[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