and then

[58:05] in the consolidated fee schedule in

[58:07] June. I mean, quite frankly, I don't

[58:10] know. Do do commercial does anybody else

[58:12] in here own a commercial building? Do

[58:14] you pay that close attention to what the

[58:16] power bill is? Like, would it be

[58:19] >> I do.

[58:20] >> Would it be smart to maybe go like a

[58:22] little bit higher than what

[58:25] uh other cities are doing and

[58:28] you know, a supplement?

[58:31] >> I think that I think we can justify this

[58:33] just as hey,

[58:35] you know what I mean? I just think like

[58:36] a lot of the times they just pay their

[58:38] bill, right? Like it's their tenants pay

[58:41] the difference.

[58:44] >> Okay.

[58:44] >> So the rates will go up on rentals, you

[58:47] know, leases because we pass those costs

[58:51] along. So So you're just saying pat the

[58:53] commercial and then maybe reduce the the

[58:56] residential.

[58:57] >> I mean

[58:59] kind of, but but not in like a negative

[59:02] not a negative way. I'm just trying to

[59:04] say like if obviously if what the

[59:06] average of other cities are there means

[59:09] there has to be there has to be a few

[59:11] that are higher.

[59:12] >> Yeah. I mean downtown Salt Lake would

[59:14] definitely probably have higher rates

[59:16] than we would have here.

[59:19] >> Yeah. Okay.

[59:21] >> And so what I what I really wanted to

[59:23] stress again is uh that 5% increase is a revenue increase not not a rate

[59:29] increase to residents. So the the

[59:32] average resident we looked at the

[59:34] average power usage in the city and they

[59:38] the average resident would see a 31 cent

[59:41] increase per month.

[59:42] >> Okay. Sorry.

[59:44] >> So 31 cents and again most of that

[59:47] revenue is coming from other sources

[59:48] including kind of hitting the the large

[59:50] the higher uh end users and commercial

[59:54] bringing them more up to where they

[59:56] should be if they were in any other

[59:58] city. So um with that we want to move on

[1:00:01] to watering now or any other discussion

[1:00:05] or questions on power.

[1:00:08] Let's move on to water.

[1:00:20] » Can I just say something?

[1:00:22] Um, I just wanted to say after I was

[1:00:24] talking to Brian yesterday about the

[1:00:26] power, I think, um, I do appreciate it's

[1:00:29] one of the areas where I think a lot of

[1:00:30] residents see improvement and I just

[1:00:32] wanted to kind of, I don't know,

[1:00:33] congratulate them on that. It's

[1:00:34] something that I know residents have

[1:00:35] come to me and been like, oh, I mean,

[1:00:37] none of them have been like, it's better

[1:00:38] just no one does that. But, but I've

[1:00:39] gone around and asked them and said,

[1:00:40] hey, do you feel like it's gotten

[1:00:42] better? And they do. So, I think it's

[1:00:43] work that is important that we're doing

[1:00:45] and I agree. Let's try and show it off

[1:00:47] where we can.

[1:00:49] >> Yay.

[1:00:50] >> Thanks. Thanks, Council Rush. Um, and that is just side note, that is

[1:00:53] something we definitely are working on

[1:00:55] trying to tell our story more. Um, well,

[1:00:58] you'll see in the budget later on that

[1:01:00] we want to plan on having a a part-time

[1:01:04] public information officer, which we

[1:01:05] think will be budget neutral. Sorry,

[1:01:07] explain that later. Um,

[1:01:10] all right. So, water. Um, again, this

[1:01:13] model, the top model is what we're

[1:01:15] proposing. The bottom model is what

[1:01:17] happens if nothing happens at all. Um so

[1:01:20] the blue is our is our operating costs.

[1:01:23] Um the light blue is is staff and and operating um materials.

[1:01:29] Um the dark blue line there that you're

[1:01:33] seeing is water purchases. And then the

[1:01:35] green is capital projects. And so the

[1:01:39] total obviously is our total um total

[1:01:41] cost and the orange lines are are our

[1:01:44] revenue. So um we're proposing a five

[1:01:49] 20%

[1:01:50] >> sorry 20% uh increase um

[1:01:54] >> in revenue

[1:01:55] >> on revenue and again I want to stress

[1:01:58] 20% increase of revenue not 20% increase

[1:02:02] to to the average resident the average

[1:02:04] resident you know going back to that

[1:02:06] bluff statement would see an increase of

[1:02:09] 5.2% or $163 per month um

[1:02:14] so maybe next slide this kind of breaks

[1:02:17] down Wait,

[1:02:19] could you go back Jason? Oh, sure.

[1:02:21] >> Back to that slide.

[1:02:22] >> So, upper left hand corner 15% 28 until

[1:02:25] 20. That's projecting that will get us

[1:02:28] to 2028 2030 time frame. Is that what

[1:02:31] it's saying?

[1:02:32] >> Yeah. So we'll need to do a 15% increase

[1:02:36] next fiscal year until fiscal year 30

[1:02:39] and then 10%

[1:02:42] graph of

[1:02:43] >> how it looks

[1:02:45] that council Jackson. Thanks for

[1:02:48] pointing that looking at that out. Yeah,

[1:02:50] make sure that's clear. Those orange

[1:02:52] bars are future revenue. So we're

[1:02:54] projecting in order to be able to meet

[1:02:57] the future costs of maintaining the

[1:02:59] water system. Those are the projected

[1:03:02] revenue increases that we would be

[1:03:03] looking at. Um, and this is just to try

[1:03:06] to be transparent and what what those

[1:03:08] cost projections look like. Um,

[1:03:11] obviously

[1:03:12] as Josh has explained in prior meetings

[1:03:15] that there's a great need in being able

[1:03:18] to maintain our system. Um, as as we've

[1:03:22] all heard many times, we're we're

[1:03:23] repairing literally hundreds of water

[1:03:25] leaks every year. Um, we've got corroded

[1:03:30] uh ductal iron pipe throughout the city.

[1:03:32] We don't know how long a lot of that's

[1:03:34] going to last. We've got new capacity

[1:03:37] issues. You know, a new water tank um

[1:03:40] major cost increase uh or cost for that

[1:03:43] coming up in a few years. So, this

[1:03:46] infrastructure is is super expensive as

[1:03:49] we know. But I think this goes back to

[1:03:51] the story, you know, thing is we need to

[1:03:54] be telling this story. Most residents,

[1:03:56] you know, like myself, we turn on we

[1:03:58] turn the tap and the and the clean water

[1:04:00] comes out. We don't stop to think that

[1:04:02] literally every single day there are people out there doing tests

[1:04:06] on that water to make sure that it's

[1:04:08] safe, that it's, you know, the right

[1:04:09] chlorination, that we don't have

[1:04:10] bacteria, that um that we're out there

[1:04:13] repairing lights um and and all these

[1:04:16] different things that are making sure

[1:04:17] that this continues to be a safe and

[1:04:18] reliable resource that that our

[1:04:20] residents obviously highly depend on.

[1:04:23] Um, so, uh, Jason,

[1:04:26] >> yes, real quick,

[1:04:27] >> when we discussed this in council and

[1:04:30] the the rate increases, I think it would

[1:04:33] be helpful to have it spelled out a

[1:04:34] little more clearly what's on the upper

[1:04:36] leftand corner and compared to the graph

[1:04:39] um, year by year. Okay?

[1:04:41] >> And so when we're sitting in council

[1:04:44] speaking to the public, we can make a

[1:04:46] direct correlation between that

[1:04:48] information and the graph. I think it

[1:04:50] will help explain that to the public why

[1:04:54] we're doing increases year after year,

[1:04:56] every other year to keep this graph

[1:04:58] afloat. Just a little more information

[1:05:00] and context there would be helpful.

[1:05:02] That's the same for all the rates.

[1:05:04] >> Do you have a dollar amount? What that

[1:05:06] 20% increase in water revenue is?

[1:05:09] >> I think you said a$163.

[1:05:10] >> No. What's a dollar amount? How much is

[1:05:12] that?

[1:05:13] >> Oh,

[1:05:14] >> right there.

[1:05:15] >> 842.

[1:05:18] 42,000.

[1:05:20] >> So, similar to the power, you know,

[1:05:22] we're we're still using fund balance.

[1:05:25] Um, this isn't this is more or less just

[1:05:27] kind of surviving or keep keeping on top

[1:05:30] of that curve, not uh not really adding

[1:05:33] to the fund balance here. Just

[1:05:37] still still using some of that fund

[1:05:39] balance in order to help keep those

[1:05:40] rates uh as low as we can.

[1:05:43] So basically the 27 budget is an

[1:05:47] increase of $1.2 million.

[1:05:50] >> That's correct. 1.2 million. And and

[1:05:54] again the the the effect of the average

[1:05:56] resident would be $163 a month um with

[1:06:00] this rate increase.

[1:06:03] Um and and we're all very familiar with the needs of the the water uh

[1:06:08] system, I think. But Josh, do you want

[1:06:11] to go through and kind of talk about

[1:06:12] some of those projects?

[1:06:14] >> Yeah. On the right,

[1:06:16] >> before you go, I just

[1:06:19] >> I see why you're trying to say that it's

[1:06:22] an increase of 1.2.

[1:06:25] » And I don't know how to explain it

[1:06:27] better. So maybe Josh can help me. But

[1:06:29] LA for fiscal year 26, we have 2.2

[1:06:33] million of fund balance budgeted. And

[1:06:35] then for fiscal year 27, we're only

[1:06:37] using 380. So the 1.2

[1:06:43] I just I see what you're trying to say

[1:06:45] that we're increasing the budget by 1.2,

[1:06:47] but it's that's before fund balance use.

[1:06:51] So last year I don't know I don't know

[1:06:53] what I'm trying to explain.

[1:06:54] >> I just don't think that's the true

[1:06:56] story.

[1:06:56] >> The other thing I'm struggling with it.

[1:06:58] So how many water meters are there,

[1:07:00] Josh?

[1:07:01] >> Uh about 9600.

[1:07:04] >> 9600. And you said it's how much a

[1:07:07] month? $163

[1:07:13] » and and our water meters are metered,

[1:07:15] right?

[1:07:16] >> So we

[1:07:17] >> drinking water generates $187,000.

[1:07:20] >> So I think you're jumping ahead. We're

[1:07:22] going to explain some of this. This goes

[1:07:23] back to minimizing the impact on

[1:07:26] residents and and putting more of that

[1:07:28] cost on commercial which like power.

[1:07:31] We've been undercharging our commercial

[1:07:33] businesses. if you look at what people

[1:07:36] are paying in other cities. Um, so we

[1:07:39] want to make sure that we're right right

[1:07:42] sizing or what those rates and and not

[1:07:44] subsidizing or having the residents

[1:07:46] subsidize businesses is really what I

[1:07:48] think has been happening um in effect.

[1:07:52] So um so again we keep on saying it but

[1:07:55] when we talk about that revenue increase

[1:07:57] of x% is a revenue increase that's not a

[1:08:00] rate increase. So that's why we're able

[1:08:03] to keep the rate of $163 a month for

[1:08:05] residents. Um but still see an overall

[1:08:09] revenue increase of of a lot more. Um

[1:08:12] okay that I guess Josh you want to go

[1:08:15] through the what's new side and kind of

[1:08:17] explain some of those projects?

[1:08:18] >> Yeah. So obviously uh we're on the the

[1:08:22] tail end or the last half of the 200

[1:08:24] north project. Uh that's about two miles

[1:08:28] of underground water line and services.

[1:08:31] Um this last Monday we just started uh

[1:08:35] the replacement project on King's Court

[1:08:38] and Bishops uh down on the west side. Uh

[1:08:42] that's a a system that's not extremely

[1:08:44] old, but has had uh probably a dozen or

[1:08:47] more leaks uh in a pretty small area

[1:08:50] within the last few years.

[1:08:54] um the bulk loading station. Uh we

[1:08:57] purchased equipment 3 years ago to build

[1:09:01] um a location where contractors

[1:09:05] uh can come and fill up like a water

[1:09:08] truck or um if if people have like a

[1:09:12] mobile water tank. Instead of renting

[1:09:15] out fire hydrant meters, we've had to

[1:09:18] utilize the assistance of the police

[1:09:20] department in recent years trying to get

[1:09:22] our water meters back. We've had some

[1:09:24] issues with contractors and residents

[1:09:27] not knowing how to properly operate the

[1:09:30] hydrants when they put a meter on it and

[1:09:32] causing damage. So building this station

[1:09:35] would eliminate the majority of hydrant

[1:09:38] rental or hydrant meter rentals and

[1:09:40] provide a location where somebody can

[1:09:42] drive up, enter their info, get the

[1:09:45] water without having to mess with the

[1:09:47] hydrant. That's something that we'll

[1:09:49] regularly get calls from chief. Hey,

[1:09:50] I've got a guy hooked up to a hydrant

[1:09:53] and finding situations where people are

[1:09:55] taking water where they shouldn't be. So

[1:09:58] >> yeah. um 300 North Coronator right by uh

[1:10:01] Mountainland Supply uh behind Maverick.

[1:10:05] Uh we currently have a little mobile

[1:10:07] trailer. It's like a 6x6 enclosed

[1:10:09] trailer that houses a bunch of pumps and

[1:10:12] a bunch of liquid chlorine that we use

[1:10:14] to um maintain chlorine residuals uh for

[1:10:20] the northwest side of Cisville. Um, we

[1:10:25] are currently working on

[1:10:28] uh finishing design and coordinating

[1:10:31] with the property owner to build a

[1:10:32] permanent structure there similar to

[1:10:34] what you see at the like Burton Lane

[1:10:36] roundabout. Um, where we can we can have

[1:10:40] a more secure site. We can have spill

[1:10:43] containment on the chlorine. Um we we've

[1:10:46] got a couple hundred,000 worth of

[1:10:49] equipment

[1:10:51] um that is currently protected by an

[1:10:53] enclosed trailer and and we just don't

[1:10:56] feel comfortable

[1:10:58] uh with that.

[1:10:59] >> You used to have three.

[1:11:01] >> We used to have five. Uh we have

[1:11:04] replaced four of the trailer sites with

[1:11:07] permanent buildings.

[1:11:09] >> We're done with just

[1:11:10] >> Yep. It's just this one. That's the

[1:11:12] trailer now.

[1:11:12] >> Change your map. Um and then uh the

[1:11:16] 117,000 that you see there is uh

[1:11:19] increases from Weber Basin.

[1:11:32] Guess it's um

[1:11:35] want to point out to you that if we're

[1:11:38] talking about the op center um we're

[1:11:40] trying to spread out those costs in a

[1:11:42] way that reduce impact as much as

[1:11:44] possible. Know we've got some big water

[1:11:46] things coming up here. Obviously, we

[1:11:49] wanted to if we do the openter, we would

[1:11:51] postpone um having the ops or sorry,

[1:11:54] having the water fund pay towards the op

[1:11:58] center bond for a couple few years for

[1:12:00] the first three years. Um just kind of

[1:12:03] smoothing out those those payments in a

[1:12:05] way that help us.

[1:12:11] All right, I'm going to move on to the

[1:12:13] next. Uh,

[1:12:17] so like I said, what we're trying to do

[1:12:20] here is minimize impact to residents.

[1:12:22] So, as you look at those different size

[1:12:23] lines at the top, 3/4 in, 1 in, the 3/4

[1:12:26] in line, that is, uh, what residents are

[1:12:30] using. And so, um, looking at doing an

[1:12:34] increase there,

[1:12:36] um, a a fairly minimal increase,

[1:12:40] um, for on the base charge, but then

[1:12:42] when you look at the bigger lines of of

[1:12:44] 1 in and higher up to 6 in, that's where

[1:12:46] you're seeing more of the commercial

[1:12:47] users. And that's where we're trying to

[1:12:49] put more of this cost, this revenue

[1:12:51] increase onto those commercial rates to

[1:12:55] rightsize those rates. Um that was more

[1:12:58] typical of of what we're seeing in other

[1:13:00] cities.

[1:13:02] >> Hey Jason.

[1:13:03] >> Uhhuh.

[1:13:03] >> Do I mean I love I love um doing that

[1:13:06] especially cuz I don't like subsidizing

[1:13:08] businesses. Do do we feel at all like

[1:13:10] this is going to be like a a real

[1:13:12] hardship on businesses because I know we

[1:13:13] also want to keep businesses.

[1:13:16] >> Right. That's a great question. Council

[1:13:18] member, um I this is a little bit of an

[1:13:21] increase. It it sounds like a lot

[1:13:23] because like you know wow 15%, you know,

[1:13:27] u 25%. But it's been I would say it this

[1:13:30] way is so low that just bringing it up

[1:13:33] to the right number is is uh is is if

[1:13:37] you look at the dollars I think maybe

[1:13:38] that tells the other side of the story.

[1:13:40] Like if you look at the 1 in line 15%

[1:13:44] that results in a dollar increase of

[1:13:46] $4.24.

[1:13:48] Um, so the monthly charge goes up, you

[1:13:51] know, a little over $4.

[1:13:53] >> So what kind of users are using like a

[1:13:55] six inch line,

[1:13:57] >> right?

[1:13:57] >> That's what that

[1:13:58] >> So places like the Desireette Pasta Mill

[1:14:03] um DATC has a lot of larger meters. Um

[1:14:06] it it's larger commercial uh that that's

[1:14:09] going to be using the larger meters

[1:14:13] uh from from like two to to 6 in. Can I

[1:14:17] add one thing on the 6 in too?

[1:14:19] >> Yeah.

[1:14:20] >> Uh the 6 in also has one um has a

[1:14:23] trailer park. I can't I think Willow.

[1:14:26] Anyway, I I was concerned originally

[1:14:29] looking at this if if we were going to

[1:14:31] be hurting them a ton. Um but they with

[1:14:34] all the residents, they're spreading out

[1:14:35] that base charge and and usage amongst

[1:14:39] all of them. So, just to point that out

[1:14:41] there um with that 6 in.

[1:14:46] >> Thank you. Yeah, that helps a lot.

[1:14:49] >> And then once I know I said it again,

[1:14:51] but the the bottom right there, $164,

[1:14:54] that's what you're seeing there on the increase to residents

[1:14:57] um total monthly billing.

[1:15:02] The the biggest increase that you see

[1:15:04] here is obviously that highest tier. Um

[1:15:08] and and a lot of that is trying to

[1:15:12] discourage people from utilizing

[1:15:14] culinary for irrigation in a year like

[1:15:17] this where hey if if the irrigation gets

[1:15:21] shut off early the last thing that we

[1:15:23] want is people going out and connecting

[1:15:25] their sprinklers to their drinking water

[1:15:28] uh and contaminating the drinking water

[1:15:30] supply. So making it cost prohibitive

[1:15:35] uh to do that. How are people um filling

[1:15:39] their pools? Are they generally using

[1:15:40] irrigation or

[1:15:42] >> No, it's drinking water.

[1:15:46] » Plus P.

[1:15:47] >> Plus what? P.

[1:15:51] >> And that it's like wallets filling up.

[1:15:57] » They can never come over my house.

[1:16:02] Yes, I

[1:16:02] >> can't.

[1:16:04] They invited me.

[1:16:06] Okay.

[1:16:07] >> Um, any other questions before we move

[1:16:10] on to the next slide? Okay.

[1:16:13] So, had a sink slide.

[1:16:23] Um, so storm water. Um, we've had an

[1:16:27] operating loss in this area. So, this is

[1:16:29] just kind of upping that. Um, $2.40.

[1:16:34] Um,

[1:16:37] some of that would go towards the

[1:16:39] officer bond payment as well. But, um,

[1:16:43] >> Jason, for anyone listening, will you

[1:16:44] explain storm water and how it's

[1:16:46] different than the other water we've

[1:16:47] talked about?

[1:16:48] >> Oh, sure. And actually, you know what,

[1:16:49] Josh probably even better explain that,

[1:16:51] but

[1:16:52] >> yeah. So, uh, we're required by the

[1:16:54] state to, uh, collect funds that go

[1:16:59] towards solely just the operations of

[1:17:02] the storm water, uh, system, which is

[1:17:06] capturing

[1:17:07] uh, rainwater runoff, snow melt runoff.

[1:17:11] Uh, we collect and convey that to public

[1:17:13] water bodies, stream, the Great Salt

[1:17:15] Lake. Uh so it it lives as a separate

[1:17:19] fee from everything else so that it can

[1:17:21] be uh monitored and tracked

[1:17:23] independently. Uh we have to report in

[1:17:26] that to the state each year of what

[1:17:28] we're expending and what we're uh

[1:17:31] bringing in. Um this is one rate that I

[1:17:36] think last year was the first increase

[1:17:38] in

[1:17:40] eight or nine years. Um

[1:17:44] so uh as as that department's

[1:17:47] responsibilities has grown as the city

[1:17:50] has grown uh we were relying on the 2014

[1:17:54] 2015 rates

[1:17:56] um in a department that that grew by one

[1:17:59] individual

[1:18:01] uh and you know 35 plus% uh growth

[1:18:06] within the city from the previous uh

[1:18:09] rate increase. So that's why you see the operating loss.

[1:18:14] >> And this isn't something that residents

[1:18:16] or the city controls. This is just going

[1:18:18] through storm drains and it's hiring

[1:18:20] staff to clean those out.

[1:18:22] >> Uh that's that's part of it. Inspecting

[1:18:24] and cleaning. Uh we have to do a lot of

[1:18:27] sampling and screening throughout the

[1:18:29] year. Um it's making repairs. It's when

[1:18:33] the Orchard Ridge flooding happened.

[1:18:35] That was all the storm drain department

[1:18:37] that was financing the city response up

[1:18:40] there. So,

[1:18:41] >> so nothing that anyone can directly

[1:18:43] control. It's just a fee that the state

[1:18:45] requires us to pay.

[1:18:46] >> The state doesn't require us to pay the

[1:18:49] fee. The state requires us to fund and

[1:18:51] operate a storm water uh system.

[1:18:54] >> And this is what it costs to have the

[1:18:55] staff to maintain and

[1:18:56] >> staff, equipment, material.

[1:18:59] >> Okay. So, so it's but it's outside our

[1:19:01] control to to really control.

[1:19:04] >> Yeah. We we have a permit with the state

[1:19:06] that that says, "Hey, you guys can't

[1:19:10] have any rainwater or snow melt that

[1:19:13] leaves

[1:19:15] uh any impervious surface and goes to a

[1:19:17] public water body unless you have a

[1:19:19] permit from us. And if you get the

[1:19:20] permit, here's the requirements of of

[1:19:23] what you have to do, how you have to do

[1:19:25] it."

[1:19:26] >> So, legalized extortion. Yeah.

[1:19:30] >> Yeah, it's a good point. That's the

[1:19:31] point we were trying to get to. Okay.

[1:19:33] >> So, each city is different um depending

[1:19:36] on their size and and their makeup and things like that. But each city is

[1:19:41] required to operate a a storm water

[1:19:46] department and take care of that

[1:19:47] infrastructure. That's right.

[1:19:48] >> And so we're we're saying that we need

[1:19:50] an increase because it is in the the

[1:19:53] requirement is increasing in terms of

[1:19:56] >> um No, just every year we're continuing

[1:19:59] to to dig into fund balance to fund the

[1:20:02] storm water department.

[1:20:04] >> Yep.

[1:20:05] >> Okay.

[1:20:06] >> So Maren, can you tell me what does the

[1:20:08] storm water budget last year? Um,

[1:20:11] >> and then so you're saying from what we

[1:20:14] budgeted last year,

[1:20:16] >> we've gone in the whole $750,000 from

[1:20:18] what was budgeted. So what was budgeted

[1:20:20] for normal?

[1:20:22] >> And then Josh, while she's looking that

[1:20:23] up, tell give me an example of something

[1:20:27] that this year that made us operate

[1:20:29] $750,000

[1:20:32] » over budget

[1:20:34] >> from this year. This is not over budget.

[1:20:39] This is we used fund balance to build

[1:20:43] last year's budget.

[1:20:45] >> Okay.

[1:20:46] >> And that was

[1:20:47] >> it was 1.8

[1:20:48] >> 1.8 million million.

[1:20:50] >> Yeah.

[1:20:50] >> And we ended up spending

[1:20:53] how much?

[1:20:57] » Um Oh, sorry. 1.8 is fiery 26. I'll look

[1:21:02] up fiery 25's budget.

[1:21:03] >> That's how much it cost in 2026 to

[1:21:05] operate storm drains. That's what you're

[1:21:07] telling us? Okay.

[1:21:09] >> And when we funded it, you're saying we

[1:21:11] use fund balance out of what? Out of out

[1:21:14] of reserves.

[1:21:16] >> It has its own enterprise funds.

[1:21:19] >> Okay.

[1:21:19] >> And where does the money come from? It

[1:21:21] comes from taxes.

[1:21:22] >> From the storm water fee.

[1:21:24] >> Okay. From the fee that we're charging.

[1:21:25] >> So, it's a separate fee

[1:21:28] um aside from property tax.

[1:21:30] >> And that's added to our utility bill.

[1:21:32] >> What's that?

[1:21:33] >> It's added to our utility bill.

[1:21:35] >> Okay.

[1:21:35] >> Yeah.

[1:21:36] >> Okay. Just uh one other quick question.

[1:21:39] So um obviously the storm water

[1:21:42] generates money

[1:21:43] >> utilities.

[1:21:44] >> We used fund balance 750,000

[1:21:50] » we generate

[1:21:52] >> cash reserves every year.

[1:21:55] >> Did we generate any more cash reserves

[1:21:58] that could be counted

[1:22:00] >> as that? So there was no fund balance.

[1:22:04] So all the money we brought in

[1:22:06] >> besides the 750,000 we used in reserve.

[1:22:09] So how did we end up getting reserves in

[1:22:11] the first place there then?

[1:22:13] >> And previous years.

[1:22:15] >> Yeah, previous years.

[1:22:18] >> Is there something that has increased

[1:22:19] the budget that much in the last couple

[1:22:21] of years?

[1:22:22] >> I think inflation since 2020 has been

[1:22:25] the biggest source.

[1:22:27] >> Co just killed the world. I don't

[1:22:30] understand it

[1:22:30] >> 100%.

[1:22:32] >> All right. Thank you. Guess you have

[1:22:33] questions.

[1:22:43] » All right.

[1:22:44] >> Raise the rates for stone murder. Then

[1:22:46] we won't be 700 761 is it 71 700 $71,000

[1:22:51] in the hole from the general fund.

[1:22:53] Right. We would have that increase if we

[1:22:55] raised these rates,

[1:22:58] >> right?

[1:22:59] >> That's right. That's how we're balancing

[1:23:00] this. That's how we're balancing is by

[1:23:02] moving money over there, increasing its

[1:23:04] rate.

[1:23:04] >> That's right.

[1:23:07] >> Oh my. Okay.

[1:23:09] >> Okay. Now, we're uh going to switch from

[1:23:11] storm sewer to sanitary sewer. So, this

[1:23:13] is uh goes down the drain um in your

[1:23:17] house at this central uh Davis sewer

[1:23:20] district really. Um obviously the city

[1:23:24] administers the fee we on our utility

[1:23:26] bill. Um so most of this is just pass

[1:23:29] through costs.

[1:23:31] from Central Davis. Uh the $3 monthly

[1:23:35] increase.

[1:23:36] Um we we did notice that we're not

[1:23:40] covering our own um costs to administer

[1:23:43] that fee for the sewer district. So we

[1:23:45] are increasing that monthly cost by 25

[1:23:48] cents.

[1:23:51] >> Um

[1:23:53] >> but that charge goes to the sewer

[1:23:55] district, right?

[1:23:56] >> Not our admin fee. The admin fee is our

[1:23:59] own internal fee for for paying our like

[1:24:01] our utility.

[1:24:02] >> But isn't aren't we being paid by the

[1:24:05] sewer district to do that admin? Why

[1:24:07] not? We're doing their admin. They

[1:24:11] should be paying for it. I thought we

[1:24:12] had a contract that they pay us so much

[1:24:15] every year for administrative

[1:24:18] >> duties that we do.

[1:24:20] >> We we have a contract with them to

[1:24:22] administer the program, but um

[1:24:25] >> I mean we own all the infrastructure.

[1:24:27] This should go to the district, not the

[1:24:29] sewer district, not to the occasional

[1:24:31] rate payers.

[1:24:33] If there is a cost in administrative

[1:24:35] fee, that goes to them. Then it's up to

[1:24:37] them to generate the revenue for that.

[1:24:41] >> I guess it's Yeah, it

[1:24:46] I guess it's the same either way. Um I

[1:24:49] we could do it.

[1:24:50] >> Well, I don't know. They don't need to

[1:24:52] increase theirs to cover it. Maybe they

[1:24:54] have the reserve in theirs or the money

[1:24:56] to cover it, but I just don't. You see

[1:24:58] what I'm saying,

[1:24:59] >> right?

[1:24:59] >> We're doing the work for them. They're

[1:25:01] supposed to be paying us for that. I

[1:25:02] thought we had a contract with them that

[1:25:04] they paid us so much or we kept so much

[1:25:07] to cover it.

[1:25:09] >> I mean, I thought that's

[1:25:11] >> I don't know how we're not covering it,

[1:25:12] then they need to pay us more money. It

[1:25:15] doesn't mean we need to increase it to

[1:25:16] our rate. We just need to increase it to

[1:25:18] the people we're doing the work. I don't

[1:25:20] think they pay us at all because they

[1:25:22] own the infrastructure. So, we don't

[1:25:24] have to pay to fix the

[1:25:27] >> pipes or whatever it is.

[1:25:29] >> We we

[1:25:30] >> we're just collecting it for

[1:25:31] >> I understand there's it's just an

[1:25:32] administrative fee, but we're doing

[1:25:34] administrative work for them and if

[1:25:36] there's an increase, they should pay it.

[1:25:38] We I guess we could look at that. But I

[1:25:40] mean, if we said sewer district, we need 25 cents more per resident to

[1:25:44] cover this cost.

[1:25:47] I' I'd assume they would just add their

[1:25:51] make their fee 325 rather than three.

[1:25:54] We've always done it this way. Uh but we

[1:25:56] could change it if if there's a real

[1:25:58] feeling that that's a wrong way to do

[1:26:00] it.

[1:26:01] >> The question is is I thought they were

[1:26:02] paying us.

[1:26:03] >> No, we need to answer that.

[1:26:05] >> No, they're not paying us.

[1:26:06] >> They're not paying us.

[1:26:08] Never.

[1:26:09] >> You're just charging that admin fee to

[1:26:11] administer that for them.

[1:26:12] >> Correct. Okay.

[1:26:13] >> Right.

[1:26:18] » Okay. Um, any other questions on this

[1:26:20] one? Pass through. So, next one, the

[1:26:23] sanitation or garbage or sorry, pressure

[1:26:26] irrigation. I was thinking we were on

[1:26:27] sanitation. Um,

[1:26:29] so similar here. Uh,

[1:26:33] >> we're collecting an admin fee as we as

[1:26:37] we build for pressure irrigation. We

[1:26:39] don't own the infrastructure. Again,

[1:26:41] similar to sewer, but we do collect the

[1:26:43] fee on behalf.

[1:26:46] Um,

[1:26:46] >> this is just for Davis and we

[1:26:48] >> Oh, good point. Just Davis and we were

[1:26:50] not Haz Creek. So, that dollar increase.

[1:26:54] Yeah. Again, we're just we looked at our

[1:26:56] costs of of

[1:26:58] billing and u we're not not really

[1:27:00] covering those costs. I don't know that

[1:27:02] we've had an advent fee increase in

[1:27:04] >> years.

[1:27:05] >> I don't know how long long. Um

[1:27:09] I will say that we've I think become

[1:27:11] even more efficient on our utility

[1:27:13] billing as well. So, it's not that we've

[1:27:15] actually reduced staff there this year.

[1:27:18] So, but this is just I think common

[1:27:21] sense making sure we're covering the

[1:27:23] cost of providing these services.

[1:27:26] Um, probably not worth probably worth

[1:27:29] noting too that in a everyone might be

[1:27:32] knowing that you state required that all

[1:27:34] the pressure irrigation companies meter

[1:27:37] by 2030. And so once those meters are

[1:27:40] all installed, uh, billing for pressure

[1:27:43] irrigation is going to get more

[1:27:45] complicated and potentially our end of

[1:27:47] that's going to get more complicated

[1:27:48] too. So we're starting to work with on

[1:27:50] that issue and

[1:27:53] um,

[1:27:53] >> hey Jason.

[1:27:54] >> Yes,

[1:27:55] >> I think Josh answered Mike's question.

[1:27:57] >> Oh yes, my gosh.

[1:27:59] >> Thanks. So, um, the the reason that it's

[1:28:03] operated that way of like why is the

[1:28:05] city paying to do all the billing for

[1:28:07] Davis and Weaver and the Sewer District

[1:28:10] is uh the city originally

[1:28:15] started building and was the original

[1:28:17] owner and maintainer of sewer and

[1:28:20] irrigation

[1:28:21] and entered agreements with both

[1:28:24] entities at one point to with Central

[1:28:27] Davis. You guys take over, own and

[1:28:29] maintain all the infrastructure. Davis

[1:28:31] and Weaver, you guys own and maintain

[1:28:33] all the infrastructure. You guys take

[1:28:35] over the bond uh that the city uh picked

[1:28:38] up. Uh, and the flip side was you guys

[1:28:42] take all that stuff over and the city

[1:28:44] agreed uh in the the 70s or 80s for

[1:28:48] sewer and the 80s or late 80s for

[1:28:52] irrigation that with no sunset on the

[1:28:56] agreement, we will handle the billing

[1:28:58] for you guys. And in 2023,

[1:29:01] Dean sat down first with the irrigation

[1:29:05] company to see if like, hey, when 2030

[1:29:08] comes and we start doing the billing, we

[1:29:10] think it makes sense for you guys to

[1:29:11] just take over. And the irrigation

[1:29:13] company said, well, we actually wanted

[1:29:14] to talk to you guys. We'd like you to

[1:29:16] retake over the irrigation system

[1:29:19] because we think it makes more sense to

[1:29:20] do that. And Dean at that point said,

[1:29:22] "Never mind. We'll keep doing the

[1:29:24] billing. You guys keep all the

[1:29:26] infrastructure." Yeah. I'm sorry. I I

[1:29:29] thought I had had a conversation with

[1:29:30] Dean before where he said they we do

[1:29:33] bill them for a certain amount

[1:29:35] administrative piece.

[1:29:36] >> I don't think so.

[1:29:36] >> Obviously wrong.

[1:29:38] >> Thanks for that story again, Josh. I I'd

[1:29:42] forgotten that as well that

[1:29:45] >> we would love to not have to worry about

[1:29:47] uh the the fees here. And in fact,

[1:29:49] getting back to pressure irrigation,

[1:29:52] man, come 2030 when all this gets

[1:29:54] metered, it's going to get really messy

[1:29:55] and complicated. And I'm concerned that

[1:29:57] all of a sudden residents are going to

[1:29:59] be calling us and how come

[1:30:01] >> it is difficult for people like hey the

[1:30:04] city doesn't own or maintain the

[1:30:06] irrigation system

[1:30:08] but why does the city charge me on my

[1:30:11] bill every month for irrigation and

[1:30:13] that's really hard to to try and explain

[1:30:17] the the differentiation there but um

[1:30:21] yeah ideally it would be like hey let's

[1:30:23] keep those things totally separate but

[1:30:25] those were the original launder of this.

[1:30:28] I've

[1:30:29] >> actually had a few conversations in the

[1:30:31] last couple months with a lot of other

[1:30:33] city managers about this very thing and

[1:30:35] a lot of cities would love to get out of

[1:30:37] the business of having the bill on

[1:30:39] behalf of the pressure irrigation

[1:30:41] companies, but um it's just most of them

[1:30:45] realize that it's a service that's being

[1:30:47] provided to residents. Um most of these

[1:30:49] companies are just not equipped to uh do

[1:30:52] their own billing and so we do it on

[1:30:55] their behalf. But

[1:30:58] anyway, but that sanitation. So this is

[1:31:01] our garbage collection. Um we are

[1:31:04] working right now on putting out an RFP

[1:31:07] for um our garbage rates. Been with

[1:31:11] Robinson for a long time. they've kept

[1:31:14] our rates very competitive as we as we

[1:31:16] look every year at the rates that are

[1:31:18] being charged in other cities. Um we're always very competitive. Um but it

[1:31:24] makes sense to to go out to bid every

[1:31:26] once in a while. So we're working on

[1:31:27] that process. Um in the meantime uh for

[1:31:30] the coming year, Robinson's um rates are

[1:31:33] going up by a total of about $162 for

[1:31:37] the average resident. And of course that

[1:31:38] depends on how many cans and stuff like

[1:31:40] that, but for the average it's going to

[1:31:42] be about a$162 increase.

[1:31:45] Um

[1:31:48] so any questions there?

[1:31:52] Okay, next slide. Um then this gets back

[1:31:56] to that bottom line up front again. So

[1:31:58] looking at the total impact of

[1:32:01] everything, all fee increases and to the

[1:32:05] average resident on property tax, it's

[1:32:07] about a $25

[1:32:10] increase per month. Um 1480 of that

[1:32:14] would be property tax and then the

[1:32:16] balance would be those fee increases

[1:32:18] that you're seeing um on different

[1:32:22] utilities.

[1:32:26] Um, this be a good time to take a break

[1:32:29] before you get back into general fun

[1:32:30] stuff. All right, let's take a five

[1:32:31] minute break.

[1:32:35] » Yeah.

[1:32:36] >> If anybody's interested, I have a 3D

[1:32:38] model of the fieldhouse that the

[1:32:39] architects did sitting over on this

[1:32:41] table.

[1:32:42] >> Well, look at it's on loan from the

[1:32:44] architects. It's a model for ants.

[1:32:49] has to be at least three times. It needs

[1:32:50] to be at least

[1:32:52] >> three times.

[1:32:58] » The best is Will Ferrells

[1:33:06] » not now. Todd,

[1:33:08] >> you know, you know me.

[1:33:14] » Anyway,

[1:33:17] Jacob, we watched this the We watched

[1:33:19] that the other day and my daughter

[1:33:21] hadn't seen like you haven't seen. She

[1:33:24] was laughing so

[1:33:28] Oh, it's so funny.

[1:33:30] >> It's pretty timeless. It's

[1:47:57] You got to get a beard on Jason.

[1:47:59] >> I can't do it.

[1:48:01] >> Two days of m I can't fill my pillow or

[1:48:04] because of the

[1:48:06] >> There's a there's a a growing curve kind

[1:48:09] of like a learning curve.

[1:48:11] >> You just have to get past that growing

[1:48:12] curve. It's like this takes about I

[1:48:15] think given my all time longest cycle of

[1:48:17] jokes.

[1:48:18] So maybe I'll try

[1:48:21] >> maybe October

[1:49:41] Oh, now we there we go. Thanks,

[1:49:43] >> Chief.

[1:49:46] » Okay. Um, we're back.

[1:49:50] >> I have a new

[1:49:51] >> So, the end here. We just wanted to to

[1:49:54] circle back to the general fund

[1:49:57] discussion that we had last uh what was

[1:50:00] it now? A few weeks ago.

[1:50:02] And so,

[1:50:04] Um looking at this slide, the the upper

[1:50:07] box there, the right box, um the top

[1:50:09] says uh the fund balance at the end of

[1:50:12] FY25 was 7.5 million. Our estimated fund

[1:50:16] balance at the end of FY27 is 3.8

[1:50:19] million. So basically, uh we've used up

[1:50:23] half of our total fund balance or we

[1:50:25] will have used up half of our total fund

[1:50:27] balance um over the course of two years.

[1:50:31] And so that that trend is uh obviously a

[1:50:34] little concerning, but we've also been

[1:50:37] fortunate. We've had a little fund

[1:50:38] bounce to draw on when needed. Our only

[1:50:41] point in this is that um while it's been

[1:50:44] a nice rainy day fund for a year, we

[1:50:46] don't want to continue that

[1:50:48] indefinitely.

[1:50:49] So we we're that's one of the reasons

[1:50:51] why we're proposing uh to do at least

[1:50:54] the same amount of truth and taxation

[1:50:56] that we were supposed to do last year.

[1:50:58] So that bottom left uh number, the

[1:51:00] proposed TNT of $1.795 million. Again,

[1:51:05] that's the exact amount of money that we

[1:51:07] were supposed to get last year that we

[1:51:09] voted on or council voted on and just

[1:51:11] didn't get through the state. So that's

[1:51:14] all we're proposing to do this coming

[1:51:17] FY27 is to do what we should have gotten

[1:51:20] last year. So you can almost think of

[1:51:22] this as a 0% tax increase from from last

[1:51:26] year. really that that's exactly what it

[1:51:28] is. Uh 0% increase of what we were

[1:51:31] supposed to get last year. Everything

[1:51:33] else we're using a creative blend of

[1:51:36] deferring items, using fund balance

[1:51:38] again as we just talked about.

[1:51:41] Uh and then we also wanted to circle

[1:51:44] back to the additions to the budget

[1:51:47] since the last time. So, uh it was

[1:51:50] commented on the last time that we

[1:51:52] should try to find a way to fund the

[1:51:54] police drone. And so that's a $19,000

[1:51:57] uh ad. We also plugged in $29,000 for a part-time police clerk position. Um it

[1:52:05] was discussed last time

[1:52:09] uh the the PTPIO that's part-time public

[1:52:13] information officer. So in the his in

[1:52:16] the past we have we have contracted when

[1:52:19] needed um uh public information. So Josh

[1:52:24] has at times used uh Langden Group. Um

[1:52:28] we've various departments have used the

[1:52:30] Langden Group for certain projects and

[1:52:33] that's a contracted expense. Whenever

[1:52:35] you contract, you're often playing a lot

[1:52:37] higher than you would if you were just

[1:52:38] to hire that person directly. In this

[1:52:40] case, that's very true. I I can't

[1:52:42] remember off the top of my head what um

[1:52:44] Lenon's rates are.

[1:52:46] >> 176 bucks an hour.

[1:52:47] >> 176. So, and we would expect we could

[1:52:50] pay that same person probably less than

[1:52:54] 50 an hour if we had them as a

[1:52:55] part-time. So, we would be looking at

[1:52:58] maybe up to 15 to 20 hours a week maybe

[1:53:01] that we could put this person on. Um,

[1:53:04] and we think it would be at at worst

[1:53:06] budget neutral. Maybe at best we'd save

[1:53:08] some money for sure. So, even with some

[1:53:11] additional hours, we think this is a

[1:53:13] benefit. We've already talked in this

[1:53:14] meeting about the need to to help

[1:53:18] residents understand what the city's

[1:53:19] doing, be more transparent, provide

[1:53:22] those those stories of behind, you know,

[1:53:24] what's going on at the city. And and I

[1:53:27] think this would be a key benefit to to

[1:53:30] that that goal.

[1:53:32] A lot of cities, our sites have

[1:53:34] full-time public information officers. A

[1:53:36] lot of cities have whole departments.

[1:53:38] Um, as I met with cities last week in

[1:53:42] St. George, I was talking to a number of

[1:53:45] them that had a full-time public

[1:53:47] information officer, director, plus a

[1:53:49] couple of other people that did nothing

[1:53:50] but video content and other things. So,

[1:53:53] um I think we've we've probably not done

[1:53:56] a great job of telling our story in

[1:53:58] Shazville. And again, this I think this

[1:53:59] would be something that would help us.

[1:54:00] And again, a budget neutral thing we

[1:54:02] believe. So, um but still part of the

[1:54:06] budget. So, we wanted to highlight that.

[1:54:08] the skate park. Um we are looking to add

[1:54:10] $100,000 more in park impact fee money

[1:54:13] as we kind of looked. We've got a

[1:54:16] contract coming to the council next week

[1:54:19] um for um an architect or I guess not an

[1:54:23] architect.

[1:54:24] >> It's a professional design service.

[1:54:26] >> Design service,

[1:54:26] >> but it's a cont

[1:54:29] design build contractor.

[1:54:31] >> The fire impact uh fees that is that

[1:54:34] that's a study, right?

[1:54:38] No, no,

[1:54:39] >> that's the study was already budgeted

[1:54:42] for. I guess

[1:54:45] » this would be for next year to to do

[1:54:47] Yeah. um design work.

[1:54:51] So

[1:54:53] that's again that's fire impact fee. I I

[1:54:56] stress that impact fee money it's use it

[1:54:58] or lose it. It's specifically earmarked

[1:55:00] for that purpose. Um so keep that in

[1:55:03] mind. And then um

[1:55:07] we also it's been uh seven years since

[1:55:10] we've done an impact fee study. Um I

[1:55:13] think uh Council Member Lackim and

[1:55:16] McBride and I attended a session at uh

[1:55:18] the conference last week on impact fees

[1:55:20] and it was interesting. They actually

[1:55:22] talked about how you should be doing

[1:55:23] these impact fee studies. I think in

[1:55:25] this presenter's words it was like at

[1:55:27] least every couple years. Um, I don't

[1:55:29] necessarily agree with that, but I do

[1:55:31] agree 100% that it's been too long since

[1:55:34] we've done an impact fee study. Uh,

[1:55:36] since 2019, obviously, there's been a

[1:55:38] ton of inflation since CO and we just

[1:55:41] need to be uh taking a look at what

[1:55:43] we're charging to make sure that we're

[1:55:44] assessing uh developers uh for the true

[1:55:48] cost of of their projects.

[1:55:51] >> And Jason, just to include when you were

[1:55:52] briefed us, the one before that 2019 was

[1:55:55] 2012. So, it's been seven years, seven

[1:55:58] years.

[1:55:58] >> Yep. Good point, Chief.

[1:56:00] >> Isn't that because you have seven years

[1:56:02] to spend it?

[1:56:04] >> Isn't there a date of

[1:56:06] >> There's six years.

[1:56:07] >> Okay. So, you have the study and then

[1:56:09] you have six years to collect and spend

[1:56:10] it. So,

[1:56:11] >> why does it have to be a study? Can't it

[1:56:13] just be um someone making some phone

[1:56:15] calls? Why does it have to be an actual

[1:56:18] study? Is that state requirement? You're

[1:56:20] going to change that.

[1:56:23] >> Extortion state requires

[1:56:25] >> the

[1:56:27] >> you have to have the state requires an

[1:56:30] IFP an impact fee facilities plan and a

[1:56:33] study a rate study. Um could we do that

[1:56:36] internally perhaps? I don't think we

[1:56:38] have the resources to do it the right

[1:56:40] way to be honest. Um

[1:56:42] >> we we we can't just have an intern

[1:56:46] state really wants to make sure

[1:56:47] >> you can't do it based on calls. You have

[1:56:49] to do it based on what you have in your

[1:56:52] IFP, your plan, what the cost

[1:56:55] projections are. There's a formulas that

[1:56:57] have to be used. So you can't just say

[1:57:00] Leon City's charging this, well, we're

[1:57:01] going to charge that. It's based on your

[1:57:03] plan. And every plan is specific to each

[1:57:06] city, whether it's water parks, fire,

[1:57:08] police,

[1:57:09] every different makes or it not only

[1:57:12] meets the state requirements, but it

[1:57:14] provides the material to prove that it's

[1:57:17] defensible. It's not just an arbitrary

[1:57:19] number. It it shows the background

[1:57:22] contextual information that was utilized

[1:57:24] to establish the fee if a developer

[1:57:27] >> that I've had people ask me why do you

[1:57:28] spend so many so much money on

[1:57:30] consultants and studies and engineering

[1:57:32] report engineering I get but

[1:57:35] >> why why why can't a volunteer do this

[1:57:36] why can't an intern do this so thank you

[1:57:38] for that clarification

[1:57:41] >> um

[1:57:43] and and we do that by the way I mean

[1:57:45] parters we're have worked on studies

[1:57:48] that could have been outsourced that

[1:57:49] we'll we'll do our own if it's something

[1:57:51] that we can do internally certainly we

[1:57:52] do.

[1:57:53] >> Um I the LR excuse me LRB and another

[1:57:57] firm um does almost all of these studies

[1:58:01] for the cities in Utah. So this isn't

[1:58:03] something that it I don't know of any

[1:58:05] city that for any city that has done

[1:58:07] that internally.

[1:58:10] Do these firms have to be um on a state

[1:58:13] contract or do they can it just be any?

[1:58:16] >> It just seems like we use a lot of the

[1:58:18] same entities for what we do, right?

[1:58:20] >> And is it because they're on a state

[1:58:22] contract and we have to use those

[1:58:24] specific vendors?

[1:58:26] >> Sometimes it's their state contract.

[1:58:28] Sometimes it's just that there are only

[1:58:30] a couple of people in the state that

[1:58:32] actually can do this work.

[1:58:34] >> Um like I said, LRB and is it science

[1:58:36] public finance? Yeah, you're really Z

[1:58:38] public finance and LRB are the only two

[1:58:40] that do this kind of work in Utah and so

[1:58:43] that's why we tend to use one of those

[1:58:44] two firms um often on different finance.

[1:58:47] >> Okay. I'm just saying it seems like

[1:58:49] there's a monopoly on some of this stuff

[1:58:50] that anyone listening should maybe get

[1:58:53] involved and start their own business.

[1:58:56] >> That's all. If we don't like what we're

[1:58:58] seeing, we should have some competition.

[1:59:00] There's my plug for business and

[1:59:01] economic development. There you go.

[1:59:04] >> Yep. Great. No, we're we're more than

[1:59:06] happy to we don't just go with one

[1:59:09] person all the time. We we try to mix it

[1:59:10] up wherever we can. So, um we do our our

[1:59:14] checks and honestly, when I was down at

[1:59:16] the conference in St. George, I talked

[1:59:18] to several vendors like, "Hey, we we are

[1:59:20] obviously open for business. If you guys

[1:59:22] want to give us a more competitive rate,

[1:59:24] show us what you can do for us. Um, we

[1:59:27] don't have any, you know, special, you

[1:59:30] know, relationships with anybody that, um, we're just looking for the

[1:59:36] best product for the city

[1:59:37] >> at the best rate. Um, let's see. And

[1:59:42] also for that impact fee study, we can

[1:59:44] also use impact fee money as it says

[1:59:46] there. So, um, put that out. And then

[1:59:50] the last item, this isn't a new item,

[1:59:51] but I I wasn't sure where we left off

[1:59:53] last time. Um, we had plugged in

[1:59:56] $141,000 for council health insurance.

[1:59:59] Um, there are some cities that do help

[2:00:01] do provide health insurance to their

[2:00:03] councils. Um, and I know that's been

[2:00:06] asked about, so we wanted to circle back

[2:00:08] on that once and for all. Is that

[2:00:10] something we want to continue to include

[2:00:12] or not include? But right now, it's

[2:00:13] still included in in the budget. Um, so

[2:00:16] those are all the I guess additions to

[2:00:19] clarify or highlight.

[2:00:22] Um, Jason,

[2:00:23] >> yes,

[2:00:23] >> I told you this was coming. Um, I do not

[2:00:26] want the council insurance on there and I know there are good arguments for

[2:00:30] both sides. I appreciate the fact that

[2:00:32] it can help people run who maybe would

[2:00:34] not be able to run, but I think all of

[2:00:37] us ran knowing that it was not there,

[2:00:39] and that doesn't mean you have to let a

[2:00:41] bad thing continue if if it's there. I

[2:00:43] just and I also don't want to be like,

[2:00:45] "Oh, yeah, no, we're all good, but maybe

[2:00:47] someone doesn't need it." I just feel

[2:00:48] like right now, especially with where

[2:00:49] the budget is, it doesn't need to be

[2:00:51] there. But I don't also want to say,

[2:00:52] "Oh, well, we'll do it later." Because

[2:00:54] that's just kicking the can down the

[2:00:55] road. So, if it's something we really

[2:00:56] feel like is important, I think we

[2:00:58] should set a deadline for ourselves and

[2:01:01] put it after the next election so that

[2:01:02] it benefits anyone who comes in after

[2:01:05] this because I just I don't love feeling

[2:01:07] like I'm doing something for myself. I

[2:01:09] know there are lots of arguments on all

[2:01:11] sides, but for me, I can't justify it. I

[2:01:14] mean, seriously, it could pay for like

[2:01:16] three three total line items on there,

[2:01:19] and it could, I think, solve

[2:01:23] some of our issues as far as our budget

[2:01:25] goes. So, I'm very passionately against

[2:01:28] having that on there this year, but open

[2:01:30] to the possibility of holding ourselves

[2:01:33] accountable to putting it on after the

[2:01:36] next election or maybe the one after

[2:01:38] that. But well, and I do want to make

[2:01:39] the point, thank you, Abby, that um this

[2:01:41] was a staff recommendation, not a

[2:01:43] council recommendation. So, we

[2:01:45] appreciate you you being willing to look

[2:01:46] out for us.

[2:01:47] >> Well, um in in terms of looking at

[2:01:50] what's competitive in other cities,

[2:01:53] >> but um I don't think that we

[2:01:56] >> I especially if it's going to bump us up

[2:01:58] to is it included in this total?

[2:02:00] >> It's included. Yeah.

[2:02:01] >> Okay. Yeah. I I don't think we need it.

[2:02:03] Does the 141 does that assume that every

[2:02:06] single council member and mayor elects

[2:02:10] to utilize it?

[2:02:10] >> Right.

[2:02:11] >> Yeah. And Tick's family.

[2:02:12] >> Yeah.

[2:02:13] >> Um do you want to take a straw poll

[2:02:15] right now? And just I mean we'll we'll

[2:02:17] have this going to the council next

[2:02:19] week. But if there's a clear feeling

[2:02:21] that any of these items should be dealt

[2:02:24] with, if if you don't want some of these

[2:02:26] items added into the budget or you don't

[2:02:28] want council insurance included, um I

[2:02:32] think it'd be helpful maybe just do it's not a

[2:02:36] >> work item right now or an action item,

[2:02:38] but

[2:02:38] >> and Ann Mary wanted me to clarify that

[2:02:40] while we have to approve the tenative

[2:02:42] budget next Thursday,

[2:02:45] you can we can still make changes. So we

[2:02:48] can still present a modified tenative

[2:02:50] budget at the public hearing in June. So

[2:02:52] just because we have to approve it next

[2:02:54] Thursday, you could still say but remove

[2:02:56] council health insurance. But

[2:02:58] >> just for clarification,

[2:03:00] I thought the next week you you correct

[2:03:03] me because you're okay. I thought all we

[2:03:06] had to do next council meeting was

[2:03:09] declare whether we were thinking of

[2:03:10] truth in taxation or not. But we could

[2:03:13] do a tenative budget the second council

[2:03:17] meeting in

[2:03:18] >> they changed that this last

[2:03:19] >> so it has to be

[2:03:20] >> so it says in state code it has to be

[2:03:21] approved

[2:03:22] >> before the first meeting before the

[2:03:25] >> no the first meeting in May before the

[2:03:28] meeting

[2:03:29] >> and that is a tenative budget which is

[2:03:31] not the final

[2:03:32] >> right so we have like five or five items

[2:03:36] on the agenda that are all budget

[2:03:39] related but we had to split them out

[2:03:41] individually ually because the state is

[2:03:43] requiring us to do it that way.

[2:03:45] >> I thought the new one was you just had

[2:03:46] to say whether or not you were going to

[2:03:50] do truth and taxation

[2:03:54] » you didn't have to at that meeting adopt

[2:03:56] your tenative

[2:03:57] >> when when does the official notice go

[2:03:59] from the county with our cover letter

[2:04:01] which I really will fight to include.

[2:04:05] >> When is that mailed?

[2:04:07] >> July.

[2:04:08] July. What? Just July. Ooh, I

[2:04:11] think it's by the 22nd.

[2:04:12] >> July 22nd. Okay. And that is our

[2:04:14] official notification that we have an

[2:04:17] intention to do truth and taxation or

[2:04:19] not.

[2:04:20] >> But that does not commit us to an

[2:04:22] amount.

[2:04:23] >> That is a public meeting notice, right?

[2:04:26] >> That's the notice before the August 6th,

[2:04:29] >> public meeting where we would adopt or

[2:04:31] not adopt.

[2:04:32] >> Yes.

[2:04:33] >> Okay. I just figure

[2:04:36] what's the point of getting people

[2:04:37] worked up over all of these things only

[2:04:40] then then to just say well you know okay

[2:04:42] so we're not going to do that and then

[2:04:44] we're going to not maybe we'll hold the

[2:04:46] skate park and then maybe whatever it is

[2:04:49] >> after the skate park is impact fee money

[2:04:52] so it's not general it's not general

[2:04:53] fund money

[2:04:54] >> okay so why is it included in this then

[2:04:56] >> because we added an additional 100,000

[2:04:58] from the previous request because we as

[2:05:00] we were going through the RFQ process to

[2:05:03] select select the design bill that we

[2:05:04] realized that what we originally asked

[2:05:06] for wasn't enough to kind of get us

[2:05:08] where we want.

[2:05:09] >> So the park impact fee money is

[2:05:10] restricted to simp park improvements.

[2:05:13] It's not general fund. It's 100% park

[2:05:16] impact fee.

[2:05:16] >> So that is not included in our increase

[2:05:18] potentially.

[2:05:19] >> Correct.

[2:05:19] >> Okay. Well then let's make sure that

[2:05:20] that's clear because that's confusing.

[2:05:22] >> If it says impact fee on the side of it,

[2:05:24] it's not included in the

[2:05:27] >> in that increase.

[2:05:29] >> Yeah. Everything else would be general

[2:05:30] fund, but things that are denoted as

[2:05:32] impact fee.

[2:05:33] >> Yeah, that's a good point.

[2:05:35] >> Okay. Just whatever we send out and the

[2:05:37] county sends out, I think we just need

[2:05:38] to be as clear as mud in terms of our

[2:05:41] intention because once it's out there, We've seen it happen

[2:05:45] before where it's super confusing. The

[2:05:47] county sends their legal whatever and

[2:05:51] then people see taxes and just lose it

[2:05:54] and then don't even give us an

[2:05:55] opportunity to say, "Wait, but we

[2:05:57] haven't approved the shit." They just

[2:05:59] assume it's done. So,

[2:06:00] >> and and I'm pretty sure your property

[2:06:02] tax notice will come with both. It will

[2:06:05] come if you have no truth of taxation

[2:06:08] >> and if you have truth,

[2:06:09] >> but we also want to send a cover letter

[2:06:11] explaining why.

[2:06:13] >> Yes, that we would like to see

[2:06:14] beforehand. I just want to put that on.

[2:06:16] >> We will we will run that cover letter by

[2:06:19] uh by council by new mayor and make sure

[2:06:22] everyone's comfortable with how we're

[2:06:24] presenting that. Hey, Jason. Yeah, to

[2:06:28] Aby's point too, I don't I don't think

[2:06:29] this year is the year to

[2:06:32] >> have the council health insurance

[2:06:34] included and I think we have too many uh

[2:06:38] >> I mean that over part-time records clerk

[2:06:40] I have a I can't I can't justify that. I

[2:06:43] guess my only thing would be is if there

[2:06:44] is some council member who absolutely

[2:06:46] needs it for something then talk to them

[2:06:48] individually and put them out for what

[2:06:50] they need and whatever

[2:06:53] >> but make it an open meeting so that we

[2:06:54] know who it is.

[2:06:56] >> I think that yeah one for one for all we

[2:06:59] need to know who it is that wants it so

[2:07:01] that we can have a discussion about it.

[2:07:03] >> So would that be a policy change then

[2:07:05] moving forward of if a council member

[2:07:10] >> wanted it?

[2:07:11] >> Yeah would like it. budget.

[2:07:13] >> I'm not sure how that would be handled

[2:07:14] cuz I think it would have

[2:07:18] » it have to be budgeted for sure. So

[2:07:20] that's public uh very

[2:07:22] >> they'd have to know who it is and and

[2:07:24] how much to budget it of course.

[2:07:27] >> Um

[2:07:29] >> I guess right now unless unless people

[2:07:31] feel like

[2:07:32] >> they're comfortable enough just taking a

[2:07:33] straw pull. We just want to be sure that

[2:07:36] um the budget that we present next

[2:07:37] Thursday is reflective of the comments

[2:07:40] that we've heard from from the council.

[2:07:42] >> Um event

[2:07:44] >> and and again that's our best guess is

[2:07:46] that this reflects what the council's

[2:07:48] interested in. Um if there's a clear sign that we should take the

[2:07:53] council insurance out of the budget, not

[2:07:55] even go to tenative budget with it. Um

[2:07:58] again, that was something that never

[2:08:00] voted on by council. I did get some

[2:08:02] feedback that that was something should

[2:08:03] look into, but um if it's not something

[2:08:06] that's of interest, we're happy to take

[2:08:07] that out as well.

[2:08:09] >> Okay.

[2:08:10] >> I think we can take it out this year.

[2:08:13] >> We like Abby said, I like your idea

[2:08:16] going forward. We can look at it and

[2:08:17] see.

[2:08:20] >> I don't mind taking it out cuz I don't

[2:08:22] need it, but there was a good reason for

[2:08:26] why it was put in there. So I I want it

[2:08:29] somehow in policy or whatever that if a

[2:08:31] new council member comes in and they

[2:08:33] need it, they have the option to get it.

[2:08:35] That doesn't mean you just automatically

[2:08:37] give five people or six people health

[2:08:39] insurance or you you then you would just

[2:08:43] budget say okay council member A needs

[2:08:46] it so that's whatever that is that

[2:08:48] amount only. But then how do you offset benefits for the

[2:08:54] others that might say well you know I

[2:08:55] need a cell phone plan

[2:08:57] >> or I need a data plan because I'm

[2:08:59] offsite a lot

[2:09:00] >> but this is specifically insurance

[2:09:02] >> well no I'm just I'm just saying there

[2:09:03] are situations though where other people

[2:09:05] will come in and say well okay that

[2:09:07] person got insurance well I have a

[2:09:09] unique situation where I need something

[2:09:11] because I'm offsite or whatever it is

[2:09:14] >> if it is great and it's unique and it

[2:09:16] needs to be there

[2:09:18] >> then there's got to be a pot of money

[2:09:19] set aside for those things.

[2:09:21] >> What about What about an option? Here's

[2:09:24] Wow.

[2:09:25] >> Just trying to think outside the box.

[2:09:28] >> Could you have something set up so that

[2:09:30] you've got the the amount that that uh

[2:09:34] each commissioner or mayor get as their

[2:09:38] monthly stipend or whatever for um being

[2:09:41] a commissioner, you set that amount to

[2:09:44] whatever amount it is. and that if a

[2:09:47] certain commissioner wants to take

[2:09:49] advantage of the health insurance that

[2:09:52] decreases the amount that they get by

[2:09:55] not not as much as the insurance costs

[2:09:58] obviously but like a certain amount. I

[2:10:01] think that then creates the and you

[2:10:03] could even increase the amount that the

[2:10:05] commissioners and the mayors are

[2:10:06] getting. I'm just saying like the idea

[2:10:09] the concept I I I just like I predict

[2:10:14] you either give it to everybody or you

[2:10:17] give it to no one because I predict like

[2:10:19] the old this isn't fair syndrome happens

[2:10:23] like immediately with someone saying

[2:10:26] like well that's not like you're giving

[2:10:29] them $900 a month worth of benefits. Uh

[2:10:34] >> I'm not taking that. Why don't you give

[2:10:36] me

[2:10:36] >> or someone drives a lot and

[2:10:38] >> 800 cash or whatever.

[2:10:39] >> They have a lot of gas and you know

[2:10:41] there's there should be a pool of money

[2:10:42] set aside.

[2:10:43] >> I guess though you don't do that for for

[2:10:46] or not for for employees. I guess you

[2:10:47] don't do that for

[2:10:48] >> employee turns down the insurance which

[2:10:50] some of them do. They don't get

[2:10:52] anything. But there's a little bit I

[2:10:54] guess the only difference is like as an

[2:10:56] employer like when you're trying to get

[2:10:58] employers those are benefits packages

[2:11:00] that you can take advantage of benefits

[2:11:02] right versus in this circumstance

[2:11:07] you're an elected official. I guess

[2:11:10] though you could still categorize it as

[2:11:12] benefits and and just say that's a

[2:11:14] benefit that's available to you if you

[2:11:16] want to take advantage of it. Yeah, why

[2:11:18] not?

[2:11:20] like the gym

[2:11:21] >> and maybe this and yeah and maybe the

[2:11:22] cell phone and stuff like that. Maybe

[2:11:24] some of those become benefits that you

[2:11:26] can take advantage of also, mayor. Um

[2:11:30] >> I think you should be on the cell phone.

[2:11:34] >> Yeah, cell phone plans are nice.

[2:11:37] I think we get a stipen for our cell

[2:11:39] phones.

[2:11:40] >> I believe Dean did it that way.

[2:11:43] >> No, that just started a couple months

[2:11:44] ago.

[2:11:45] >> Uh

[2:11:46] >> you're welcome.

[2:11:50] I was like this whole time. But he did

[2:11:53] give he did they did do something like a

[2:11:56] year ago or two years ago. I remember

[2:11:58] they did something that

[2:12:00] >> was gas. Okay. Gas

[2:12:02] >> vehicle.

[2:12:02] >> Yeah.

[2:12:03] >> That's what it was. It was the gas.

[2:12:05] >> I'm just saying whatever the policy is

[2:12:08] moving forward, it needs to be available

[2:12:10] to everyone tap into for whatever it is

[2:12:12] that they specifically might need.

[2:12:15] should be a pool of money set aside for

[2:12:18] special circumstances where

[2:12:20] >> science number barely pays

[2:12:21] >> it is equal to whatever.

[2:12:23] >> So it's a fair situation that's all

[2:12:26] >> or or we don't do it at all and we say

[2:12:27] this is your salary, this is your um

[2:12:30] predium and this is your gas stipen and

[2:12:32] good luck.

[2:12:34] >> Move on.

[2:12:36] >> You don't like the idea of just offering

[2:12:38] it?

[2:12:39] um

[2:12:41] that at the I can just imagine like

[2:12:45] weird things happening there. It's it's

[2:12:47] there's a policy that can be really

[2:12:49] clear, but um

[2:12:51] to put staff in charge of like deciding

[2:12:54] when a council member qualifies for that

[2:12:57] pool of money, when they don't.

[2:12:59] Um,

[2:13:00] >> it is it is it okay to to not to uh to

[2:13:06] offer it but not put it in the budget?

[2:13:09] >> Nope.

[2:13:10] >> I I mean assume like

[2:13:13] >> you would have to assume that.

[2:13:14] >> Does he do a budget amendment?

[2:13:15] >> Yeah, that would just come up as a

[2:13:17] budget amendment.

[2:13:18] >> If someone if someone

[2:13:21] elected to have health insurance,

[2:13:23] >> right,

[2:13:23] >> and it made us go over budget, it would

[2:13:25] show up as a budget amendment.

[2:13:27] >> Okay. But my point is like if we were to

[2:13:30] change it and allow it, is there a way

[2:13:32] to allow it without increasing like the

[2:13:36] budget for it because you know that none

[2:13:38] of us are going to do it this year?

[2:13:40] >> Yes.

[2:13:41] >> That's my question. Like

[2:13:43] >> it's not very

[2:13:45] cards on the table of you, but yes.

[2:13:47] Oh, I think it is because then like the

[2:13:49] year like assuming that like assuming

[2:13:52] that we get somebody on that wants to

[2:13:54] take advantage of it, there would be a

[2:13:57] rule that they can't activate it until

[2:14:00] the next budget cycle and you would

[2:14:03] include it in that budget.

[2:14:07] >> That's basically what I was saying.

[2:14:08] >> Okay, follow

[2:14:09] >> if there if there's six people and only

[2:14:11] two, then put the two in for the budget

[2:14:13] >> that year. But but just make a make a

[2:14:15] rule on the ordinance or whatever on the

[2:14:17] whatever we do that like if you want to

[2:14:19] do it if you want to elect to do it you

[2:14:21] can't you can't do it until the next

[2:14:24] budget cycle. So then you have a clear

[2:14:26] understanding.

[2:14:27] >> I'm I don't know the rules of health

[2:14:29] insurance. I'm not sure that's legal.

[2:14:31] >> You can only do it once a year. There's

[2:14:32] open enrollment

[2:14:34] when there's life changes and if you're

[2:14:37] new hire.

[2:14:38] >> Yeah. So you'd only be able Yeah. You'd

[2:14:39] be counting as a new hire. Right.

[2:14:41] >> Right.

[2:14:42] >> Yeah. Well, what if somebody wants life

[2:14:43] insurance?

[2:14:45] >> What?

[2:14:45] >> Huh?

[2:14:47] >> I'm just saying there are benefits that

[2:14:48] the city offers

[2:14:49] >> that the council isn't isn't um privy

[2:14:52] to. So, if someone says, well, I don't

[2:14:54] really want medical insurance, but you

[2:14:56] know what? I'd really like a life

[2:14:57] insurance policy. How do you handle

[2:14:59] that? Or I'd really like So, I'm just

[2:15:01] saying, is there a way to put it in to

[2:15:03] codify it so that it is a fair system?

[2:15:05] We don't need to spend all day talking

[2:15:07] about it, but sorry,

[2:15:08] >> but let's talk about it as we move

[2:15:10] forward. And if there's enough sense

[2:15:13] sentiment that we don't need it included

[2:15:15] in our tenative budget discussion next

[2:15:18] council meeting, then let's remove it.

[2:15:20] >> Or if we want to be able to have the

[2:15:22] conversation in the public and say, you

[2:15:23] know what, this is what we're giving up

[2:15:24] as a council because we're helping the

[2:15:27] budget. Great.

[2:15:30] >> Yeah.

[2:15:31] >> So, do we still need to do a straw poll,

[2:15:32] Jason? Um,

[2:15:34] >> mayor, would you want to do a straw poll

[2:15:35] on that? Just

[2:15:38] >> let's do it. I'm I'm a No.

[2:15:41] Uh, if no means taking it off, then I

[2:15:43] also am going to

[2:15:45] >> Is that what you meant by no?

[2:15:46] >> Yeah, maybe.

[2:15:47] >> Yeah. No.

[2:15:49] >> Oh, sorry, John. For your

[2:15:50] >> Oh, that's fine.

[2:15:54] » I kind of missed that. I didn't really

[2:15:55] hear

[2:15:56] >> whether yes or no to including the

[2:15:58] council insurance in the tenative

[2:15:59] budget.

[2:16:01] >> Yeah.

[2:16:03] >> Yes. Include it.

[2:16:04] >> Oh, no.

[2:16:05] >> No, incl not included. Okay.

[2:16:06] >> Include not right now.

[2:16:08] >> Okay.

[2:16:08] >> Not this year.

[2:16:09] >> No. See? Okay. Now I have pet insurance.

[2:16:14] » That's not bad.

[2:16:15] >> But but I do think we should

[2:16:18] specifically

[2:16:20] do extremely expensive horses.

[2:16:23] >> Jason, we could include it though with

[2:16:25] an asterisk that we've had a

[2:16:26] conversation about. This is offered in

[2:16:28] other cities. We are saying no to it

[2:16:30] because I do think it l it tells a story

[2:16:34] about us really wanting to be basic

[2:16:37] here. I I I think that's exactly right.

[2:16:41] I think it came up as a discussion point

[2:16:43] as, you know, we start looking at other

[2:16:45] communities in Davis County trying to

[2:16:46] understand

[2:16:48] >> how everybody's operating and and what

[2:16:51] average means for a lot of things and

[2:16:53] that that was one of the things that was

[2:16:55] identified. So,

[2:17:00] » yeah, absolutely. I we try to look at

[2:17:03] other cities in Davis County and what's

[2:17:05] going on and uh when that comes to staff

[2:17:07] council the same thing. So um we did

[2:17:10] find uh a number of cities I think

[2:17:13] Clearfield

[2:17:15] um and there were at least a couple

[2:17:16] others that I found that did offer

[2:17:18] council insurance. So um it's definitely

[2:17:20] not unusual. So we'll go ahead and take

[2:17:23] that out though for this year and uh

[2:17:26] come back to council with these other

[2:17:27] items.

[2:17:28] >> Each preach

[2:17:29] >> um

[2:17:30] yours is

[2:17:33] >> um Oh,

[2:17:37] » we're still proposing that we would not

[2:17:40] dip into to fund balance any further

[2:17:42] even if we remove the $141,000

[2:17:45] from from what's proposed there for

[2:17:48] council insurance. Um

[2:17:51] our our our recommendation is that we

[2:17:53] still keep the TNT at the same $1.795

[2:17:56] million the same as last year. So we

[2:17:59] still a 0% increase from last year if

[2:18:02] you will. Is that that's our plan?

[2:18:05] >> My proposal is that the council gets

[2:18:07] together and has another work session

[2:18:09] before next Thursday. And I would I would say as soon as Abby would

[2:18:14] be available on any given night so that

[2:18:17] she can be there cuz I know she's got

[2:18:19] school.

[2:18:20] >> I'm I I finish finals. So I'm available.

[2:18:23] >> She's an attorney

[2:18:23] >> all the time.

[2:18:24] >> She's she's an

[2:18:26] baby attorney. Not really.

[2:18:28] >> Yeah, I I second that. I'd like to have

[2:18:30] another session

[2:18:31] >> because and I'll tell you why. And and

[2:18:34] we've never we we've had your

[2:18:36] presentations. Thank you. They've been

[2:18:37] great. But we've never actually been

[2:18:39] able to sit as a council now

[2:18:41] individually and discuss the budget

[2:18:43] because

[2:18:44] this really troubles me. This is what

[2:18:47] scares me. I look at what our general

[2:18:50] fund budget was in 2023.

[2:18:54] And in 2023 compared to 2027

[2:18:58] when CO was over in 2023. So that excuse

[2:19:01] can't be used anymore from 2023. What

[2:19:05] really concerns me is this is a 33% 32%

[2:19:10] tax increase, but we are still 1.6

[2:19:14] million short because we're using fund

[2:19:17] balance. So then this goes from here to

[2:19:21] here. What does it do after next year?

[2:19:25] Because this is only going to cover half

[2:19:28] of that.

[2:19:29] >> You're right.

[2:19:30] >> And so it becomes very scary to me. So,

[2:19:35] I think we need to make as a council, we

[2:19:37] need to make some decisions and we need

[2:19:39] to look at spending and if there are

[2:19:40] cuts that need to be made because the

[2:19:43] way the state law reads, your budget

[2:19:46] come June when you propose your budget

[2:19:50] technically should not be any higher

[2:19:52] than your revenues

[2:19:54] unless you do truth and taxation. But in

[2:19:57] reality, the law states your budget

[2:20:00] should be when you adopt your budget, it

[2:20:03] should reach your revenue.

[2:20:07] That's the law. Okay? The only exception

[2:20:09] to that is if you do truth in taxation.

[2:20:12] Well, this even if we do truth in

[2:20:15] taxation, we're still not even close to

[2:20:18] meeting our revenues and our budget

[2:20:21] because we're taking that money and

[2:20:23] we're making this. If we did this again

[2:20:25] next year and next year,

[2:20:27] >> we'd be zero.

[2:20:30] >> It's a recommendation that you have at

[2:20:32] least how many months in your

[2:20:34] >> two.

[2:20:36] >> What is our operation? Monthly

[2:20:38] operations. It's not operating about 1.5

[2:20:42] something.

[2:20:42] >> Yeah.

[2:20:43] >> You got to do the numbers. Chiefs don't

[2:20:44] like it when I say numbers.

[2:20:45] >> The minimum is 4.5. So it's like 2.3

[2:20:50] >> two.

[2:20:50] >> So we need at least 4.4 at least. So,

[2:20:53] we're going to drop below that next

[2:20:55] year.

[2:20:56] >> Correct.

[2:20:57] >> So, we need to take a really hard I

[2:21:00] don't want to be known as the council

[2:21:02] that broke the citizens of Kesville

[2:21:05] City. I don't because we overspend and overspend.

[2:21:10] >> I I agree with what you're saying. I

[2:21:13] also think that had we done truth and

[2:21:15] taxation consistently over the last six,

[2:21:18] seven years, very incrementally to keep

[2:21:21] up with inflation and the cost of

[2:21:23] living, we would not be looking at those

[2:21:25] numbers right now.

[2:21:26] >> I I understand what you're saying, but

[2:21:29] we have raised taxes. I've done at least

[2:21:31] three times as I

[2:21:32] >> Well, we have we have, Mike, but we've

[2:21:34] also done hiring freezes and we've also

[2:21:36] said we're not doing anything. Well,

[2:21:38] that puts us behind every time we have

[2:21:40] those conversations. CO is over but the

[2:21:42] costs have not come down since co

[2:21:45] >> I almost say then it's then we would

[2:21:47] have because when you're talking about

[2:21:49] incrementally you're talking about doing

[2:21:50] small truth the taxation

[2:21:52] >> I'm I'm saying keep up with inflation

[2:21:54] because we have not done

[2:21:55] >> whatever but

[2:21:57] in the six or so years I've done where

[2:22:00] we've done three at least so far that

[2:22:01] means we just done three more six so

[2:22:04] we've done a lot of tax

[2:22:06] >> during those three during that time

[2:22:08] we've also reduced our our tax rate is

[2:22:10] lowered

[2:22:11] So, so yes, there has been an offset.

[2:22:13] Last year, our tax rate is lower than it

[2:22:14] is this year. We're the third lowest

[2:22:16] taxing entity in Utah in Davis County.

[2:22:20] >> The tax rate number, that certified tax

[2:22:22] rate number doesn't really mean anything

[2:22:24] because it's based on valuations. The

[2:22:26] money you get that you get from the

[2:22:28] county in property taxes stays exactly

[2:22:31] the same. If you get a million dollars

[2:22:33] one year, you get a million other. the

[2:22:34] valuations all go up on houses, then the

[2:22:37] tax rate number goes down, but you still

[2:22:39] get the million dollar.

[2:22:40] >> I know, but my tax rate last year went

[2:22:42] down. My tax bill went down.

[2:22:44] >> Mike, what you have to

[2:22:45] >> somebody else's went up.

[2:22:47] >> No, no, that's not necessarily true

[2:22:49] because if if

[2:22:51] >> Well, if think if like

[2:22:54] >> No, think if 200 homes were built.

[2:22:57] >> Okay. So, now those 200 homes have to be

[2:23:01] are going to be assessed property tax as

[2:23:03] well. They're new. They're new to the

[2:23:06] system. So, like you said, if it was the

[2:23:08] million dollar, you're still taking the

[2:23:10] million captures new growth. Yes.

[2:23:12] >> No, no, no. I'm not saying no.

[2:23:16] >> Listen to me. I'm

[2:23:17] >> So, if you have uh if you have the

[2:23:20] million dollars,

[2:23:21] >> okay,

[2:23:21] >> and 200 200 new homes get added,

[2:23:24] >> you still can only grab the million

[2:23:26] dollars. And now, that's that million's

[2:23:28] now being distributed amongst the the

[2:23:31] homes that were there before. and the

[2:23:33] 200 homes. So now that's why the rate

[2:23:36] goes down because those 200 homes are

[2:23:39] supplementing that amount.

[2:23:41] >> Well, when we ra even if we raise even

[2:23:44] if we had like an increase and Tammy,

[2:23:47] you're for sure that's why it went that

[2:23:48] stated that last year because we didn't

[2:23:50] do anything,

[2:23:51] >> right? But even the years when we do

[2:23:54] hold truth in taxation and we go up,

[2:23:57] you can still go up and yet those homes

[2:24:02] captured enough of the percentage that

[2:24:04] we haven't gone

[2:24:06] >> higher than the city's been looking at

[2:24:08] about a 1% growth.

[2:24:11] >> Okay. But the Yeah. So the question is

[2:24:14] but the dollars are what matter. It's

[2:24:16] not the percentage, it's the dollars.

[2:24:18] Cuz like if you have x amount of homes

[2:24:21] And especially the homes that are going

[2:24:22] in, they're million dollar.

[2:24:24] >> If you're in our case, if you're getting

[2:24:25] $5.9 million in property taxes,

[2:24:28] >> right?

[2:24:29] >> And you only have a 1% growth, you're

[2:24:32] only going to get $59,000

[2:24:35] more dollars with that new growth.

[2:24:37] >> Okay?

[2:24:39] >> But the advantage is you have you have

[2:24:41] multi-million you have multi-million

[2:24:42] dollar homes going in. So like the those

[2:24:46] homes when they when they divvy up that

[2:24:49] million dollars, they're going to pay a

[2:24:52] higher percentage of that.

[2:24:54] >> They pay whatever the valuation is of

[2:24:56] their house and the certified tax.

[2:24:59] >> That's the increase. That's it. So I

[2:25:02] think I and I guess my big thing

[2:25:06] is

[2:25:07] to Mike's point like I feel like we have

[2:25:09] to ask ourselves

[2:25:11] a a question and it's the answer is

[2:25:14] either two like there's only two answers

[2:25:17] in my opinion. The question is why have

[2:25:19] we why have we doubled or almost tripled

[2:25:22] what we what we've done in the last six,

[2:25:26] seven years since we've been on? And I

[2:25:29] think the answer is either either we've

[2:25:32] been suckers or previous councils didn't

[2:25:37] do what they need to be done because

[2:25:39] like we we hired a city attorney and

[2:25:42] then we hired a second city attorney in

[2:25:45] our six years, right? So, should that

[2:25:49] city of attorney have been hired

[2:25:52] 10, 15 years before we got on council?

[2:25:55] >> Yes.

[2:25:55] >> And the second attorney would happen

[2:25:58] within our purview, uh, should the

[2:26:01] chiefs and the different, you know, all

[2:26:02] the different things been added on back

[2:26:05] in the day and we're just taking the hit

[2:26:07] or are we just the suckers who've given

[2:26:13] everything? So, I think that that we

[2:26:15] have to answer that question

[2:26:16] >> and I understand what you're saying, but

[2:26:17] I hope you understand what I'm really

[2:26:19] the point I'm trying to make here is

[2:26:24] » we've we're going to make up we got to

[2:26:26] make up $3 million just to balance our

[2:26:29] budget. That's it. Just to balance our

[2:26:32] budget. And that's using 1.7 of fund

[2:26:35] balance, which we cannot afford to do.

[2:26:38] So, we got to figure out if we have a

[2:26:42] spending problem or what we're we what's

[2:26:46] going on because we can't just

[2:26:48] constantly keep asking our neighbors to

[2:26:51] pay our bills

[2:26:53] and that's what we're doing it seems

[2:26:55] like all the time. So, that's why I

[2:26:57] think the council just needs to get

[2:26:58] together. these department heads don't

[2:27:00] need to be here and let's have a a

[2:27:03] discussion and figure out where we're

[2:27:05] going, where we headed.

[2:27:07] Because in reality, this 32% tax

[2:27:11] increase you're doing this year, you'd

[2:27:13] have to do the exact same one next year

[2:27:16] just to get to this year's budget.

[2:27:19] That's it.

[2:27:20] >> And that's if you're not doing the

[2:27:21] station.

[2:27:22] >> That's if you're doing nothing. That's

[2:27:24] if you do zero.

[2:27:26] >> The next three years will be 30 songs.

[2:27:28] It would be 60.

[2:27:31] >> Oh,

[2:27:31] >> yeah.

[2:27:32] >> Well, I think this year is a moment or

[2:27:34] last year was too because of the

[2:27:35] fieldhouse commitment that we made.

[2:27:37] >> That that that was rare. We had to do

[2:27:39] that quick. We had to make a quick

[2:27:41] decision on that

[2:27:42] >> commitment that we made and now we have

[2:27:44] to live with it. But it's a good thing.

[2:27:46] I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

[2:27:47] >> I also think it's important to note that

[2:27:48] the fieldhouse was a fairly small

[2:27:50] percentage of that increase. A lot of it

[2:27:51] was

[2:27:52] >> like $8 per house, right?

[2:27:54] >> It was a small percentage of it.

[2:27:55] >> $368,000.

[2:27:57] >> Well, Yes.

[2:27:58] >> Fieldhouse was paid for a lot of a tax

[2:28:00] that we didn't have 3 years prior.

[2:28:03] >> Yeah,

[2:28:04] >> that's true.

[2:28:05] >> When do we have to start paying on the

[2:28:07] fieldhouse? Like when do they expect

[2:28:09] their money?

[2:28:10] >> When it's done.

[2:28:11] >> Well, for sure.

[2:28:13] >> So, the last break it'll be the next

[2:28:20] » next fiscal year.

[2:28:21] >> Not this year.

[2:28:22] >> So, we don't have to budget for it this

[2:28:23] year.

[2:28:26] >> Start saving for it.

[2:28:27] >> Why? evidence gets distributed.

[2:28:28] >> We we we don't technically have to I

[2:28:32] mean we've already committed to the

[2:28:34] school district that we are doing this.

[2:28:36] We've all we did a head nod. We all

[2:28:38] agreed to that.

[2:28:40] >> We are committed question.

[2:28:41] >> No, I don't think but I think that we

[2:28:43] could in in theory we could we could

[2:28:46] tell them

[2:28:48] >> we will start our payments next year.

[2:28:50] >> Year that you start making it.

[2:28:51] >> We could start our payments next year.

[2:28:53] >> Yeah. But that would mean that we would

[2:28:54] have to have the same discussion again

[2:28:56] next year

[2:28:57] >> and instead of 32% it would be maybe 15%

[2:29:01] this year

[2:29:02] >> because we wouldn't have that bond

[2:29:04] payment included

[2:29:06] >> unless the fire unless the fire station

[2:29:09] passes.

[2:29:09] >> The fieldhouse is so small I don't even

[2:29:11] think it would take it down 15%. Sorry

[2:29:13] mayor I didn't mean to

[2:29:14] >> Well, no. I mean I'm just saying the

[2:29:16] reality is we

[2:29:18] >> we we have some good decisions to make

[2:29:20] and that's why we need another meeting.

[2:29:22] Good. To your point, Mike, we need

[2:29:23] another

[2:29:24] >> I mean six and a half%.

[2:29:25] >> There's a a lot of these things. I mean,

[2:29:28] this is not even talking about the

[2:29:29] increases that we've talked about all

[2:29:31] today, the enterprise funds. This is

[2:29:33] just the general operating budget.

[2:29:35] >> Okay?

[2:29:36] >> We're not even talking about the 6.4

[2:29:38] million to the operations center. We're

[2:29:41] not even talking about the $300 annually

[2:29:44] right now that people are going to get

[2:29:45] in their utilities. We're not even

[2:29:48] talking about a lot of things that are

[2:29:52] in addition to that. So,

[2:29:57] I just we need to meet and we need to

[2:30:00] sit down and hash out.

[2:30:02] >> That's Tuesday night. Look for

[2:30:03] everybody. We got uh the fire station

[2:30:05] meeting on Friday night with the

[2:30:08] uh stakeholder meeting.

[2:30:10] >> Wednesday.

[2:30:11] >> Sorry. Geez. Say one thing. and think

[2:30:13] another uh Wednesday night is is the

[2:30:16] fire station meeting. Uh so Tuesday

[2:30:17] would be an opening.

[2:30:20] >> Tuesday the 5th.

[2:30:22] >> and we could have tacos.

[2:30:23] >> I hope you understand where I'm coming

[2:30:24] from because I'm sitting here looking at

[2:30:26] this and looking at that and then I'm

[2:30:28] saying now I'm going to talk about

[2:30:30] adding an additional

[2:30:31] >> meaning.

[2:30:32] >> Give it the numbers right. I thought the

[2:30:34] bond payment was about 1 point was about

[2:30:36] 1.4 million a year on a fire station.

[2:30:39] >> I'm not right.

[2:30:40] >> Say 1.2.

[2:30:41] >> 1.2. Okay. 1.2 personnel would be 2.2

[2:30:47] million a year. So we're talking an

[2:30:49] additional 3.5 million.

[2:30:52] >> I could do Tuesday.

[2:30:53] >> Tuesday.

[2:30:55] >> So what we're talking about here where

[2:30:56] we're we're down, we're still talking

[2:30:59] about an additional $3.5 million per

[2:31:02] year in addition to being so far in the

[2:31:05] hole here. So, this is what's really

[2:31:09] nervingly scaring me to not be the

[2:31:12] council that broke the city. Syracuse

[2:31:15] did something similar to this about 15

[2:31:18] years ago and it cost them dearly and

[2:31:21] they had some really serious financial

[2:31:24] issues for quite a while.

[2:31:26] >> So, are you good with Tuesday? Might as

[2:31:28] well.

[2:31:28] >> I'm good with I told you I'll be here

[2:31:30] whenever.

[2:31:31] This is the most important thing that I

[2:31:33] do for the people of Katisville.

[2:31:35] >> Just as far as, you know, let's maybe

[2:31:38] offline can talk about content. Just if

[2:31:40] there's things we you want us to prepare

[2:31:42] to bring uh for Tuesday night, we'll work on that.

[2:31:46] >> How early could you do it?

[2:31:49] >> Tuesday. I can do it. Anytime after

[2:31:51] >> I mean

[2:31:52] >> after three.

[2:31:54] Is that an American 250

[2:31:56] thing? I

[2:31:58] three. You tell me. Six.

[2:32:01] I'm good with at 9.

[2:32:03] >> I can do it at 10 p.m.

[2:32:05] >> It's we need

[2:32:08] >> bring tacos.

[2:32:09] >> And it's Tuesday, so

[2:32:11] >> bring your own taco, by the way, cuz we

[2:32:12] don't have any money for it.

[2:32:14] >> So, bring your own dinner.

[2:32:16] >> Oh, sack lunch. We don't have

[2:32:18] >> sack lunch.

[2:32:20] >> Okay. Okay.

[2:32:21] >> So, what time on the 5th?

[2:32:22] >> 6.

[2:32:23] o'clock on secret.

[2:32:25] >> Okay. Tuesday at 6.

[2:32:29] >> Awesome. Send an invite.

[2:32:30] >> I'll we'll send an invite.

[2:32:32] >> Thank you.

[2:32:32] >> Tuesday.

[2:32:36] » Anyway,

[2:32:40] » um

[2:32:42] yeah, we can I think Councilman

[2:32:44] Blackham, you raised a concern that we

[2:32:47] all share, you know, staff m and I spent

[2:32:50] a lot of kind of agonized over over this

[2:32:53] as well. And hey, we've talked about so

[2:32:55] often not wanting to just deplete drain

[2:32:57] that fund balance. So, um I absolutely

[2:33:00] think we need to be looking at that,

[2:33:03] looking at future, uh impacts. Um so,

[2:33:07] we'll we'll be ready to talk about that.

[2:33:10] And maybe if you want to get together

[2:33:12] before then even just to kind of make

[2:33:13] sure we're going to hit on the things

[2:33:14] that you want to ask about, we'll we'll

[2:33:17] try to be prepared for that.

[2:33:20] >> Um

[2:33:21] >> I want to know how Kazville City's going

[2:33:22] to pay for all this. I want to know how

[2:33:25] they're actually going to pay for all

[2:33:26] this without without

[2:33:31] these people are

[2:33:34] it costs a lot anymore to live and and

[2:33:39] we're talking about one small part of

[2:33:42] people's budgets.

[2:33:45] They are their gas bills killing them.

[2:33:47] Their grocery bills are killing them.

[2:33:49] there everything is just and and if

[2:33:53] there's a way that we can help them

[2:33:57] reduce it, get our spending down, figure

[2:34:00] out how to actually meet the law

[2:34:02] requirement where our revenues without

[2:34:05] raising our revenues every year meet our

[2:34:08] budget requirements. And yeah, it might

[2:34:11] mean that we have to cut back on a few

[2:34:14] things. It may not mean that we can

[2:34:16] provide all the services that we have

[2:34:18] that we may not have provided 10 or 15

[2:34:21] years ago and maybe there was a good

[2:34:23] reason why we didn't provide them

[2:34:24] because there was a cost to them and we

[2:34:26] says we'll just go without and I get

[2:34:28] that you want to provide all the best

[2:34:30] services to everybody but not everybody.

[2:34:33] I am curious, Mike, just because you've

[2:34:35] been here a long time. What did we not

[2:34:37] provide about six, seven years ago that

[2:34:39] we do provide now? Cuz I've been around

[2:34:41] for a while, too, and I can't think of

[2:34:43] anything. We've cut out so many things.

[2:34:45] We don't do the New Year's party

[2:34:46] anymore. We don't do the um Christmas

[2:34:49] tree lighting anymore. We don't There's

[2:34:51] a lot of things that I see that we've

[2:34:53] cut.

[2:34:54] >> So, if you can think of things that we

[2:34:56] also should cut, I'd love to know

[2:34:58] because I don't know what they are. I

[2:35:00] think the only thing that we I I it's

[2:35:03] and please this recording you must

[2:35:06] acknowledge that I am not saying

[2:35:08] anything negative. It's employees. We've

[2:35:11] increased the amount of employees.

[2:35:13] are the increase Mike. It's

[2:35:15] not services. It well it's it's the

[2:35:18] paying the employees to do the work.

[2:35:20] It's paying for the material that the

[2:35:22] employees are using.

[2:35:25] Last year the department report that we

[2:35:27] had for public works paving cost had

[2:35:30] gone up 400 plus% since 2019 to 2025.

[2:35:36] Um and and certainly a massive part of

[2:35:39] that of every city is is the employees

[2:35:43] is salaries and wages.

[2:35:46] >> It's it's the people and it's the

[2:35:48] equipment that they use and the material

[2:35:51] they use. And so

[2:35:53] >> let's not kid ourselves that employees,

[2:35:55] this is a service organization. That's

[2:35:57] we provide services to residents, public

[2:36:00] safety, water,

[2:36:02] >> all these things. It's all people based.

[2:36:04] Every city you're going to go to,

[2:36:06] everyone you're going to find that's

[2:36:08] obviously true because it's the same

[2:36:10] thing. 70 80% of operating funds go to

[2:36:15] pay the employees that provide those

[2:36:16] services. So that that's you're right,

[2:36:19] um, Council Member Adams. I mean, it is employees. And I hope you

[2:36:22] understand that's why I'm so passionate

[2:36:24] about taking care of the employees that

[2:36:27] we have and not adding additional ones

[2:36:30] because once you do it, it's that gift

[2:36:32] you just never get to take away. But

[2:36:35] when I see something like we saw with

[2:36:37] the chief where we've added, you know,

[2:36:41] each off like I explained to him, we we

[2:36:43] have police officers and we've added two

[2:36:46] or three or four in the last 10 years or

[2:36:49] whatever, five.

[2:36:51] Okay, so a police officer does so much

[2:36:53] in a day. His workload doesn't it's it's

[2:36:56] what it is every day. But when I saw

[2:36:58] that horse secretary over there who used

[2:37:00] to take recordings from 16 officers, now

[2:37:03] taking recordings from 28 officers,

[2:37:06] well, that's an obvious need for

[2:37:09] something. Okay, I get that. But if it

[2:37:12] means

[2:37:14] maybe we don't need to start a new

[2:37:16] program or something and hire more

[2:37:19] employees, I don't know what that is.

[2:37:20] We've also built more parks over the

[2:37:23] years and and other I mean we've grown

[2:37:25] as a city the services we provide like I

[2:37:28] said at the beginning did I say this

[2:37:30] like if we were a private businesses

[2:37:31] first thing I do is I say man all these

[2:37:33] parks are costing us money they're

[2:37:34] bleeding some

[2:37:36] >> so let's let's just you know sell those

[2:37:38] part I mean I'm kidding obviously but

[2:37:39] you know sell those parks develop those

[2:37:41] you know saves us money on maintenance

[2:37:43] but no we are providing more you know

[2:37:46] Cole's team is is taking care of more

[2:37:48] acreage than they've ever taken care of

[2:37:50] you you know, for per employee and

[2:37:52] they've had requests over many years of

[2:37:54] adding staff to take care of these

[2:37:56] additional grounds that we've added.

[2:37:58] people all these things are,

[2:38:01] you know, we talked about the attorney

[2:38:02] last year and showed how Nick was doing

[2:38:05] literally twice as many, you know, cases

[2:38:07] as every other attorney in every other

[2:38:09] city. And so there's reasons why

[2:38:12] >> all these requests are being made. But

[2:38:15] anyway, last slide. That's it. Oh,

[2:38:17] >> just real quick, one question before we

[2:38:19] get off this topic cuz we're off topic

[2:38:21] and I feel like we can before we go back

[2:38:23] on topic, we can stay off topic.

[2:38:25] >> Chief,

[2:38:26] >> yes.

[2:38:26] >> Is uh you guys have had a hard time like

[2:38:30] filling all of the police positions.

[2:38:33] Correct. Like uh

[2:38:35] >> we're we're full now.

[2:38:37] >> Oh, you are full now.

[2:38:37] >> We have our latest hires on training

[2:38:41] right now.

[2:38:42] >> Oh, okay. Okay. Cuz I Well, Bummer. I

[2:38:47] just my thought was if we were if we

[2:38:49] were going extended periods of time

[2:38:52] where like we were too short or

[2:38:54] something like that. My and if this if

[2:38:57] that tends to happen in the future, I

[2:38:59] guess my thought is is there ever a

[2:39:03] point in time where you could look at it

[2:39:05] and say, you know, like cuz I don't ever want to fire anybody at

[2:39:10] all. like I don't want to take employees

[2:39:12] from but we have to budget for the full

[2:39:16] staff. And so my thought was if there's

[2:39:19] ever a point in time where there isn't

[2:39:21] an employee and you can think could I

[2:39:24] get by without one of these officers

[2:39:29] >> uh without backfilling it. And I know

[2:39:31] that's asking a lot forever

[2:39:33] >> well for a couple years or whatever like

[2:39:35] as we try and get through this. I you

[2:39:37] know those I guess that's the the ask

[2:39:41] that I would ask of all the directors it

[2:39:44] department heads is if there's any

[2:39:46] positions that you're trying to fill

[2:39:48] right now that have created that like

[2:39:51] those are the opportunities to think

[2:39:54] like is there a way that I could hire

[2:39:57] somebody part-time uh to to do this or

[2:40:00] is there a way that I could give the

[2:40:02] people that are currently working for me

[2:40:05] a raise to do some of these obligations

[2:40:08] like I talked about that last meeting.

[2:40:11] Like if if you're saying, "Hey, I still

[2:40:13] have to fill this position and it's a

[2:40:14] full-time position and it's going to

[2:40:16] cost us 90 or 100 grand." Um, is there

[2:40:21] are there a few people that you think

[2:40:22] could take over those roles and give

[2:40:24] each of them a $10,000 raise and that

[2:40:28] saves us $60,000 in the long run? um to

[2:40:32] keep that in mind before you fill an

[2:40:36] empty position. I don't want anybody

[2:40:39] being released for that purpose. But I

[2:40:41] think that if we're trying to fill them,

[2:40:42] I would hope that that could be

[2:40:44] something you could think about. And I

[2:40:46] think that it would also garner

[2:40:49] uh you know, I mean, I think that those

[2:40:50] employees that got those raises would

[2:40:53] that would give them incentive to maybe

[2:40:55] do more and also uh increase morale and

[2:40:59] everything like that. But but it may be

[2:41:01] that you can't do that. You know,

[2:41:03] >> what would be the best way to to get

[2:41:05] that information to council? because I I

[2:41:08] think as we talk as department heads, I

[2:41:11] think that is currently happening and I

[2:41:14] think there's a disconnect in like how

[2:41:16] do we how do we detail like Jason in the

[2:41:19] last meeting um uh talked about how we have recently

[2:41:25] uh eliminated a current full-time

[2:41:28] employee and their position. Um, so like

[2:41:32] I've got my department report coming up

[2:41:34] this next week and and maybe that's a

[2:41:36] good opportunity to talk about like,

[2:41:38] hey, here's some of the like creative

[2:41:40] things that we've done to try and like

[2:41:44] plug some of the holes or is there a

[2:41:47] better way to

[2:41:48] >> I think that's great. I mean, I think

[2:41:50] that like I I would love a report. I

[2:41:54] don't know if we have one already and I

[2:41:55] just don't know where to find it, but

[2:41:57] like an there may be an annual report

[2:41:59] that shows each department and how many

[2:42:01] employees they have and what each of

[2:42:03] whom are costing. And maybe that's where

[2:42:07] like when that report comes out in the

[2:42:10] next year, you could have a red line of

[2:42:14] this person, this person uh left and

[2:42:18] rather than replacing that position, uh

[2:42:21] we we increased so and so and so and so

[2:42:25] and saved the department.

[2:42:27] >> And I love that.

[2:42:29] >> Is that best done at budget time?

[2:42:32] >> I think it's best done at any time. I

[2:42:34] don't know. I mean, I'd love the

[2:42:35] information to come from you and say,

[2:42:37] you know, Mike, we had 10 guys down in

[2:42:40] public works and we had a guy retire and

[2:42:43] instead of hiring and filling his

[2:42:45] position just because we had it, we took

[2:42:48] and split that up between the nine guys

[2:42:50] that were left and we're going to save

[2:42:51] the city

[2:42:52] >> or or to avoid asking for additional

[2:42:54] employees, we've done this instead

[2:42:57] >> because

[2:42:58] >> it could be it could be a memo, but I

[2:43:00] think that it should be on a budget

[2:43:01] paper like

[2:43:02] >> Josh has done that multiple times And I

[2:43:04] want to give you a call out for that.

[2:43:06] Your water person, you figured out a

[2:43:08] way.

[2:43:08] >> I think there's better ways that I can

[2:43:10] share that you've done that.

[2:43:12] >> Highlighting it and memos are good. Uh

[2:43:15] two paragraphs each if it becomes two

[2:43:18] paragraphs for the

[2:43:20] if it's

[2:43:23] 12. Uh but but I do think that the

[2:43:27] budget at the end that's helpful because

[2:43:29] I think that I I don't know maybe I'm

[2:43:31] totally wrong but I feel like we budget

[2:43:33] for full staff every year, right? We

[2:43:36] have to budget for that. We even budget

[2:43:38] for staff when there's not currently an

[2:43:42] employee hired in that position. So

[2:43:45] those would be the opportunities I think

[2:43:47] where we could say like oh hey so and so

[2:43:50] you don't have this person like is there

[2:43:52] any way you could do this and this and

[2:43:54] we can take that off the budget.

[2:43:57] >> That's anyway Jason return.

[2:43:59] >> I mean

[2:43:59] >> uh

[2:44:00] >> I just real quick I can tell you mine

[2:44:02] doing it by myself for the past eight

[2:44:04] and a half years save this city over

[2:44:06] $1.5 million.

[2:44:08] >> Give this man a raise.

[2:44:12] I told you last year I would rather give

[2:44:14] you a little bit of a raise for the fact

[2:44:16] that we can't do

[2:44:18] >> I I know that you you know we'll have a

[2:44:21] discussion off some offline sometime but

[2:44:25] >> is that ever a position that you could

[2:44:27] say all right paramedics or captains

[2:44:32] I want to I have these additional items

[2:44:35] that I need done you all have part-time

[2:44:39] jobs why don't you come do this for me

[2:44:42] after you're off your shift and take

[2:44:45] care of that for me.

[2:44:46] >> And I'll pay and I'll pay you a little

[2:44:47] bit extra money.

[2:44:48] >> Yeah. I do already.

[2:44:50] >> Do you pay them extra money?

[2:44:51] >> I they they put it on their time card,

[2:44:54] >> you know, so after they're done with the

[2:44:55] 48 and I give them extra stuff, they

[2:44:58] just put it on their time card whether

[2:44:59] they're working from home or whatever

[2:45:01] they're doing.

[2:45:03] >> And that's not that hasn't been

[2:45:04] acceptable though.

[2:45:09] And as mayor said, we did it last year

[2:45:13] with the locator position. Didn't fill

[2:45:15] that to create a water position.

[2:45:18] >> Yep.

[2:45:18] >> Uh we did it with Bruce Rigy's position

[2:45:21] when he left. Uh

[2:45:23] >> so we needed a meterman. Uh

[2:45:25] >> more of that is what I'm saying.

[2:45:27] >> Yeah. No, and definitely that of an

[2:45:29] ongoing conversation. We've had uh

[2:45:31] business here. Just to remind you, um,

[2:45:34] we eliminated one of the utility, uh,

[2:45:37] billing, uh, clerk positions and one of

[2:45:39] the cash receiving clerk positions. So,

[2:45:41] two two positions in Marines department

[2:45:44] being eliminated. That's two full-time

[2:45:46] positions this this coming year is in

[2:45:48] the budget. Um, and so, anyway, I think

[2:45:52] uh, we can include that kind of

[2:45:54] information uh, in presentations and the

[2:45:56] annual report narrative, budget

[2:45:58] narrative, things like that. So, um,

[2:46:01] it's good stuff. And then the last slide

[2:46:04] is well uh so this is just a quick one.

[2:46:07] I don't want to dive into this too much

[2:46:09] but this is just what we've we're

[2:46:11] proposing to take out of fund balance on

[2:46:13] the left. And so you can see that we try

[2:46:16] to avoid any ongoing costs when we use

[2:46:18] fund balance. So you're looking at a lot

[2:46:19] of capital things like the council

[2:46:22] chamber AV issues that we were having.

[2:46:24] Um that's coming out of fund balance. uh

[2:46:27] the Barnes Park um leaker uh fixes for

[2:46:31] uh as is the fund BALANCE

[2:46:38] BUDGET. We just want to highlight what's

[2:46:40] coming out of fund balance versus going

[2:46:41] into the truth and taxation number and

[2:46:44] then the deferred items you can see on

[2:46:45] the right. Those are items that we are

[2:46:47] not funding that have been requested uh

[2:46:49] in the past and continue.

[2:46:51] >> While you've got this, can I just

[2:46:52] highlight one? The water conservation

[2:46:54] and fire station. We just learned this

[2:46:55] last week that we can actually Weaver

[2:46:58] Basin has a lawn exchange program that

[2:47:00] they will you'll get $2.50 for every

[2:47:04] living grass that you remove. We did

[2:47:06] learn this week the parks aren't

[2:47:08] applicable which we knew but uh

[2:47:09] municipal building facilities are. And

[2:47:12] so we're currently applying for um that

[2:47:16] for this building fire station to remove

[2:47:19] grass. Um, so we are looking at ways to

[2:47:22] not have these. Um, so

[2:47:26] >> yeah.

[2:47:26] >> Anyway,

[2:47:27] >> thanks.

[2:47:27] >> While I was up there, I just want to

[2:47:28] point that out. So,

[2:47:29] >> excellent.

[2:47:31] >> Um, and then the last almost last slide.

[2:47:34] Uh,

[2:47:36] >> oh, thanks. We added this. Uh, thanks

[2:47:38] Mike. Here you go.

[2:47:41] >> So, that's the breakdown for different

[2:47:43] home values.

[2:47:45] >> That's not

[2:47:46] >> And

[2:47:46] >> right, we'll send a new one out. Yeah,

[2:47:48] we'll we'll send out an updated one as

[2:47:50] well.

[2:47:52] Awesome. You guys rock. All right, next

[2:47:54] slide. And then this is of course how we

[2:47:58] compare. Uh some people hate this, some

[2:48:00] people love it in terms of we should be

[2:48:03] should we compare other cities or not? I

[2:48:05] think this at least puts some

[2:48:06] perspective on where we are. Um we are

[2:48:09] the third lowest of 15 cities in the in

[2:48:12] Davis County on our tax rate. Um,

[2:48:14] currently, even if we did the proposed

[2:48:18] uh 32% increase, we would still be the

[2:48:21] ninth of 15 cities in Davis County. And

[2:48:25] that's assuming nobody else does truth

[2:48:26] in taxation next year. And likely the

[2:48:30] number will. So, we continue to be at

[2:48:33] the bottom or close to the bottom of of

[2:48:35] tax rates, which I think is another good

[2:48:37] barometer to show that we are operating

[2:48:38] efficiently and and do a lot with a

[2:48:41] little compared to I think a lot of

[2:48:43] cities. Uh, next slide.

[2:48:48] Final questions.

[2:48:51] This is where we're talking and is that

[2:48:53] it?

[2:48:55] >> Oh, and then back to the mission where

[2:48:57] we began. Um,

[2:49:02] I I guess I'll share this. Like I was

[2:49:05] having this budget conversation with my

[2:49:07] wife, not about city budget, heaven

[2:49:09] forbid, but about our home budget,

[2:49:12] right? And we're like we're both super

[2:49:14] like penny pincher, like almost

[2:49:16] annoyingly

[2:49:18] will not buy anything. It's why we're in

[2:49:20] the same blue shirts every day and stuff

[2:49:23] like that. Um probably

[2:49:26] that's one thing we agree on that my

[2:49:27] wife and I like we are super budget

[2:49:29] conscious. We we've bought a tiny little

[2:49:31] home. We started our marriage and you

[2:49:33] know like just to have focus on staying

[2:49:34] out of debt and all that yet we still

[2:49:37] have these

[2:49:39] like high you know spirited

[2:49:41] conversations about where our money

[2:49:42] goes. And I'm sure this is a common

[2:49:44] theme. I mean many people have these

[2:49:47] conversations with their spouses about

[2:49:48] use how they use their money. And we're

[2:49:50] talking about spouses who spend their

[2:49:52] whole life together and are probably

[2:49:55] more alike than anybody else in many

[2:49:57] regards, share same values and things

[2:49:59] like that. And talking about the most

[2:50:02] basic home budget, right? So, it just

[2:50:05] makes me think putting in perspective

[2:50:06] like when we talk about the city's

[2:50:08] budget, which is infinitely more

[2:50:10] complicated than a home budget, um, and

[2:50:13] you've got 34,000 residents with

[2:50:15] different opinions,

[2:50:17] um, and not not understanding all the

[2:50:19] intricacies and nuances of what goes on

[2:50:21] in a city budget is so hard. It's hard

[2:50:23] for us as staff sometimes to fully grasp

[2:50:25] it. It's such a broad thing because

[2:50:27] there's so many different departments

[2:50:28] and things going on and services that we

[2:50:32] don't fully, you know, understand. But I

[2:50:34] guess my point there is it's I I get

[2:50:37] these conversations are difficult and

[2:50:39] it's it's okay. They should be

[2:50:40] difficult. Um it's money we're talking

[2:50:42] about and it's complicated and so um but

[2:50:45] it all comes back to are we doing the

[2:50:48] right things for the city? Um and are we

[2:50:51] investing in and back to your money or

[2:50:54] your tree planting question? So I'll end

[2:50:58] it with that.

[2:51:00] Thanks.

[2:51:02] That's it. Done.

[2:51:14] process.

[2:51:25] Um I we're open to if they see images

[2:51:27] like

City Council Work Session Notice & Agenda

Agenda

Transcript