[0:00] April 14th, 2026. We're going to start

[0:02] off our meeting tonight with an

[0:04] invocation or thought and then the

[0:06] pledge of allegiance by Council Member

[0:07] Watson.

[0:13] » Sorry.

[0:19] » Um,

[0:21] okay. This is just a quick thought. Um,

[0:23] Henry Ford, coming together is the

[0:25] beginning. Staying together is progress.

[0:27] And working together is a success. So

[0:30] hopefully we can keep those kind of

[0:31] thoughts in our minds as we work

[0:33] together through our differences of

[0:34] opinions as we go today. So thank you.

[0:37] Please join me for the pledge.

[0:43] » I pledge

[1:00] All right. Thank you, Council Member

[1:01] Watson.

[1:03] Okay. First item on our agenda is the

[1:06] presentation of the state of Utah's

[1:07] Constitution B winners and our we're

[1:09] going to have Reed Miller present

[1:11] tonight.

[1:12] Please, please, all those who

[1:15] participated in the Constitution B,

[1:17] please come up into the front

[1:21] and I'm going to put on my hat.

[1:25] » All right.

[1:28] here in front.

[1:32] Yep.

[1:37] This is just a few of the 30 30

[1:40] participants that uh engaged in this

[1:45] constitution B. And to give you an idea

[1:49] of what these kids learned, I want to

[1:52] give a few questions. If you know the

[1:54] answer, raise your hand. Okay? And then

[1:56] you might have to give the answer. Who

[1:58] wrote the Declaration of Independence?

[2:01] Boy, look at all. Go ahead. Who did it

[2:06] close?

[2:08] Thomas Jefferson. Okay. What did the

[2:10] Declaration of Independence do?

[2:15] Go ahead.

[2:16] Declared our independence. What else?

[2:24] It listed 27 grievances against the king

[2:28] in and Great Britain. What else? It gave

[2:31] the

[2:33] go ahead

[2:39] nature and nature's god. Amen. Okay.

[2:44] What are the nine principles that

[2:45] Jefferson put in the Declaration of

[2:47] Independence that formed the foundation

[2:50] for the US Constitution?

[2:56] Tough one, isn't it? But those are the

[2:58] nine things I said. A if it's a bad

[3:02] government, you have the right to get

[3:05] rid of it, right? And then wreck the

[3:09] role of government is what?

[3:12] Preserve the

[3:14] rights of the people. Okay. What is E?

[3:18] We're all

[3:20] equal. Okay. See,

[3:24] rights come from our creator. Okay.

[3:27] We'll go we'll go on. What are our

[3:30] unalienable rights?

[3:34] Go ahead.

[3:36] Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

[3:39] Okay. Uh where do our rights come from?

[3:45] Our creator. Who was the first person to

[3:48] sign the Declaration of Independence?

[3:50] And what was unique about that person,

[3:52] Adam?

[3:54] John Hancock.

[3:56] What was unique about his signature?

[4:02] He signed it the biggest. Why?

[4:07] He wanted the king to what?

[4:12] To see it without seeing without his

[4:15] spectacles.

[4:16] Okay. Uh on what date did we officially

[4:19] become a nation?

[4:25] July 4th, 1776.

[4:30] Okay. Who's the father of our

[4:32] constitution?

[4:37] Close.

[4:39] It is exactly right. James Madison. He

[4:42] not only wrote it out, he got everybody

[4:44] together and he wrote everything in it.

[4:48] Uh what's the magic of the Constitution?

[4:54] Go ahead.

[4:56] And what does that consist of?

[4:59] Federalism.

[5:00] What does it consist of?

[5:06] Checks and balances. How many branches

[5:09] of government? Three branches of

[5:11] government. Checks and balances. And

[5:13] what else?

[5:20] Hey, you know what? I'm getting at I'm

[5:24] getting these students studied this

[5:26] constitution

[5:28] constantly several times a week, you

[5:31] know, and it's easy to forget some of a

[5:33] lot of the things that happened, isn't

[5:35] it? A lot of the things. And so, we have

[5:37] to continue to study the Constitution

[5:42] over and over again. Now, on March 23rd

[5:46] and 24th,

[5:48] there was a statewide competition held

[5:51] at the Utah State Capitol Rotunda, and

[5:53] it was called the Constitution B. The

[5:56] Constitution B had three divisions:

[5:58] elementary, junior high, and high

[6:00] school. Okay? And this year, there were

[6:03] 12 high school teams, 24

[6:07] elementary teams, and 28

[6:11] uh junior high teams. That's quite a few

[6:13] teams that they had to go with. Now, out

[6:15] of those 24 elementary teams, eight of

[6:19] them came from North Ogden. Eight of

[6:23] them. And

[6:28] a third of them. This was made possible

[6:31] because of a principal by the name of

[6:34] Reel Cox.

[6:41] Well, Mrs. Cox thought the Constitution

[6:44] was very important and since this is the

[6:46] 250th anniversary of the signing of the

[6:51] Declaration of Independence, she

[6:53] assigned two teachers uh Mrs. Montag,

[6:57] Heidi Montag, and also Christa Christa

[7:01] Bernett to gather teams, put teams

[7:05] together. And so when I went to the

[7:08] school, they already had the teams

[7:10] together. Boy, that was really

[7:12] something. And then they practiced

[7:15] every week. They let them practice there

[7:18] at school for one hour a week. And then

[7:21] the teams got together during the week

[7:24] and did a a class themselves. And so now

[7:28] the the competition had four students on

[7:31] each team. Okay? And each team, each

[7:34] person was given this study guide, 40

[7:39] page study guide to learn by. So I mean

[7:43] that's a pretty hefty thing. Uh uh come

[7:47] on now. Uh

[7:49] now the actual competition put two four

[7:53] student teams against each other with

[7:55] buzzers.

[7:57] Okay. And all the questions came from

[8:00] the study guide and were from the

[8:03] Declaration of Independence, the

[8:05] Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the

[8:07] amendments. There were 16 questions in

[8:11] each round. Okay? And they had the

[8:14] junior the elementary had five rounds.

[8:17] The junior high had seven rounds. Seven

[8:21] rounds. Now, uh, the students from North

[8:26] Ogden did very well and brought home

[8:29] winning trophies.

[8:33] Raise it up high.

[8:38] They received cash awards. Cash awards.

[8:42] And they received medals. Raise your M.

[8:46] Okay. Good. Good.

[8:49] Okay. Raise your hand when I do the

[8:51] teams. Uh, the Constitution Queens, the

[8:56] Goldfish,

[8:58] Thunderstorm,

[9:00] Conquerors,

[9:03] Queen Bees. Oh, by the way, the Queen

[9:07] Bees had five rounds. They won every

[9:11] single round.

[9:13] >> Wow. Every single round. Okay. The

[9:17] Musketss,

[9:18] they tied for third place out of 24

[9:22] teams. Okay.

[9:25] Now, in the junior high, we had the

[9:27] special K. It was consisted of two

[9:30] families, the Krausses and the Kimbles.

[9:34] K. K. Special K. Got it. Okay. And then

[9:38] we had the Liberty Bells. Now the

[9:41] special key special caves won six out of

[9:45] the seven rounds and the only loss was

[9:48] to the championship team. So they took

[9:51] second place. Second place award was 250

[9:56] bucks for the team. That's not bad.

[9:59] Okay. Uh that's all I

[10:03] have. I I just certainly appreciate

[10:07] these students who who took the time to

[10:10] learn the Constitution and what it's all

[10:13] about because and you have to keep doing

[10:16] it. I mean I mean give me a break. We we

[10:19] don't remember everything, do we? But

[10:23] and it it doesn't matter how old you

[10:25] are. The Constitution is the supreme law

[10:29] of the land and must be followed. Hey,

[10:32] thanks a lot.

[10:51] » Okay.

[10:52] One, two, three.

[10:56] >> You got to raise that trophy up.

[10:59] One, two, three.

[11:11] Thank you, Reed, for bringing this to

[11:12] our attention and allowing the students

[11:14] to be here tonight. And thank you, Mrs.

[11:16] Cox, and all the students that

[11:18] participated. Way to represent North

[11:20] Ogden.

[11:21] And we'll let you guys, if you want to

[11:23] leave early, go ahead and leave now. Or

[11:25] feel free to stick around for our

[11:27] riveting agenda tonight.

[11:33] Um, while they're leaving, we'll move on

[11:34] to item number two, our fiscal year

[11:36] 2026, quarter 3 invest portfolio report.

[11:39] And our presenter will be Casey Hunaker,

[11:41] our city treasurer.

[11:44] >> Uh,

[11:46] good evening, council. I decided to sit

[11:47] down here since I have to I'm doing so

[11:50] much tonight and that way I don't have

[11:51] to move. Uh, let's get this started.

[11:54] John, can you get me on the screen?

[11:59] So this is the the quarterly report on

[12:01] the investments that we have with me all

[12:03] the investments with the city um

[12:07] that we I try to do it once a quarter to

[12:10] just give you as an update on it. So, we we invested a couple years ago, we

[12:25] invested $5 million uh from our public

[12:29] treasures uh investment fund and we

[12:32] moved it over to meter investments. That

[12:34] was the purpose of that was to try to

[12:37] secure some higher rates that were

[12:38] available at the time because we could

[12:40] the forecast was showing that rates were

[12:42] going to start going down as they have.

[12:44] And so we have a total amount of

[12:47] principal amount of 5 million invested

[12:49] in meter. Um and in the last quarter we

[12:52] acrewed interest of 40 just under

[12:55] 43,42,745

[12:59] and then we have an unrealized gain uh

[13:01] as of when I put the as of the end of

[13:03] the month uh of so this is covering from

[13:07] January 1 to March 31. And so we had an

[13:11] unrealized gain of $9,96. So that's just

[13:15] a gain that hadn't been uh

[13:19] brought in and reinvested. So that gives

[13:22] us a rate of return of 4.07

[13:25] uh which is about where we were at the

[13:27] last time I gave this presentation. And

[13:30] then our our average maturity is 2.4

[13:33] years uh remaining on that. In the

[13:37] public treasures investment fund or the

[13:39] PTIF, we have a total balance of just

[13:41] over $24 million.

[13:43] In the quarter three, we we earned

[13:47] 225,000

[13:50] uh $4548.

[13:52] So that's the rate of return on that was

[13:54] 3.8581.

[13:56] So you can see that the meter

[13:58] investments uh have in the past they

[14:01] have been performing lower than the

[14:02] PTIF. Um, we knew that was going to

[14:05] happen when we started this, but like I

[14:08] said, we the reason we did the meter was

[14:09] so that we could lock in some of those

[14:11] higher rates as the the rates start

[14:13] coming down. And now we're seeing those

[14:15] rates are the those returns are coming

[14:18] back higher than what the PTIP is giving

[14:20] us right now. Steve

[14:21] >> Casey, when did we do the meter? Uh, $5

[14:25] million. Can you in your records could

[14:28] you share?

[14:28] >> I want to say it was December of 23 or

[14:32] hang on you're making me think December

[14:35] of 23.

[14:36] >> 23.

[14:37] >> Yeah.

[14:37] >> So in that time frame, how have they

[14:39] compared in terms of return?

[14:41] >> Um so we have we've performed very

[14:44] similarly to the PTIF.

[14:46] >> Um we were slightly below it up until

[14:49] this report and now slightly above it.

[14:52] So now we're we're starting to see that

[14:56] um that balancing out and okay

[14:59] >> and that contract goes through

[15:02] >> uh so it was a fiveyear maturity so uh

[15:05] December of 28 I believe is is when that

[15:08] one is

[15:10] on this next slide

[15:12] >> so sorry one more on the on the on the

[15:15] meter so that's the the five mil is is

[15:17] like you said the principal so all the

[15:18] interest and anything else flips over or

[15:21] is it yeah come out

[15:22] >> yeah so that that 5 million. It's It's

[15:25] being the the interest is being uh

[15:28] reallocated.

[15:29] >> Okay.

[15:30] >> Reinvested, not return. So, it's not being distributed back to the

[15:34] city. It's being reinvested. Is that

[15:36] what you're saying?

[15:37] >> Yeah.

[15:39] The next slide just shows those rates um

[15:42] on a bar graph. So, um so the PTIF is

[15:45] the one on the right, the green, and the meter rates are the one on the left.

[15:51] So you can see that that's now outpaced

[15:54] the public treasures investment fund

[15:56] which is kind of what we were hoping we

[15:58] would see in the long run.

[16:01] Um the the next part of the slide this

[16:04] presentation I wanted to include was

[16:07] where we stand with our sales tax

[16:10] revenue bonds. We have two two of those.

[16:13] The series 21 and the series 22. Um on

[16:16] the series 21 we

[16:20] have a total of

[16:22] uh 5.7 million remaining.

[16:26] Um we've paid in the last

[16:30] from the last report. So we pay we pay

[16:33] this uh twice a year by annually or

[16:37] semianually not by annually

[16:39] semiannually. Um we paid in June and in

[16:42] November. So this number doesn't change

[16:44] a whole lot because so it's the same. Uh

[16:47] the last payment so the last time we

[16:49] paid it was in November. Um we just

[16:52] barely got the the next statements for

[16:55] these um this morning I believe. So it

[16:59] was too late for me to update my slides

[17:00] and get it submitted. So um this we were

[17:04] at 5.7 on the 21 and 2.4 on the 22. Um,

[17:09] and that's what the bond that was the

[17:11] debt service bond that we used, the the

[17:14] sales tax revenue bond that we used to

[17:16] build this building that we're in now.

[17:17] Um, and then the interest rate is still

[17:21] very very low. It's 0.9% on the 21 bond

[17:25] and then 2.6 on the 22. So, we're still

[17:28] making quite a bit of money just

[17:31] taking our time to to pay those off and

[17:33] not paying them right away. Um, and then

[17:36] there those maturity dates, I believe

[17:38] they were 20-year bonds. Is that

[17:39] correct, John?

[17:41] >> Do you need to remember?

[17:42] >> Yeah. So, 20 year bonds. And so, we're

[17:46] uh we're probably paying we're 5 years

[17:50] into the first one. So, we still 15

[17:52] years on that one.

[17:54] >> So, the future trends on the market.

[17:56] >> Yeah. What was the maturity date?

[17:57] >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. My question is the

[17:59] interest paid is that uh per quarter? Is

[18:03] that an annual number? What's that?

[18:05] >> The interest paid. That's what the

[18:06] interest was paid. Um, so like I said,

[18:09] we we pay those twice a year. We pay

[18:12] principal and interest in June.

[18:15] And then in no

[18:17] in November, we pay just the interest.

[18:20] And so the interest paid there is is

[18:23] signifying the interest we paid for the

[18:25] period of July through November.

[18:27] >> Okay. And then the next presentation

[18:29] will have the balance and the interest

[18:32] paid down.

[18:34] Steve. Oh. Oh, the

[18:36] >> I thought you had a question.

[18:37] >> You didn't have the maturity date there.

[18:39] I know you asked John a question with

[18:40] So, you're about 20 40 20

[18:44] >> They're 20 year. They were 20 year

[18:45] bonds. So, we took the first one in 21.

[18:48] So, we're 5 years into it. So, we have

[18:50] 15 years now. So, uh 20 41.

[18:53] >> Yeah. 41. Yeah.

[18:54] >> 4142 because they were

[18:56] >> Yeah.

[18:57] >> Um two a year apart. So,

[19:00] >> and just so everybody knows those those

[19:02] in interest rates are because there's

[19:04] certain tanches that have to do with

[19:06] that. So, they're not necessarily that

[19:08] for the whole time.

[19:09] >> Correct.

[19:10] >> Yeah. Because one I think ranges from

[19:12] 0.5 to 2.8 and then second one is 2.3 to

[19:16] 465. So,

[19:17] >> yeah. So, the interest rate increases

[19:19] every every six months as well. And so,

[19:22] right now we're we're in the 0.90 and

[19:24] the 2.6 trunch. And so, it'll it'll go

[19:27] up. And just to let Steve know um enter

[19:30] the that um I kind of convinced the

[19:33] mayor that we should put a memo together

[19:35] to kind of for future council in fact I

[19:37] should probably send that to you that

[19:39] says what we should do to pay it off if

[19:41] that makes sense because that you know

[19:44] for most people it's like oh any debt

[19:45] pay it off if you have the money. Well,

[19:47] if the rate is 0.9%,

[19:49] >> why would you?

[19:50] >> Why?

[19:50] Anyway,

[19:51] >> I agree.

[19:51] >> Sorry.

[19:52] >> I agree. Pretty cheap financing.

[19:53] Absolutely.

[19:54] >> That that money is making us more money

[19:55] in the PA for the meter wherever we have

[19:58] it right now than we're paying in the

[20:00] interest. So,

[20:01] >> in the public works building, I I just

[20:05] recall the some of the challenges the

[20:07] city had with that. So, that's paid off

[20:09] then?

[20:10] >> Yeah, I believe.

[20:10] >> Was there a bond on the public? Oh,

[20:12] there wasn't. We just paid cash for

[20:14] that. Oh,

[20:15] >> y

[20:16] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[20:17] >> So we we are bonded for this building

[20:19] that we're in but not not the public

[20:20] works facility. And then the last slide

[20:23] is just the future trends that so meter

[20:26] when they give us our statements every

[20:28] month or every month they put these on

[20:30] the end. So it just kind of talks about

[20:32] what what they see happening.

[20:35] Um as you can see interest rates were

[20:37] higher from March uh March generally. I

[20:41] mean it's due to the increase in energy

[20:42] prices. Um, Fed funds Fed funds uh are

[20:47] bouncing around. So, they don't they're

[20:49] not projecting any more um cut cuts to

[20:53] the Fed rate. Um, I did go to the UGFOA

[20:56] conference recently and there's a

[20:59] possibility there might be a rise in the

[21:02] rate um to help try to calm things down.

[21:07] because of Iran, right?

[21:09] >> With with things uh the uncertainty in

[21:11] the world today, there's it's always a

[21:13] possibility for rates to go up. Um

[21:16] economic growth for the fourth quarter

[21:18] of 20 20 that should be 2025 I believe

[21:23] since we're not to the fourth quarter of

[21:24] 2026 yet. So it was revised. So it was lower. The the economy didn't

[21:31] grow as much in the fourth quarter of

[21:34] 25. And then the markets are showing

[21:39] that there's not a lot of hiring, but

[21:40] there's also not a lot of firing going

[21:42] on. So we're kind of just staying level. Um which is a good sign

[21:46] for the economy to a degree. Also that

[21:49] the economy is not growing, which means

[21:51] there's not more jobs, right? And then

[21:54] the the rate of change. So inflation's

[21:56] not going up as high uh as of the end of

[22:00] March. I don't know what it is doing

[22:03] currently. I haven't looked at it um in

[22:06] the last 13 days, but I imagine

[22:08] >> it picked up a 3.4% CPI.

[22:11] >> Yeah,

[22:12] >> it was a bad month.

[22:14] >> I I'm not I'm not saying I'm not sure

[22:16] that that's accurate at this point. So

[22:18] as as of when I created the slides and

[22:20] they I was given the statement that's

[22:21] what that's what they were saying. So

[22:24] that's my presentation on the the

[22:27] investment portfolio for the city for

[22:28] this quarter. If you have any questions

[22:30] I'm happy to answer them. Uh just shoot

[22:34] me an email or we can we can give me a

[22:36] phone call and and I'm happy to answer

[22:37] your questions for you.

[22:38] >> Okay. Thank you Casey.

[22:41] >> Uh moving on. Item number three, signing

[22:43] up for notifications on the city

[22:44] website. And our presenter is Ryan

[22:46] Santoro or city recorder.

[22:50] » Okay. Thank you, mayor. Thank you,

[22:53] council.

[22:55] It's under the council training. Yeah.

[22:58] Yep.

[23:00] Okay. Tonight, I'm just going to give a

[23:03] quick overview on how residents can

[23:05] survive or survive subscribe to receive

[23:09] notifications for city meetings. agendas

[23:11] and public notices. Next slide, please.

[23:15] Um why this matters? Um all of this will

[23:18] help residents stay informed. They'll be

[23:20] able to have a notification right there

[23:22] in their email um anytime an agenda or

[23:25] new meeting minutes are posted, notices,

[23:28] etc. Um it supports transparency and it

[23:32] makes it easier for the public to stay

[23:34] engaged. Next slide, please. Um there

[23:38] are two ways to subscribe. Um, one is

[23:41] the Utah public notice website and the

[23:44] other is the North Ogden city website.

[23:47] Both have the same information posted to

[23:50] them every time we post. Um, next slide,

[23:54] please. Um, the public notice website.

[23:56] This is a state public notice website.

[23:59] in order to find what you're looking for

[24:01] here. You'll go to this main screen and

[24:05] then you'll um search North Ogden and

[24:08] you'll search for the group that you're

[24:10] wanting. Typically, it's going to be

[24:12] either city council or planning

[24:14] commission and then you'll click into

[24:16] notice and then it'll subscribe to

[24:18] public body. It's pretty intuitive and

[24:21] easy to do. From then on, you'll get a

[24:24] notification from the public notice

[24:25] website that a new notice has been

[24:28] posted to the city council or the

[24:30] planning commission, whatever body you

[24:32] subscribe to. Next web or next page,

[24:36] please. This gives a little bit more

[24:38] indepth into that public notice website.

[24:41] There's your counties, your

[24:43] municipalities, and then it goes into

[24:45] entities, and then it goes further into

[24:47] public body there in the three columns.

[24:49] Next slide.

[24:51] And then there is where you'll put in

[24:53] your email and subscribe. You'll have to

[24:56] do the capta to make sure you're not a

[24:58] robot. And then from there, you just

[25:00] keep going or you'll keep getting um

[25:02] notifications after you hit subscribe.

[25:05] Next slide, please. The city website is

[25:08] just a little more complicated. There's

[25:10] one step in it um that a lot of people

[25:12] miss. So, I'll make sure to point that

[25:14] out. So, you'll go to the North Ogden

[25:17] City website and you'll go to government

[25:19] and city council agenda and minutes.

[25:22] Under that, go to the next slide,

[25:24] please. Under that, um, it has your

[25:27] different groups. It has the audit

[25:29] committee, the city council, and the

[25:31] planning commission. The page is what

[25:34] you're getting notifications for. So, on

[25:37] the public notice website, you could um

[25:39] select a specific body. Here you're just

[25:43] selecting a notification that something

[25:45] on that page has been updated. So what

[25:48] you'll do is you will go to the agenda

[25:50] minutes page and you'll enter your email

[25:54] right up there where it says your email

[25:57] and it you'll press the button where it

[25:59] will say subscribe. This is where people

[26:02] get confused and where it's missing. You

[26:04] have to check your email address and you

[26:06] have to go into that email and you have

[26:08] to press confirm and then you will start

[26:11] getting the email address. So there's a

[26:13] second step there that people are

[26:14] missing. Next slide.

[26:17] This is what the email will look like.

[26:19] It comes from a or email address no

[26:22] reply atrevise.com. Revise is who hosts

[26:24] our website. And then right there is

[26:27] where you will press confirm and

[26:29] complete these changes. And then you

[26:31] will start getting those notifications.

[26:33] This process will give residents um and

[26:36] also staff and council a simple way to

[26:39] stay up to date. And I'm happy to answer

[26:42] any questions you guys may have.

[26:47] » I'm still waiting for my confirmation

[26:49] email.

[26:50] >> Are you?

[26:50] >> Oh, there it is.

[26:52] >> There it is.

[26:55] >> Oh, it works. I followed through.

[26:59] >> It worked on my end. But yeah, that's a

[27:01] good way for residents to to keep on top

[27:04] of the agendas and and look for what

[27:06] they're they're wanting to get

[27:07] notifications on. So, thank you.

[27:10] >> Thank you.

[27:12] >> Okay, moving on. Item number four, a

[27:14] conflict of interest disclosure. Does

[27:15] anyone have anything they'd like to

[27:18] disclose tonight?

[27:21] All right, seeing none, we'll move on.

[27:23] Um, before we do voting tonight, if

[27:25] we're going to do a roll call vote,

[27:26] we'll start with Council Member Carney

[27:27] and work our way down. I think there's

[27:29] only one item we're doing a roll call

[27:31] on. So, okay. Item number five, approval

[27:34] of the March 2020 or 24th, 2026 meeting

[27:37] minutes. They've all been distributed

[27:39] electronically. Does anyone have any

[27:41] corrections? If not, be looking for a

[27:43] motion to approve.

[27:47] » I'll make a motion to approve.

[27:48] >> Okay. Motion by Council Member Neighbor.

[27:50] Do we have a second?

[27:51] >> Second.

[27:52] by Council Member Watson. Is

[27:54] there any other discussion?

[27:57] All right. All in favor say I.

[27:59] >> I.

[28:00] >> Does anyone opposed? All right. Motion

[28:02] passed unanimously.

[28:04] Item number six in the active agenda.

[28:07] We're going to start with our public

[28:08] comments. This is your chance to come to

[28:10] the microphone and leave comments for

[28:11] us. State whether you're resident in

[28:13] North Ogden and let's keep our comments

[28:14] to 5 minutes or less. So the time is now

[28:17] yours.

[28:23] Barker, city councilman. Councilwoman,

[28:26] thank you for your service. Um Kevin

[28:28] Mickelson, North Ogden, 837 East, 2750

[28:31] North.

[28:33] I have a growing concern about traffic

[28:36] on 2750 North.

[28:39] Um it includes Well, I was I was I guess start with a question as what

[28:45] process would I have to go through to

[28:47] petition for the speed limit to be

[28:49] dropped from 30 miles hour to 25?

[28:53] Anybody Does anybody know? Our officers

[28:56] over there are the ones that are over

[28:57] that.

[28:59] I think they're they'll take note.

[29:01] >> I had a chat with one of the officers

[29:03] this morning and he directed me to come

[29:04] to talk to the city council and so

[29:07] that's why I'm here just to see what the

[29:08] process is. Um whether it can happen or

[29:11] not. Um 850 east is 25 miles an hour.

[29:14] It's a north north south corridor. 725

[29:17] east or north uh um Monroe Boulevard is

[29:20] also 25 miles an hour as well as 700

[29:23] east, but from 700 east up to 1050 east

[29:27] on on 2750 it's 30 m hour. And I'm

[29:32] consistently seeing an excess of speed

[29:34] of 30 mph by a lot of people including

[29:37] and I don't know the the rules it is for

[29:40] these young people that do not have a

[29:42] driver's license that are driving

[29:43] electronic vehicles. motorcycles is what

[29:46] they look like. Small mention

[29:48] motorcycles. But uh um I saw another one

[29:51] today and he was doing Papa Wheelie up

[29:54] and down the street.

[29:56] Um and it seems like right after the

[30:00] junior high is is let out. Um, I talked

[30:02] to with the uh, dispatch and they got me

[30:05] in contact with one of the officers and

[30:07] he said he was going to go ahead and see

[30:09] about getting somebody on site to see if

[30:12] they can see what's going on in that

[30:14] respect. Um, so we've got a new family

[30:17] that's moved next door after my mom and

[30:19] dad's house was sold and they've got

[30:21] children. I've got a granddaughter and

[30:24] they have friends across the street.

[30:26] there's going to be they're at that age

[30:28] where they're going to be crossing roads

[30:29] back and forth or crossing the road. Um,

[30:32] and I'm just want to do a little pre

[30:34] preventative maintenance to make sure

[30:36] that we don't have an accident and to

[30:39] see what we can do to get the the

[30:41] traffic the traffic slowed down on that

[30:43] road.

[30:45] So,

[30:48] I appreciate that. Thank you. say

[30:52] there's rules and guidelines that we

[30:54] follow, but don't look into it.

[30:56] >> Okay. Thank you for your time.

[31:06] » Hi, Deian Burns, North Ogden. I want to

[31:09] address the signage around the city. I

[31:12] wasn't going to come tonight. um wasn't

[31:15] even on my radar to do this, but as I

[31:19] came into the city, I noticed this. I

[31:22] wanted to address the signage around the

[31:23] city and how trashy these signs make our

[31:27] city look. And I think you know what

[31:29] signs um we can put up jellyfish lights,

[31:32] we can do lawnmowing, handyman. Today I

[31:36] left the city at 11:00 a.m. and I

[31:38] returned at 5:30 p.m. And the signage at

[31:42] Futland and Mountain Road where the sign

[31:45] says, "Welcome to North Ogden." Signs

[31:48] grew from 8 to 10. And I turned around,

[31:53] went to take a picture, and counted the

[31:56] signs. And I counted the signs

[31:59] as I left.

[32:01] Do we not have a city ordinance

[32:04] regarding this anymore? I've spoke once

[32:06] before about this in city council a

[32:10] couple years back and have spoke to

[32:12] department heads and employees.

[32:14] Do us as citizens need to tell the city

[32:17] when signs are not within guidelines of

[32:20] ordinance? As a citizen, I'm not saying

[32:24] this to be disrespectful. I care about

[32:26] where we live. Also, employees seem to

[32:29] take this personal when a complaint is

[32:32] made.

[32:34] I should be able to make a statement as

[32:36] a citizen without feeling retaliation

[32:40] from the city or that I have no right to

[32:43] mention this. Is this not their job in

[32:46] their job description to keep up with

[32:48] our ordinances? Help me understand why

[32:50] us as citizens have to monitor this and

[32:54] why these signs are so out of control in

[32:56] North Ogden. I've tried to take a

[32:58] picture tonight

[33:01] um to have you view it in the area.

[33:04] However, the traffic was too bad to

[33:06] stop.

[33:07] I would encourage you as the council to

[33:10] drive around the city and take note of

[33:13] all these signs. I would collect them

[33:16] myself, but I don't get paid by the city

[33:18] to do that. It seems that nobody wants

[33:21] to do their job. And I know that others

[33:25] in our neighborhood and community have

[33:27] mentioned this signage.

[33:30] And I just want to know why this

[33:32] ordinance isn't observed and why it

[33:36] seems to be disregarded.

[33:51] Go ahead.

[33:52] I'm going to tell you something just

[33:53] because it's my pet peeve as well. So,

[33:56] they're working on it. I think the

[33:58] biggest thing is that um the ordinances

[34:01] that we do enforce are fire life safety

[34:03] and that's a lower priority. Even

[34:05] though, like you said, I want to get out

[34:07] of my car and just tuck them into the

[34:08] back of my car and throw them away

[34:10] because it's agreed it is in violation

[34:12] of ordinance. I want to call each one of

[34:15] them and say, "Hey, you know, your signs

[34:16] are in vi

[34:18] So, it's not just you and it's at least

[34:20] two others on here, if not all of them.

[34:22] I'm pretty sure it annoys the crap out

[34:24] of us. So, yes, it go.

[34:27] >> But if I was to do that, am I going to

[34:29] get arrested for taking those signs and

[34:32] throwing them in the back of my car?

[34:34] Because I wanted to actually do that.

[34:36] And I actually wanted to huck them, pick

[34:38] them all up, and huck them and put them

[34:40] in a big pile so somebody would see them

[34:42] in the city and say, "Let me pick them

[34:43] up."

[34:45] >> Let's defer to the Yep.

[34:49] >> Best.

[34:55] But but we're having a they've they've

[34:57] organized a citizen I'm skipping to the

[35:00] end here, but a citizen um help to get

[35:04] the city code enforcement kind of

[35:07] prioritized and

[35:09] a little bit more quick because the

[35:11] biggest thing is if you see anything and

[35:15] to your point about calling city staff,

[35:16] sometimes city staff, the best one to do

[35:19] is non-emergency dispatch. So it's

[35:22] calling Weaver County and they know, oh,

[35:25] it's North Ogden again, you know, just

[35:27] that they get and it so it's racked and

[35:29] stacked and they know and so that's how

[35:32] you get priority and that's how it gets

[35:34] put in the books. So calling staff does

[35:36] help, but that's how they know code

[35:39] enforcement is non-emergency dispatch.

[35:54] Reed Miller, North Ogden. And um this

[35:57] past uh month I went to my utility bill

[36:01] and there was $15 more on my on my

[36:05] utility bill and I said, "What? Where

[36:08] did that come from? What what group

[36:12] passed that $15?"

[36:15] And uh did did the city did the citizens

[36:19] approve of it? And then I said scratched

[36:22] my head and said, "Yeah, of course the

[36:25] city needs more money to do roads and

[36:27] stuff." But I said said, "Hey, look,

[36:30] this year we didn't even have any much

[36:32] of a snow removal." Well, they had what

[36:35] about the extra money for the road snow

[36:38] removal? And uh so it it it was just a a

[36:43] concern and I wondered how many other

[36:47] citizens all of a sudden said, "Wow,

[36:49] what's going on with our city council?"

[36:53] And all of a sudden raising it. I know

[36:55] not too long ago we had a property tax

[36:58] increase that the state really didn't

[37:01] approve of, but there were many on the

[37:03] council that approved for a 15%

[37:06] increase. And of course it went way down

[37:09] to I think 4%. And now this $15 is more

[37:14] than 15%.

[37:16] And so I tell you it was just something

[37:20] that was mind-boggling to me and I'm

[37:24] sure it it was mindboggling to a lot of

[37:26] other citizens. Thank you.

[37:38] Hi, my name is Alicia Tisher. I'm

[37:40] resident in North Ogden City. I stayed

[37:43] just to listen tonight, but something

[37:45] thought of thought came to my mind. Um,

[37:48] as you are leaving Wendy's to your

[37:51] right, the only way you can go is right

[37:53] because there's a concrete barrier right

[37:54] in front of you. It's not yellow and

[37:57] there is no no left turn sign. Um, and

[38:00] I've seen people go ahead on collisions

[38:02] right there, like not actually hit, but

[38:04] like it could have potentially been

[38:05] whether it was a new driver or whether

[38:07] it was dark. Um, just wondering, can we

[38:09] get a no left turn sign right there or

[38:11] the concrete barrier bright reflective

[38:14] yellow? Just a thought I had while Dian

[38:17] mentioned signs that came to my brain.

[38:35] Okay, not seeing anyone online. Um,

[38:38] we'll move on. But in response to your

[38:40] question, Alicia, I think is that a U

[38:42] dot controlled intersection?

[38:45] >> It is, but usually they would paint it

[38:47] yellow and do signs, but so we'll talk

[38:50] to you do.

[38:51] >> Okay.

[38:52] All right. So, moving on to item number

[38:54] seven. our audit fiscal year 2024 2025

[38:57] audit report discussion and

[39:00] consideration to accept the audit and

[39:02] our presenter will be Peter Brown our

[39:04] finance director and the auditors.

[39:08] Hello. Can you hear me?

[39:10] >> Oh, I got Peter muted. Sorry.

[39:14] >> Oh, there you go. Peter,

[39:15] >> can you hear me?

[39:16] >> Yep.

[39:17] >> Okay, great. Um,

[39:20] so we're going to just kind of run

[39:21] through. We had the audit uh committee

[39:25] meet at the end of March and um our

[39:30] auditor um came and presented the audit

[39:34] um at that time and

[39:37] we went through that and and

[39:41] but that's just a um it's not a

[39:45] governing body. They can't really accept

[39:47] it. So, we have to kind of push that

[39:49] forward here to the city council to have

[39:52] you all be able to

[39:54] um look at it as well. And so, I'm just

[39:58] basically going to summarize what um

[40:02] what Gilbert and Stewart uh did when

[40:04] they presented the audit so that you can

[40:08] kind of understand how we landed and and

[40:12] we we do recognize it's late. I guess a

[40:14] lot of the cities and uh were late this last year. We were a little extra

[40:19] late. Um we're going to try to do a

[40:21] little bit better to get this uh kind of

[40:23] sewn up a little bit earlier going

[40:25] forward.

[40:26] But if John can if you can pull that up,

[40:29] I'll just kind of go walk through

[40:32] um

[40:33] the different parts of this. Um, we'll

[40:37] start with the independent auditor's

[40:38] report

[40:40] and um, I don't see it on my screen, but

[40:42] if you guys can see it on your screen

[40:44] and you're good, I'll just walk through

[40:45] it

[40:47] and and apologize. I'm got some kind of

[40:51] goop or croo. So, that's why I'm over

[40:53] here doing it from my office instead of

[40:55] there and giving you all of my wonderful

[40:58] viral

[41:00] um,

[41:01] presents. So, I I hope that you um can go away without having to deal

[41:08] with that. So, thanks for letting me

[41:10] stay over here and doing it this way. Um

[41:13] so, starting with the independent

[41:14] auditor's report, the audit was

[41:16] conducted in accordance with with with

[41:19] generally accepted accounting standards

[41:21] and government auditing standards and

[41:23] the auditors obtained sufficient

[41:25] appropriate evidence and they this is

[41:27] basically just saying they're remaining

[41:28] independent.

[41:30] They expressed an unmodified opinion

[41:32] which is in accounting parliament a

[41:35] clean opinion. They performed risk

[41:37] assessments and other standard

[41:38] procedures without appining on the

[41:40] effectiveness of the internal controls

[41:43] but they applied some limited procedures

[41:46] and they needed to require supplementary

[41:48] information. So that's sort of just

[41:50] their opening letter to explain what

[41:53] they did and and um what the outcome

[41:56] was. So go ahead and go down to the next

[42:00] one

[42:01] that is called correspondence with those

[42:04] charged with governance. It's the next

[42:07] um report down.

[42:12] » Uh which one, Peter? I'm looking at the

[42:14] names of the documents and I don't see a

[42:16] correspond you just have to like scroll

[42:18] down on this I think.

[42:23] » Oh, you only have one document open. I'm

[42:25] sorry.

[42:26] >> This one? Yes, sorry, that's the that's

[42:29] the one. Okay, this was just the

[42:32] communications letter to the governing

[42:34] body of North Ogden City following its

[42:36] financial statements

[42:39] um for year end June 30th, 2025.

[42:42] A management selection application of

[42:44] accounting policies were appropriate and

[42:46] consistent with no new policies adopted

[42:48] and no transaction lacking authoritative

[42:51] guidance. There was the only notably

[42:54] sensitive accounting estimate involved

[42:55] the useful lives of depreciable assets

[42:58] which the auditors found reasonable.

[43:01] Um

[43:02] no significant difficulties were

[43:04] accounted. All detected misstatements

[43:06] were conducted by management were not

[43:07] material. There were no disagreements

[43:10] with management or consultants

[43:12] with other accountants. Management

[43:14] provided the required representation

[43:15] letter dated February 12th, 2026.

[43:19] One current year, Utah state legal

[43:21] compliance finding was noted that uh the

[43:24] city did not

[43:27] um file the annual fraud risk

[43:29] assessment.

[43:31] We we presented that in January 2026,

[43:33] but we need to do it in June. And so um

[43:37] they did give us a finding on that and

[43:39] we've agreed to take steps to comply

[43:41] with that in the future. And then they

[43:43] also talked about a prior year finding

[43:47] um reflecting the aquatic center special

[43:49] revenue fund and how it was resolved in

[43:51] fiscal year 25. Um

[43:55] and overall the audit proceeded smoothly

[43:57] with no other reportable issues.

[44:01] So do you have the one for internal

[44:03] control the internal control report? if

[44:06] you don't, I'll just they they had

[44:08] another letter talking about internal

[44:10] controls

[44:11] and um

[44:14] they just basically said that in

[44:17] planning or performing the audit, the

[44:18] auditors considered the city's internal

[44:20] control but did not express an opinion

[44:22] on its effectiveness but did not

[44:24] identify any deficiencies that rose to

[44:26] the level of material weakness. So

[44:29] that's really about how the count the

[44:31] sorry that's the the city sorry about

[44:34] how the city conducts its um accounting

[44:37] operations

[44:40] and then um the final um report were the

[44:44] financial statements.

[44:46] So you go ahead and go to the financial

[44:48] statements there John

[44:51] and there were some questions that came

[44:53] about in the audit committee about the

[44:54] financial report. This is a

[44:56] comprehensive governmentwide report.

[44:58] Many of the figures are aggregated

[45:00] across different funds and they look

[45:02] different than often how they are

[45:04] presented with the city's accounting

[45:05] software.

[45:07] So the committee asks that these

[45:08] questions be answered satisfactorily

[45:10] prior to the acceptance of the audit. Um

[45:13] staff and Cington and Christensen

[45:15] responded to the committee to the

[45:16] following questions. So, if you want to

[45:18] go to page seven,

[45:21] there was a um a question about property

[45:23] tax revenue showing a decreased

[45:24] year-over-year, which seemed unexpected.

[45:27] Um

[45:31] the decrease was because the city's RDA

[45:33] also received property taxes in the last

[45:35] year. The RD recorded taxes was in 2024.

[45:37] So we are we think about a lot of times

[45:40] we think about when we see the property

[45:41] tax revenues we just see it in the

[45:43] general fund but it's also over in the RDA and so that sort of made it look

[45:49] like that we we we had dropped overall

[45:52] but not you know as a total combined

[45:57] um fund but not in the the general fund.

[46:00] So now go to page eight

[46:03] and then the question on here was about

[46:05] public safety. If you note there,

[46:08] there's about a $600,000

[46:11] increase in public safety. And that was

[46:13] questioned that seemed kind of high.

[46:16] This is a similar um circumstance. Uh

[46:19] you know, the police department itself

[46:23] was only about $200,000$100 to $200,000

[46:27] over or up year-over-year. And so like

[46:30] where did the rest of that come from?

[46:32] And there were two different pieces of

[46:34] that. Um, one of the pieces was that,

[46:38] um, according to some different

[46:39] accounting rules, and I'll just kind of

[46:42] summarize it at a high level, that when

[46:46] employees

[46:47] have acred compensated absences, they

[46:50] have to be

[46:52] expensed out in the year they were

[46:53] acred. And so when the auditors went and

[46:56] did or when the our went and did some

[47:00] testing on that, they found that we had some higher compensated absences

[47:05] that they had to acrew. And so that

[47:07] popped it up. The the overwhelming part

[47:09] of it though was you have to count

[47:12] depreciation on the building and the one

[47:15] we just talked about in the treasury

[47:17] report where the bonds that we have for

[47:19] that building were first acred in 2025.

[47:24] And so that

[47:26] the depreciation amount popped that

[47:29] overall total up. And so that's why that

[47:33] looked that was higher than probably

[47:35] people thought it should be.

[47:39] And then if you want to go to page 17,

[47:44] this was a question related to the

[47:46] increase in fund balance to 1.6 million,

[47:50] which also seemed high. we were able to

[47:52] track it to a combination of factors. Um

[47:55] first of all the finance office was in full turnover and consequently

[47:59] some of the revenues were not totally

[48:01] captured until after the budget went

[48:03] through its final adjust amendment in

[48:05] last June. So we went the budget and

[48:08] then July rolled around and when we

[48:11] started to engage with the audit with

[48:13] our CPA we found some additional

[48:15] revenues that we hadn't captured

[48:18] and um that process should be fixed in

[48:21] the subsequent year but just sort of to

[48:24] encapsulate that difference um of that

[48:27] $1.6 $6,500,000

[48:30] um in other fund balances.

[48:33] These are other fund balances other than

[48:35] the general fund such as the RDA and

[48:37] capital or rolled to the subsequent

[48:38] year.

[48:40] And then the revenue piece that I just

[48:43] talked about where we had captured some

[48:45] revenue. There was $222,000 in property

[48:49] tax revenue and then sales and other

[48:53] sales like taxes, you know, the the

[48:55] motor vehicle tax. utility tax came to

[48:58] about 279.

[49:00] And so altogether that was an a revenue

[49:02] that uh we caught after we redid the

[49:04] budget. And then we also had road funds

[49:07] of $428,000

[49:10] which um similar similar circumstance.

[49:14] Um we just didn't capture it before the year-end budget amendment.

[49:19] Those funds are restricted to roads. So,

[49:23] um,

[49:25] that's the big difference there. And

[49:27] then on our expenses side, we were we

[49:29] held down expenses by about $280,000.

[49:33] And then there were some other balances

[49:34] that sort of made up the difference. But

[49:36] those are the kind of the big pieces of

[49:38] it that that capture that 1.6 million.

[49:42] Um, at the end of the analysis though,

[49:45] the funible surplus really amounts to

[49:47] $500,000

[49:49] over what was predicted. The remainder

[49:52] is restricted dollars either to specific

[49:53] funds or to specific projects like

[49:55] roads. Um and so those were the answers

[50:00] that we g that uh we gave the the

[50:02] council

[50:05] um a few days ago from the audit

[50:07] committee. And um

[50:11] that's sort of the end of the

[50:12] presentation. I think at this point if

[50:16] you guys have any more questions this is

[50:18] the time to ask. Other than that, I

[50:20] think

[50:21] um John, I think they just need to make

[50:23] a motion to accept the the 2025 fiscal

[50:27] year audit.

[50:29] >> Okay. Do we have any councils for Peter?

[50:32] Yeah. Council member Pulver.

[50:34] >> Um not so much questions, but I guess

[50:35] just to describe the audit committee. Um

[50:38] we talked about um I think Peter talked

[50:41] about it is uh a better timeline. I'm

[50:44] going to leave that to Mr. Steve there.

[50:46] Um and then also uh basically we were

[50:49] talking about how categories are

[50:51] combined into the audit report that

[50:53] really would help us and I think um with

[50:55] Peter trying to get a CPA and and

[50:57] hopefully may maybe making more um

[51:01] having a better uh expectations of the

[51:05] audit prep that uh can really understand

[51:09] and and make have give us the Rosetta

[51:12] Stone so that we can understand where

[51:13] numbers are coming from. Um, and then

[51:15] again, Peter talked about the positive

[51:17] balance, and I think that's something

[51:19] we're going to strive for and actually

[51:20] talk about later in uh tonight's

[51:22] meeting, but that's something also that

[51:24] the the audit committee uh discussed

[51:26] pretty heavily. Um, especially in a in a

[51:28] year that there was a property tax

[51:31] increase in that year. So, that that

[51:32] that's the thing that I want to avoid at

[51:34] all costs. But anyway,

[51:38] well, Mr. Steve.

[51:39] >> Um, I'll maybe being the new person to

[51:42] the audit committee, I just maybe share

[51:44] a couple of insights that I that I had.

[51:46] So, the first thing I did when I was

[51:48] named is I asked for the audited

[51:50] financial statements in January. And

[51:52] Peter's talked about this a little bit

[51:55] and it wasn't prepared and it's taken us a while and we had a

[52:00] lot of turnover like Peter has indicated

[52:03] and we utilize a third party accountant.

[52:06] We also our audit CPA firm maybe was not

[52:09] as timely as they should have been. And

[52:13] so we had a pretty good discussion in

[52:16] the audit committee talking about as

[52:20] Chris has indicated what do we do to get

[52:23] these audit these audited financial

[52:24] statements out before December 31st into

[52:28] the hands of the city council to look at

[52:30] before they're published. So, I think we

[52:33] have a pretty good plan and um so I'm

[52:38] pleased with that and I wanted to just

[52:40] share that it it is late. I mean,

[52:42] financial statements are always late

[52:44] anyway, but to be almost a this late is probably not acceptable moving

[52:49] forward, but we've got a plan to take

[52:51] care of that. And I want to compliment

[52:53] uh council member Pulver for his

[52:56] leadership in that audit committee

[52:58] because there was a lot of questions

[53:00] there and he handled that very well. So

[53:03] compliments to him for that

[53:06] >> council.

[53:08] Um it looks like uh our CPA from

[53:12] Kington's online if you have questions.

[53:15] I think he he came to answer any if you

[53:18] had any. Um, John Ben's online if you if

[53:22] you have any questions. I just wanted to

[53:24] point that out.

[53:26] >> I think the biggest question would be is

[53:28] to have like we were talking about the

[53:30] Rosetta Stone between um what goes comes

[53:33] out of Cassella into the audit report.

[53:35] That would be to me the the biggest

[53:37] thing to at least have it doesn't have

[53:40] to be detailed, but at least to have um

[53:42] you know the big buckets goes into what

[53:44] bucket so that we can kind of understand

[53:46] for the future. Um because really it

[53:49] comes down to planning. You can look at

[53:51] the numbers and go, "Yep, everything

[53:52] looks good." But to me, it looks, you

[53:54] know, like year to year is what we're

[53:56] kind of looking for. Um especially audit

[53:59] wise. Um, and then you know when the

[54:02] former mayor was having questions, you

[54:04] know, things, you know, that that's

[54:05] where I was kind of like maybe we should

[54:07] do some, you know, be better on this.

[54:09] And I think u council member neighbors

[54:12] on the same same

[54:14] we're on the same page and I think

[54:15] everybody's on the same page, Peter and John and everybody else. So I think

[54:20] um for the most part I don't see any me

[54:22] I don't see any issues period. Um I

[54:24] think it's just addressing how to um get

[54:28] future or how to not fix but make course

[54:32] corrections as we need to as quick as we

[54:34] can. Now obviously with you know talking

[54:37] about the budget today you know having

[54:39] the audit report you know anyway so I

[54:42] think we're doing well I think the

[54:45] we got the questions answered but I

[54:47] think in the future if we can get the

[54:48] Rosetta Stone between what comes out of

[54:50] Cassell going into the audit report that

[54:52] would be awesome.

[54:53] >> Yeah.

[54:57] I uh wasn't following very well on the

[55:00] discrepancy of the 600,000 in public

[55:03] safety. Um and I I wasn't following most

[55:06] of the numbers on this. It was it's

[55:07] pretty complicated. Uh

[55:10] so I need to sit down with you,

[55:12] Councilman Pulver. Uh that I unless if

[55:16] Peter can give a 30 to 60 sec second

[55:19] dumb things down for Councilman Da Pass,

[55:22] that'd be great

[55:25] >> because I I I wasn't track I I watched

[55:28] the audit report or the audit committee

[55:30] uh last week or a couple weeks ago,

[55:33] whenever it was, and I heard that

[55:35] 600,000 uh delta on public safety, and I

[55:40] um I was anxious to hear about it, and

[55:42] now it's been explained And I'm just in

[55:44] with my little mind I didn't understand

[55:47] it very well.

[55:49] >> So, so two things. Depreciation on the new building there started in

[55:56] fiscal year 2025. So that that won't

[55:59] show up on it won't show up on any

[56:02] operational budget that you'll see, but

[56:05] this is a governmentwide financial

[56:07] report and so it's going to aggregate

[56:10] um that together. So that's that's the

[56:12] first piece of it. And then there again

[56:15] the other issue and this is a weird

[56:18] accounting kind of mumbo jumbo thing.

[56:21] But we have to look at what we do with

[56:24] our leave time with our our officers and

[56:29] we have to do an adjustment on the basis

[56:31] of compensated absences and leave time

[56:35] and that adjustment we have to expense

[56:39] it in that fiscal year. An example would

[56:41] be I have a whole lot of leave time that

[56:44] I've earned, but I haven't taken that

[56:45] leave time. Well, I still have to

[56:47] expense it in that fiscal year.

[56:50] It's kind of weird, but that's just the

[56:52] way that that that the the Gazsby rules

[56:55] look at it is is you earned it in that

[56:58] year, so you expense it in that year,

[57:00] and then it just kind of sits in a bank

[57:01] for you to use in future years.

[57:04] >> Okay. So, those two things are the

[57:06] things that popped up that that amount.

[57:08] >> That's that's awesome. That's that's

[57:10] better understood by me now. So, if I'm

[57:12] to regurgitate it, uh the depreciation

[57:15] in the public safety building uh was

[57:18] just barely starting to be shown in

[57:20] these reports, and that's kind of the

[57:22] biggest part of the bump up.

[57:25] >> Okay. Thank you.

[57:27] >> Yeah.

[57:30] Go ahead.

[57:31] >> Are we going to be able to better

[57:32] predict the depreciation of the public

[57:34] safety building moving forward?

[57:37] Uh well, it's not so much about

[57:38] predicting it. It's just because because

[57:41] the depreciation's fixed and it's known.

[57:43] It's just that it doesn't show up on the

[57:46] reports that you generally see from me

[57:49] every quarter. It only you only see it

[57:52] in the governmentwide financial

[57:53] statements at the end of the of the

[57:55] audit year. And and so again, one thing

[57:59] that was talked about here that we're

[58:01] sort of committed to do in our office is

[58:04] just to do a better job at either

[58:07] working with um our CPA and getting that

[58:10] kind of Rosetta Stone

[58:13] um kind of situated or maybe we end up

[58:17] drafting these financial statements and

[58:20] then the CPA reviews it so that we have

[58:21] a little more ownership in it and can

[58:24] explain it better. Um there's just some different ways we can

[58:28] do it so that it makes it more

[58:29] transparent.

[58:35] » Hey, let's talk about depreciation for

[58:37] the next half an hour. I'm just kidding.

[58:40] I'd be looking for a motion to approve

[58:41] the

[58:44] >> We already been talking.

[58:45] >> I I move that we approve.

[58:47] >> So that's We're going to change the

[58:48] wording on this. Sorry to cut you off.

[58:50] Let's accept.

[58:51] >> Oh. Uh, and I even have it saying that

[58:54] on my shelf here.

[58:55] >> I I moved uh I motion to accept the

[58:58] fiscal year 2024

[59:00] through 2025 audit report as has been

[59:03] presented.

[59:04] >> Okay. Motion by council member Dalpaz.

[59:08] >> Do we have a second?

[59:09] >> Second.

[59:09] by council member Pver. Is there

[59:11] any other discussion?

[59:15] >> All right. This will be a voice vote. So

[59:16] all in favor say I.

[59:18] >> I.

[59:19] >> Is there any opposed?

[59:21] All right. Our 2024 2025 audit report

[59:24] has been accepted.

[59:27] Okay. Y

[59:29] moving on. Item number eight, our policy

[59:32] cash receiping and our discussion and

[59:34] consideration will be by and of the cash

[59:37] receiving policy will be by Casey

[59:38] Hunaker, our treasurer.

[59:42] >> All right, I'm back. Um, so council,

[59:45] tonight I just wanted to bring these two

[59:47] policies before you. Um, with the amount

[59:50] of change that we've had in the finance

[59:51] department and with the city council as

[59:54] well, um, I felt like it was a it was a

[59:57] good time to review these policies to

[59:59] make sure that you're all aware of our

[1:00:01] policies and that our finance staff is

[1:00:04] also aware of them. Um, to summarize,

[1:00:07] the last time these policies were

[1:00:09] brought before the council was in April

[1:00:11] of 2022, so four years ago. Um, this is

[1:00:14] something I kind of want to start doing

[1:00:16] annually just to make sure that we're

[1:00:17] all on the same page, staying on the

[1:00:19] same page, and making sure that it's

[1:00:22] being updated regularly. Um, it just

[1:00:25] happened to line up about exactly four

[1:00:27] years um because of the uh spring break

[1:00:30] and everything else that has gone on the

[1:00:32] last few weeks. So, this first policy is

[1:00:35] the cash receiving policy. is the policy

[1:00:37] that that tells us what we do when we

[1:00:40] receive a payment, how that payment is

[1:00:42] processed through the city to my office

[1:00:46] and from my office to our bank account.

[1:00:48] Um the the short the short of it is um

[1:00:53] when we receive a payment up front at

[1:00:55] either public works, they receive the

[1:00:57] checks from the dropbox or the people at

[1:01:00] the front desk at city hall receive the

[1:01:02] payment. they will enter it into our our

[1:01:06] software which is now my viewpoint which

[1:01:08] is one of the changes that which is

[1:01:10] really the only change that was made to

[1:01:11] this policy was just to include the new

[1:01:14] uh my viewpoint portal um and the portal

[1:01:17] that we have recently switched to. So

[1:01:21] once once it's received they have two

[1:01:23] days to get me that get get that payment

[1:01:27] to me to my office. Um, I reconcile

[1:01:31] those those cash transactions every morning and then I I take them to

[1:01:38] the bank that day. Uh, I have three days

[1:01:41] legally to take we have three days

[1:01:44] legally to get the money from the

[1:01:46] customer to the bank and then um in the

[1:01:50] form of cash or check. And so, um, I do

[1:01:54] I, like I said, I do the cash receiping

[1:01:56] process every morning. Uh, if I'm not

[1:01:58] available to do it, I have a backup in

[1:02:00] our accounts payable clerk. She she does

[1:02:03] a great job in taking care of that when

[1:02:05] I'm not able to be there. So, um, like I

[1:02:09] said, the only lit really the only

[1:02:11] change here was under the procedures to

[1:02:14] include the my, uh, the my viewpoint on step two, just to make sure that we

[1:02:19] were making we were all of our all of

[1:02:22] our transactions are being put in

[1:02:24] through my viewpoint or which is the

[1:02:28] community connect portal. My viewpoint

[1:02:30] is the the city side of it. And so

[1:02:32] that's where all of our our transactions

[1:02:34] are going into. And then from there,

[1:02:36] they're being processed the same way as

[1:02:38] before. So that that's the update for

[1:02:41] this cash receiving policy. Like I said,

[1:02:43] there's not a lot of change, just just

[1:02:45] enough to to make it so that we are

[1:02:48] including all the new technology that

[1:02:51] and the advances that we have. So if you

[1:02:52] have any questions, I'm happy to answer

[1:02:54] them. Um let's

[1:02:57] >> question here on cash receing page two.

[1:03:01] Well, I'm mine page two number two. City

[1:03:05] employees should not open bank accounts

[1:03:06] outside the control of the city

[1:03:08] treasurer, city manager, and finance

[1:03:10] director.

[1:03:12] It feels like we should maybe say you

[1:03:14] can only open a bank account if approved

[1:03:16] by the city manager.

[1:03:21] That that just that just looks a little

[1:03:23] bit too

[1:03:26] open to me.

[1:03:28] >> Okay, I can make that I can definitely

[1:03:30] make that change uh if you'd like. Um,

[1:03:34] so that's to how I interpreted it was

[1:03:36] that the you can't you shouldn't be

[1:03:39] opening them,

[1:03:39] >> right,

[1:03:40] >> without the treasurer, the finance

[1:03:43] director and the city manager having the

[1:03:44] access. I think statutoily

[1:03:47] >> uh technically it's supposed to be the

[1:03:49] city treasurer and the city recorder

[1:03:52] >> are required to be on the accounts

[1:03:53] because we're the appointed

[1:03:55] >> okay

[1:03:56] >> appointed.

[1:03:56] >> If it's you that should open that then

[1:03:59] we should just be very clear on that.

[1:04:01] It's only you.

[1:04:02] >> Okay. Okay. The other thing I was going

[1:04:04] to ask is do we have any impressed funds

[1:04:06] at the city? Petty funds.

[1:04:09] >> We do have petty cash. Yes, we have we

[1:04:11] have petty cash in at each building. Um

[1:04:13] and then there's some there's a box that

[1:04:16] we use for for events as well for um

[1:04:20] drink trailers and stuff like that.

[1:04:21] >> Okay. So, we have five funds, six funds,

[1:04:26] a number of funds.

[1:04:28] >> Uh yeah, so we have we have a number of

[1:04:31] them.

[1:04:31] >> Okay. I was just wondering usually in a

[1:04:33] cash receivingish policy they talk about

[1:04:36] that a little bit.

[1:04:37] >> Okay.

[1:04:37] >> Do we have a policy on how impress funds

[1:04:40] are are managed?

[1:04:41] >> We do. It's uh it's not included in

[1:04:43] here, but I can I can include I can

[1:04:45] update it to include

[1:04:46] >> Yeah. Just wondering is the So there's

[1:04:48] just instructions, not a policy.

[1:04:50] >> Yeah, there's just instructions and and

[1:04:52] that's just based on the Utah Money

[1:04:54] Management Act of of how the those funds

[1:04:57] are randomly audited.

[1:05:00] >> Randomly audited. you can't do IUS and

[1:05:02] all and those kind of things.

[1:05:05] >> So, I just make a suggestion maybe to

[1:05:07] the council maybe to include impressed

[1:05:08] funds just because sometimes they can

[1:05:12] get one of those funds can get out of

[1:05:14] control pretty quick. So, maybe a little

[1:05:17] bit of direction on that. John, I'm not

[1:05:19] sure. John, what do you think about

[1:05:21] impress funds?

[1:05:23] >> Um, so Casey's right. I think we can put

[1:05:25] it down and or bring it to you because

[1:05:27] we do have it written down. Um, but I

[1:05:30] know that three years ago we went

[1:05:32] through a a good audit of it and

[1:05:34] tightened up a few controls. Not that

[1:05:35] we'd seen abuse, but just to to verify

[1:05:38] better.

[1:05:39] >> Yeah.

[1:05:40] >> So, I I'll make that suggestion. I guess

[1:05:42] we don't have to have a motion on that,

[1:05:44] but

[1:05:45] >> or do we have to have a motion?

[1:05:47] >> You want it included in this policy,

[1:05:49] then we should table it until it get

[1:05:50] included in this policy.

[1:05:51] >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So,

[1:05:55] >> I've made those notes in my in my

[1:05:57] working document as well. So, I'll

[1:05:58] update that and bring it back.

[1:05:59] >> Make a motion to do that.

[1:06:01] >> And I I had a

[1:06:02] >> We could have more. Yeah.

[1:06:03] >> Yeah. And uh not related, but I I I

[1:06:07] would love if it said somewhere that um

[1:06:10] cash the depositing process has to have

[1:06:13] two people. Um I think that would

[1:06:15] protect the employees and protect the

[1:06:17] city. Uh is it in here? Is it anywhere?

[1:06:20] It seems like it would make sense to

[1:06:23] uh ensure that whenever cash is being

[1:06:27] taken from the city to the bank that

[1:06:29] there's always two individuals together.

[1:06:32] Is that somewhere or should it be placed

[1:06:33] in? I think it should be placed in if it

[1:06:35] isn't.

[1:06:37] >> Yeah. Council Perver.

[1:06:39] >> So I I just want to make sure that uh I

[1:06:42] think we're doing all the right things.

[1:06:43] I think the the biggest thing is is

[1:06:46] making sure we're covering ourselves.

[1:06:48] And I think to me staff knows what

[1:06:50] they're doing. I don't want to get too

[1:06:52] far down in the weeds. I think the

[1:06:53] biggest thing is that make sure that

[1:06:55] you're taking care of yourself and

[1:06:57] you're not exposing yourself. And I

[1:06:58] think like John was saying the risk

[1:07:00] assessment that is required for going

[1:07:03] through the audit. Um, as long as we

[1:07:05] pass that and and there's strict

[1:07:07] controls, I don't know necessarily if we need I know we talked about it

[1:07:11] several years ago about two people, but

[1:07:13] I think we vote or we decided against it

[1:07:15] because of something and I don't

[1:07:16] remember what it was. Um, but so if if

[1:07:21] but if you don't feel comfortable, I

[1:07:22] think that's the next step. So

[1:07:26] I think internal controls are fine. I

[1:07:28] don't think we necessarily need to see

[1:07:29] specific examples in a policy per se.

[1:07:33] It's just meeting the the requirements

[1:07:35] in the law and then also making sure

[1:07:37] that you're not exposing yourself to un

[1:07:39] undue risk. That's my opinion anyway.

[1:07:47] » I truly hope no one feels like this is a personal thing at all. It's I'm I'm

[1:07:54] just thinking because I know there's

[1:07:55] other institutions that have similar

[1:07:58] type of policies that just no matter

[1:08:00] what, two people are with the bag and

[1:08:03] take the deposit. And I just think that

[1:08:06] it's an e extra safeguard. And

[1:08:09] so I I mean I I do kind of want to push

[1:08:12] on that idea of two people. I don't know

[1:08:16] if if it makes sense to have a a

[1:08:19] financial amount set to it because every amount of money could be

[1:08:24] considered sacred public funds, you

[1:08:27] know. So, I don't know. I I might be

[1:08:29] going overkill, but I maybe we could

[1:08:32] table it and come back with some

[1:08:34] different uh some different verbiage.

[1:08:40] Unless if uh if if anyone just wants to

[1:08:43] say, "Councilman D pass, you're crazy.

[1:08:45] Let's let's leave it be."

[1:08:46] >> Well, I that's okay.

[1:08:48] >> Council member Neighbor wanted to table

[1:08:50] it for to add the petty cash. Is that

[1:08:54] >> in line, John, with what we're that we

[1:08:56] >> We can do that.

[1:08:56] >> So, we can table and still come back

[1:08:58] with

[1:08:59] >> Yeah.

[1:09:00] >> recommendations or thoughts.

[1:09:01] >> Okay.

[1:09:02] >> So, I'll be looking for a motion to

[1:09:04] table this policy.

[1:09:07] >> Can I just add one more thing? Um, I

[1:09:09] I'll just put my two cents in that um if

[1:09:12] the amount is less than what it would

[1:09:15] cost to have an employee get more um

[1:09:19] like time and a half or after hours or

[1:09:22] something like that. If if it costs $20

[1:09:24] per hour to send him to the bank and the

[1:09:27] amount is less than $20, you know, maybe

[1:09:29] we can take that into an consideration.

[1:09:35] » Okay. Uh can I get a motion to table?

[1:09:39] May

[1:09:39] >> I motion we table this uh discussion or

[1:09:42] the policy on uh cash receiving? Am I saying that right?

[1:09:47] Anyway, um till a future meeting uh that

[1:09:50] we can discuss.

[1:09:51] >> Okay, we have a motion by Council Member

[1:09:53] Pver. Do I have a second?

[1:09:55] >> I'll second that.

[1:09:56] >> Second by Council Member Neighbor. Any

[1:09:58] other discussion?

[1:10:02] All right, this will be a voice vote. So

[1:10:04] all in favor of tableabling say I.

[1:10:06] >> I.

[1:10:07] >> Is anyone opposed?

[1:10:08] >> Okay. This policy has been tabled. Item

[1:10:12] number nine is our policy and

[1:10:13] investment.

[1:10:15] This will be discussion and

[1:10:16] consideration of the investment policy

[1:10:18] by our treasurer Casey Hunaker.

[1:10:21] >> Okay. So this policy um there wasn't any

[1:10:24] changes made to this policy from when it

[1:10:26] was presented uh in 2022. Uh, I I

[1:10:30] literally just copied it and pasted it

[1:10:32] into a new document so that you guys

[1:10:35] could all review it. I I've had some

[1:10:36] people ask me what our investment policy

[1:10:38] is and so I wanted to make sure that we

[1:10:40] were all aware of it. So, um, just but

[1:10:44] it really just follows the uh rules of

[1:10:47] the Utah Money Management Act, which is

[1:10:50] my guideline as the city treasurer of

[1:10:53] what we can or cannot do. um and where we can or cannot invest. So

[1:11:00] there's a list of depositories online

[1:11:02] that can be looked up and those are the

[1:11:04] ones that are qualified for us to invest

[1:11:06] with and then and we follow those

[1:11:09] policies right now. But I know that when

[1:11:11] I do the deposit and investment report

[1:11:13] every six months, they ask when our last

[1:11:16] review was for the investment policy.

[1:11:18] And so again, I want to make it sure

[1:11:20] it's done annually so I can I can say

[1:11:22] that I know for sure when the last time

[1:11:24] it was reviewed.

[1:11:27] So if you have any questions, like I

[1:11:29] said, there's there it's really just

[1:11:30] making sure our goals are here um are

[1:11:34] safety of the principal, liquidity,

[1:11:37] meaning that we can get to the money if

[1:11:38] we need it, and then our our final goal

[1:11:41] is is yield. So then those are the

[1:11:43] priorities in order. um making sure that

[1:11:45] the public money is safe, making sure

[1:11:47] that we have the liquidity to get to the

[1:11:51] public money if we need it, and lastly,

[1:11:54] making sure that the public money is

[1:11:56] growing in an appropriate manner. Um

[1:11:58] just like we did with the PTS.

[1:12:01] So,

[1:12:03] >> any questions for Casey?

[1:12:05] >> I hate being the accounting nerd here,

[1:12:06] but I can't help myself. So, so what if

[1:12:10] you need to make a transfer between the

[1:12:13] treasures pool and our bank account?

[1:12:17] Does that require

[1:12:19] approval from you and John?

[1:12:22] So I I can initiate those transfers. Um

[1:12:26] and those uh on the back side the state

[1:12:29] system I would I would initiate that

[1:12:32] from the state and it would go into the

[1:12:35] into our bank account and then I as part

[1:12:37] of the procedure I would then send Peter

[1:12:41] our finance director a journal entry

[1:12:43] request so that he can move that on the

[1:12:46] books to show that it's being moved from

[1:12:48] the PTIF to the Wells Fargo checking

[1:12:50] account. So essentially he's serving as

[1:12:52] the oversight

[1:12:53] >> right

[1:12:54] >> after the fact but he's seeing that

[1:12:56] >> right and it takes it takes a day or two

[1:12:58] for the funds to transfer and so

[1:13:01] >> that gives him the the paperwork to know

[1:13:04] when he reconciles the bank account at

[1:13:05] the end of the month

[1:13:06] >> what this transfer was and why it was

[1:13:08] being transfer.

[1:13:09] >> Okay. Okay. So just a little theoretical

[1:13:11] here because in the money management act

[1:13:13] we can invest in high uh quality

[1:13:18] corporate bonds if we wanted to. If we

[1:13:22] were to do that, I don't see anything in

[1:13:24] the policy that would outline what

[1:13:28] you're authorized

[1:13:30] to make a decision on and who would

[1:13:33] approve that. And and and maybe we're

[1:13:35] just being a little bit the theoretical

[1:13:37] here a little bit, but I don't see any

[1:13:40] element of an authorization or a range

[1:13:43] approval protocol if we were in that in

[1:13:47] that scenario of things.

[1:13:49] >> Yeah. So with the investment with the

[1:13:51] investment firm we use meter on that

[1:13:54] John if you go back up one more page to

[1:13:56] that table. This is uh this is a table

[1:13:59] from the Utah Manning Management Act and

[1:14:01] it tells us that what is allowable um

[1:14:04] for the different investment instruments

[1:14:06] and so they're able to go up to 10% of

[1:14:08] our

[1:14:09] >> of our investment into corporate bonds

[1:14:12] and stuff like that.

[1:14:13] >> Yeah.

[1:14:14] >> And and they're able to do that with the

[1:14:15] authorization that we've given them to

[1:14:17] invest those funds

[1:14:18] >> Yeah.

[1:14:18] >> for us. So I understand that part and

[1:14:20] they're an authorized uh investor per

[1:14:23] the money management act too. So that

[1:14:25] that's outstanding.

[1:14:27] >> Say you were going to make an a a a an

[1:14:30] investment in one of these instruments

[1:14:32] instead of Yeah. on your own instead of

[1:14:34] putting it in the in the state treasures

[1:14:37] pool. Maybe that would never happen and

[1:14:39] this is a moot point. But if it did,

[1:14:41] should we put something like that in to

[1:14:43] the investment policy?

[1:14:47] John, what are your thoughts on that?

[1:14:49] Um,

[1:14:50] I I hadn't ever really thought about

[1:14:52] that because I I think letting the the firms and the PTIF uh do the

[1:14:57] investing is the best route to go. I'm

[1:14:59] not a professional investor. I don't

[1:15:01] know those uh those things as well as as

[1:15:05] they do. So,

[1:15:06] >> so maybe it'd be a moot point and we

[1:15:07] don't have to worry about that.

[1:15:08] >> I've never really thought about that.

[1:15:10] Um, but

[1:15:12] yeah.

[1:15:15] >> Do you think that would be necessary to

[1:15:16] put it in there, John, or

[1:15:18] >> I mean, not the way we run it, but it

[1:15:20] wouldn't hurt. So, I mean, the idea is

[1:15:22] that this policy will come back every

[1:15:24] year.

[1:15:25] >> So, if we wanted to significantly change

[1:15:27] how we do how we approach this, um, it

[1:15:30] may make sense, but it it doesn't hurt

[1:15:33] to have extra protocols. I mean, the

[1:15:36] money management act was enacted what,

[1:15:39] 15 years ago now, cuz a bunch of cities

[1:15:41] >> got burned on some higher risk

[1:15:43] investments.

[1:15:45] So, you know, like like Casey mentioned

[1:15:48] in the goals, safety is number one. Make

[1:15:51] sure the money Yeah.

[1:15:52] >> is safe before it starts earning. So,

[1:15:55] >> yeah.

[1:15:56] >> So, maybe if we get to a point in the

[1:15:58] sophistication of investing, we'd take a

[1:16:00] look at that.

[1:16:00] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:16:01] >> I think so.

[1:16:02] >> Okay, that's reasonable.

[1:16:03] >> Yeah. And and part of this is uh so with

[1:16:06] the money management act we do use the

[1:16:08] prudent person rule prudent person rule

[1:16:11] and that says that investment shall be

[1:16:13] made with the exercise of that judgment

[1:16:14] and care under circumstances then

[1:16:17] prevailing which persons of prudence

[1:16:19] discretion and intelligence exercised in

[1:16:21] the management of their own affairs not

[1:16:23] for speculation but for investment

[1:16:25] considering the probable safety of their

[1:16:27] capital as well as the probable income

[1:16:29] to be derived. So that that also I feel

[1:16:32] like kind of covers it is is saying that

[1:16:34] we're not going to invest in anything

[1:16:36] that

[1:16:37] >> Oh yeah

[1:16:37] >> would be speculative. I understand that.

[1:16:39] Yeah. Yeah.

[1:16:40] >> So my last nerdy comment they'll shut up

[1:16:42] on this.

[1:16:44] >> I know I was walking into the lion's den

[1:16:45] tonight guys.

[1:16:48] As now that I'm more familiar with the

[1:16:50] financial statements in the budget

[1:16:52] report, I see we we distribute

[1:16:57] investment income to certain accounts

[1:17:01] and not to other accounts. And I'm not

[1:17:03] sure if that's part of this policy or

[1:17:05] not, but I'm still trying to figure that

[1:17:07] out. When we do that and when we don't

[1:17:10] do that,

[1:17:11] is that something that we should try to

[1:17:14] tackle in this policy?

[1:17:17] So when we when we did the the meter

[1:17:21] money, uh we specifically took it from

[1:17:24] accounts that were the most healthy. And

[1:17:26] so that's why the meter investment money

[1:17:28] is only going certain spots. Uh the rest

[1:17:31] of the money is typically, you know,

[1:17:33] like if it's a water fund balance, it

[1:17:35] goes to water and general fund. Um I

[1:17:39] think some of our well Peter could tell

[1:17:41] you better and he is still online the very specific accounts with balances

[1:17:46] like our capital improvement stuff

[1:17:47] typically the investments stay there

[1:17:51] >> interest earnings. So my my comment is

[1:17:53] on the interest earnings being allocated

[1:17:55] to them. So is there a policy on that or

[1:17:59] is it just an accounting uh

[1:18:03] >> just following the Gazsby accounting

[1:18:04] principles?

[1:18:06] Hm. I'm not familiar with that principle

[1:18:10] on in on allocating investment income.

[1:18:13] >> Well, so the way we've typically have

[1:18:14] done it is the fund that has the deposit

[1:18:17] is the fund that gets the interest. So

[1:18:19] if it's a general fund in, you know, a

[1:18:22] balance, then the interest goes to the

[1:18:24] general fund.

[1:18:25] >> Yeah,

[1:18:29] that can be a very complicated

[1:18:31] calculation. Is it based on their

[1:18:33] beginning balance, ending balance? I

[1:18:35] don't know. I have to ask the

[1:18:37] accountants.

[1:18:41] » Yeah.

[1:18:42] >> So, so you're asking whe whether or not

[1:18:44] there's an investment um income being

[1:18:47] posted for each enterprise fund.

[1:18:50] >> Yeah.

[1:18:50] >> And general fund.

[1:18:51] >> Yeah.

[1:18:52] >> Separately. And I would think the answer

[1:18:54] is yes.

[1:18:54] >> Yeah. And and I'm I'm just asking is

[1:18:57] there a policy that identifies that or

[1:19:00] just an accounting protocol that that we

[1:19:02] allocate it that way?

[1:19:05] Peter does have his hand raised again.

[1:19:07] >> Oh, he does.

[1:19:08] >> Well, the accountant.

[1:19:10] >> Yeah. I don't know if we have a policy.

[1:19:12] It just The idea is that if the cash

[1:19:15] balance is in one fund

[1:19:18] um or the investment balance in each

[1:19:21] different fund

[1:19:22] that wherever that investment balance is

[1:19:24] held, it just kind of makes sense that

[1:19:26] that's where the interest should be

[1:19:27] allocated.

[1:19:29] I think that from a technique

[1:19:30] standpoint, we have improvements that

[1:19:32] can be made there.

[1:19:34] But also, and I I don't I we'll I'm

[1:19:37] actually going to talk about this a

[1:19:38] little bit later too as well. I I think

[1:19:41] that there's opportunities to decide how

[1:19:44] to do it differently.

[1:19:47] So, if council wants to obligate it or

[1:19:50] to allocate it um in a different way,

[1:19:53] that's that can be done as well. So,

[1:19:56] >> and I guess the only reason why I bring

[1:19:58] this up is interest earnings on invested

[1:20:01] cash balances is probably the most the

[1:20:03] least restricted money that the that the

[1:20:07] city has. So, with no restrictions on

[1:20:10] that,

[1:20:13] maybe you keep it all centrally, maybe

[1:20:15] you don't. I don't know.

[1:20:18] Just just an observation on that. Yeah.

[1:20:21] Comment. So, I'll back away from that.

[1:20:23] That's something that that we can think

[1:20:25] about maybe in the in the course of the

[1:20:26] budget because I know those funds are as

[1:20:28] you've mentioned are budgeted. So if you

[1:20:30] were to take that out, you'd have to

[1:20:32] replace them somehow. So So just an

[1:20:35] observation and comment on that. Okay.

[1:20:41] » Okay. I'd be looking for a motion to

[1:20:43] approve the investment policy as

[1:20:44] presented.

[1:20:48] Mayor, I motion that we accept the

[1:20:51] policy um for investment that was

[1:20:53] presented today. Okay. Motion by Council

[1:20:56] Member Pulver. Do we have a second?

[1:20:58] >> A second.

[1:20:59] >> Second by Council Member Carney. Is

[1:21:00] there any other discussion?

[1:21:04] This will be a voice vote. And so all in

[1:21:05] favor say I.

[1:21:07] >> I. I.

[1:21:07] >> I.

[1:21:08] >> Is there any opposed? Okay. So this

[1:21:11] policy is passed. Now we're going to

[1:21:13] item number 10.

[1:21:15] request a quick break or uh I can just

[1:21:18] scan I can just

[1:21:20] >> we will take a yeah well you're going to

[1:21:22] make a motion for a five

[1:21:24] >> yeah I I would motion for a quick five

[1:21:26] minute break

[1:21:28] >> for the next discussion

[1:21:29] >> y and council member pulver second

[1:21:31] >> I don't like to say saunter

[1:21:32] >> all right

[1:21:34] >> okay all in favor say I all right we're

[1:21:37] have a fivem minute

[1:28:28] Yep. All right. Call this meeting back

[1:28:31] to order after our five minute saunter.

[1:28:36] All right. Item number 10 is our budget

[1:28:38] with the fiscal year 2026 2027 budget

[1:28:41] preparation and planning and discussion

[1:28:44] and review will be by our finance

[1:28:47] director Peter Brown.

[1:28:50] >> I guess it's finance Tuesday.

[1:28:53] >> Yeah.

[1:28:54] it's something.

[1:28:55] >> Yeah. Hey, John, do you got that

[1:28:58] PowerPoint? You all had a handout that

[1:29:00] was sent out publicly.

[1:29:02] Um, I've gone ahead and made a

[1:29:04] presentation just because

[1:29:07] helps the public I think kind of digest

[1:29:09] a little bit better.

[1:29:11] So, um, and just my what we're going to

[1:29:16] go over with tonight is we're just going

[1:29:17] to talk about revenue in the city from a

[1:29:19] very high level and and it's kind of

[1:29:24] based upon discussions we've had in the

[1:29:25] citizen budget committee, but also pose

[1:29:28] some questions at the end, which I'm

[1:29:32] going to kind of tee off to the to

[1:29:33] council here about different policy

[1:29:36] decisions you might want to make with

[1:29:38] regarding

[1:29:40] revenue. venue predictions and revenue

[1:29:42] budgets and and uh spend some time

[1:29:46] deciding how you want to deliberate

[1:29:47] that. Uh mostly so that you can kind of

[1:29:52] come to consensus to help inform staff

[1:29:54] on how to sort of finalize our budget

[1:29:57] preparations for the end of the month. I

[1:29:59] don't think it has to be binding, but we

[1:30:01] do like to I mean John might be able to

[1:30:03] jump in on that. But I think we like we

[1:30:05] do want to know what you're how you're

[1:30:08] leaning and how you'd want to see us

[1:30:10] sort of look at these um these different

[1:30:12] revenues. So um in this first sheet

[1:30:16] here, this just goes over a breakdown of

[1:30:20] how our revenue

[1:30:22] sort of sits.

[1:30:24] And you can see that the overwhelming

[1:30:27] revenue source is our general tax. And

[1:30:30] this is just in the general fund. So

[1:30:33] if you were to add in the enterprise

[1:30:35] funds, it would dilute quite a bit. But let's just talk about general fund

[1:30:38] here. Um and that general tax is all the

[1:30:41] taxes, the sales tax, property tax,

[1:30:43] utility tax. Um

[1:30:47] and then and then from there you got

[1:30:49] your your intergovernmental allocations

[1:30:52] and grants at 9%, miscellaneous revenue

[1:30:55] at five,

[1:30:57] um transfers, donations and fund

[1:30:59] balances at 6% which is kind of a

[1:31:01] catchall bucket, licenses and permits at

[1:31:04] three, charges for services at two,

[1:31:07] fines and forures at two as well, and

[1:31:09] then investments at 1%. So go to the

[1:31:12] next slide.

[1:31:15] So, let's start with our our property

[1:31:17] tax. It's 23% of our general fund. Um,

[1:31:21] and and what I've done is I've sort of

[1:31:24] defined our revenue in three different

[1:31:27] ways because I guess this is very

[1:31:29] helpful. It's helpful for citizens,

[1:31:31] helpful for council hopefully to

[1:31:33] understand how revenues can be used, how

[1:31:37] predictable they are, as well as how

[1:31:40] much the council has the ability to

[1:31:42] change it. And so with with property

[1:31:46] tax,

[1:31:48] um the first thing I want to point out

[1:31:50] is it's unrestricted. We can spend it in

[1:31:52] anything.

[1:31:54] um really we do have certain narratives

[1:31:56] about how we spend it, but it's not

[1:31:59] necessarily put in a lock box and um

[1:32:03] only released for that particular issue.

[1:32:06] I will get into this a little bit later,

[1:32:08] but uh with the new state rules that

[1:32:11] have just come out recently, we do need

[1:32:15] if we do decide to have a tax increase,

[1:32:19] um we have to tie it to an expense or

[1:32:21] program until approved. But I'll get

[1:32:23] into that a little bit later, but um for

[1:32:25] the most part it's an unrestricted use.

[1:32:28] Um property taxes are very predictable.

[1:32:33] Um we can almost get it down to the to

[1:32:35] the dollar in some instances. Um

[1:32:39] as long as we, you know, obviously catch

[1:32:41] the state reports and sort of keep up

[1:32:43] with that. Um, it's amendable through

[1:32:47] our truth and taxation process,

[1:32:50] which although can be quite cumbersome

[1:32:52] and complicated, we you do have the

[1:32:54] ability to make changes to that. You can

[1:32:57] cut taxes, you can raise taxes,

[1:33:00] but the budget approach here, um, the

[1:33:03] point is is that we need to have

[1:33:04] discussion on it. And I'll again I'll

[1:33:07] talk a little bit about this. I just

[1:33:09] want to give a highle overview of of

[1:33:12] these different buckets. So go to the

[1:33:14] next slide.

[1:33:17] So now we're talking about sales taxes,

[1:33:19] which is almost 50% of our general fund

[1:33:22] revenue, but I'm also including our

[1:33:24] utility tax, our motor vehicle tax. I'm

[1:33:27] calling all these sales taxes.

[1:33:29] Um even though they might not be

[1:33:32] technically considered sales taxes just

[1:33:34] because we don't have a lot of control

[1:33:36] over them. Um they're based upon how our

[1:33:39] citizens interact with um the city.

[1:33:42] Again, the use for sales taxes is

[1:33:44] unrestricted. We can use it for

[1:33:46] anything. Um, predictability is is the

[1:33:49] big issue here. Um, it's it's it's

[1:33:52] highly variable. Um, there is kind of a

[1:33:56] floor on it. It usually doesn't drop

[1:33:59] um too far unless we have deep

[1:34:01] recessions, but it's not uncommon to see

[1:34:04] $500,000 swings in in in uh sales tax

[1:34:08] either one way or the other.

[1:34:11] we don't really have a lot of control

[1:34:13] over it. We just have to be

[1:34:16] cognizant of it and there's some

[1:34:18] different approaches. Again, this is

[1:34:20] something that I I'll I'm saving we'll

[1:34:23] have a discussion at the end of the

[1:34:24] presentation about um how to sort of

[1:34:27] take look at sales tax and what

[1:34:30] approaches need to be made in terms of

[1:34:32] budgeting. Next slide.

[1:34:36] Licenses and permits. Um,

[1:34:40] they're only 3%.

[1:34:43] >> The uses are unrestricted. They're

[1:34:46] fairly predictable. You can change it.

[1:34:50] The way we're sort of doing it now is is

[1:34:52] uh with with the budget, I just look at

[1:34:55] a four-year average

[1:34:57] and then if there's any council approved

[1:34:59] fee updates,

[1:35:01] um, that will be considered in the

[1:35:03] budget final budget preparation. So

[1:35:05] again, that's one something that we need

[1:35:06] to discuss in terms of the fee schedule.

[1:35:10] That's going to be part of our our

[1:35:11] budget roll out.

[1:35:13] Next slide.

[1:35:16] This is our intergovernmental bucket. Um

[1:35:19] grants and allocations are here. Our our

[1:35:23] BNC road funds come from the the state

[1:35:26] into uh our city.

[1:35:30] the the big thing to point out is that

[1:35:32] for the most part, this particular

[1:35:34] bucket is a restricted bucket.

[1:35:37] Um so whatever we have in terms of

[1:35:40] revenue, we're going to want to have

[1:35:42] matching

[1:35:43] expenditures on the other side. And so

[1:35:46] it's kind of a onetoone,

[1:35:48] it doesn't always it doesn't necessarily

[1:35:50] help our bottom line or hurt our bottom

[1:35:52] line

[1:35:54] um because the again they they it's in

[1:35:56] and out. There are some grants that we

[1:35:59] can get that are

[1:36:01] um unrestricted, but that's not usually

[1:36:04] very common.

[1:36:07] There the allotments and assessments are

[1:36:09] typically steady, but grants are highly

[1:36:12] variable. We could have a million

[1:36:15] dollars in grants one year and then

[1:36:16] almost nothing the next. It just depends

[1:36:18] on what the federal government's doing.

[1:36:21] It depends on what we've applied for.

[1:36:23] depends on what kind of programs are out

[1:36:24] there.

[1:36:26] Tip typically

[1:36:28] what I've seen here in the city is aside

[1:36:30] from the COVID grants, this aren't they

[1:36:33] aren't a large part of our our

[1:36:34] operations.

[1:36:37] Next slide.

[1:36:40] This is our charges for services,

[1:36:44] fees, zoning, parks, recreation,

[1:36:46] development.

[1:36:48] These uses are also unrestricted. And

[1:36:51] when I say unrestricted, recognize that

[1:36:54] they're not put in a lock box,

[1:36:56] but they are definitely measured against

[1:36:58] programs as a narrative. And so if we're

[1:37:01] looking at our recreation programs and

[1:37:03] we see how much they cost and we have

[1:37:07] recreation fees, which help offset that,

[1:37:11] they don't usually cover expenses, but

[1:37:13] they can supplement them. In terms of

[1:37:15] our budget, we just went through some

[1:37:18] rough early estimates and I think our

[1:37:21] fees cover our program expenses, but

[1:37:24] they don't cover our staff expenses.

[1:37:26] That's just an example.

[1:37:28] They're fairly predictable.

[1:37:31] They could be changed through our fee

[1:37:32] schedule,

[1:37:34] our comprehensive feed schedule. I

[1:37:37] usually just look at it from a 4-year

[1:37:38] average. There's a qualitative

[1:37:40] assessment that you could look at in

[1:37:42] terms of um again an example of this is

[1:37:46] um last year I went through a detailed

[1:37:50] look at with the trajectory of our

[1:37:53] recreation programs and it looks like on

[1:37:55] the overall it's trending down.

[1:38:00] So again we might want to include that

[1:38:01] for example in any assessment in terms

[1:38:04] of looking at recreation fees but

[1:38:07] there's other fees too. I'm just using

[1:38:09] recreation as an example. Next slide.

[1:38:14] Fines and forfeitures almost, this is

[1:38:17] when we have almost the least control

[1:38:19] over.

[1:38:20] Um they're predictable.

[1:38:23] The fees are set by the state. So I'm

[1:38:25] just using a four-year average.

[1:38:29] The next next slide,

[1:38:32] a miscellaneous is kind of a catchall,

[1:38:35] but for the most part, the big things

[1:38:37] that hit our miscellaneous revenue are

[1:38:40] rents.

[1:38:42] Um,

[1:38:43] when we rent out our

[1:38:46] um senior centers, example, any kind of

[1:38:49] sale of assets, any kind of merchandise

[1:38:51] sales, the uses are unrestricted. The

[1:38:54] predictions are variable.

[1:38:58] It's not really amendable, but I guess

[1:39:01] you could set prices and you can change

[1:39:03] rent costs, but it's not like there's a

[1:39:07] um it's probably more administratively

[1:39:09] structured.

[1:39:11] And I would tend to look at this as I'm

[1:39:13] going to look at the lowest of four

[1:39:14] years

[1:39:16] and go, okay, what what's the floor on

[1:39:19] miscellaneous revenue? And I'm going to

[1:39:20] sort of pick that as my sort of initial

[1:39:24] guess on the budget. And then I'll do a

[1:39:26] little bit of a qualitative assessment.

[1:39:28] Are we going to be selling a lot of

[1:39:29] stuff this year or are we not going to

[1:39:31] be selling stuff? Do we have a lot of um

[1:39:35] rental properties that are on the market

[1:39:37] or not?

[1:39:39] So, so that's sort of the way I'm going

[1:39:41] to look we would look at um

[1:39:43] miscellaneous revenue. Next slide.

[1:39:49] So, our investments are 1%.

[1:39:53] And this is our bank interest or our PTI

[1:39:56] interest. We just went we just talked

[1:39:58] about that. Um use is unrestricted.

[1:40:02] Um

[1:40:07] again I think there's an opportunity

[1:40:09] here to maybe talk about where it could

[1:40:11] be used.

[1:40:13] It's predictable somewhat steady. It has

[1:40:16] some prediction to it. We don't we can't

[1:40:18] really change it.

[1:40:20] So go to the next slide.

[1:40:25] But we do have kind of some ways to look

[1:40:27] at it budgetarily.

[1:40:31] We could just look at where we think the

[1:40:34] lowest rates have been the last four or

[1:40:36] five years and go we're going to pick

[1:40:37] that rate so that we're safe.

[1:40:40] Um,

[1:40:42] and I've highlighted moderate because

[1:40:45] that's kind of where we're predicting it

[1:40:46] right now. It's kind of what I'm using

[1:40:48] at this point. We can always change that

[1:40:50] depending on the risk tolerance of

[1:40:52] council.

[1:40:54] essentially I pulled the Fed rate in

[1:40:56] February

[1:40:57] and used that. I'm probably going to

[1:41:00] have to make an adjustment because it's

[1:41:01] just gone up. But um

[1:41:06] and but you could get a little more

[1:41:07] detailed and you could dig into it more

[1:41:10] as Casey talked about and try to figure

[1:41:11] out where you think it's going to be. Um

[1:41:14] I think just that for me I just would

[1:41:17] pull a pull up of what the current is

[1:41:19] and stick with it and see and then just

[1:41:21] kind of go that way.

[1:41:23] But then the final thing on this again

[1:41:25] is where should it be budgeted? Where's

[1:41:27] the where does it make best sense? And I

[1:41:30] think that's a question that I'm going

[1:41:32] to leave with council is there might be

[1:41:35] different ways in which we structure

[1:41:37] this interest rep interest

[1:41:40] revenue.

[1:41:42] It's we're not we're talking about $150

[1:41:45] $200,000,

[1:41:48] but um it might make sense to have it

[1:41:52] put in just one fund or we just might we

[1:41:55] just might need to just trip up our our procedures as to how we allocate it

[1:42:00] on over here in accounting.

[1:42:04] Go to the next slide.

[1:42:08] This is our um transfers, donations, and

[1:42:11] use of fund balance. The uses

[1:42:15] there's it's a mix of restricted uses

[1:42:17] and unrestricted in terms of when we do

[1:42:20] have a transfer, there's usually a

[1:42:22] reason for it that's set by council

[1:42:25] through the budget process.

[1:42:28] And so for example, if we

[1:42:32] are predicting that um

[1:42:36] our transfers from our enterprise funds

[1:42:38] and this and this is also going to be

[1:42:40] like when you see those offsets in the

[1:42:42] budget where

[1:42:45] different departments charge different

[1:42:47] fees to service the the enterprise

[1:42:50] funds.

[1:42:51] That's that's operating as a transfer.

[1:42:55] Again, it's statutory. It's set by

[1:42:57] council as we as we sort of outline it.

[1:42:59] It's highly quantitative,

[1:43:03] but other areas in this uh particular

[1:43:06] bucket like donations are highly

[1:43:08] variable.

[1:43:10] And so for donations, I'm going to

[1:43:12] probably look at the a low floor for

[1:43:16] budgeting to be conservative. and then

[1:43:19] it transfers and

[1:43:21] in our fund balance typically what we've

[1:43:24] done and this is something that uh that

[1:43:27] I wouldn't mind having a discussion

[1:43:29] about is it appears in the past what

[1:43:31] we've done is we predict a fund balance

[1:43:37] from year one let's say we transfer over

[1:43:41] to year two and then and then

[1:43:45] when I say transfer we use that fund

[1:43:47] balance from year one in year two and

[1:43:49] then transfer over to the capital fund

[1:43:54] for roads and for

[1:43:57] CIP.

[1:43:59] And so we're looking backwards a year

[1:44:01] going how well did we do? We're going to

[1:44:03] use some of that and then we're going to

[1:44:05] transfer it in year two and it might

[1:44:07] make sense to look at it in terms of

[1:44:10] year one funding year one. And um at

[1:44:14] least that's something I'd like to have

[1:44:16] maybe a little more discussion on. Um,

[1:44:22] next slide.

[1:44:27] Outside of the general fund, we have

[1:44:30] other different types of revenue

[1:44:33] sources.

[1:44:35] First is our transportation utility fee,

[1:44:38] which was talked about by that gentleman

[1:44:39] earlier today, is $15 charge.

[1:44:43] The the thing you got to point out is

[1:44:45] that it is restricted only to roads.

[1:44:49] Um, which is why it's a fee and not a

[1:44:51] tax because it basically charges for

[1:44:53] services.

[1:44:55] It's fairly predictable because we can

[1:44:57] do it. We assess it on the basis of

[1:44:59] those

[1:45:01] um those planning term PDIs or PUIs or

[1:45:05] whatever. I'm trying to remember the the

[1:45:07] term. But you can change it. but it's

[1:45:11] quantitatively assessed.

[1:45:13] Next slide.

[1:45:17] Impact fees. Impact fees are used to

[1:45:22] um pay for

[1:45:25] development that is tied to growth.

[1:45:29] So when we have developments coming into

[1:45:31] our city to build housing,

[1:45:34] they pay an impact fee that's supposed

[1:45:36] to go towards all of the plumbing

[1:45:38] underneath

[1:45:40] and

[1:45:41] also parks. There's a there's a piece of

[1:45:45] it for public service

[1:45:47] that is defined by engineers

[1:45:51] and that becomes sort of our budget

[1:45:54] and we can we can make changes on it if you need to. Uh and we have an

[1:46:00] opportunity to we can always look at

[1:46:02] these and and make changes to those

[1:46:05] particular impact fees.

[1:46:08] But for the most part for the budget,

[1:46:09] they're quantitatively assessed. There's

[1:46:11] not a lot of necessarily wiggle room.

[1:46:13] It's going to be dependent upon the

[1:46:15] developments that are going in and how they get assessed.

[1:46:21] This next slide.

[1:46:25] Our utility fees are what we pay for our

[1:46:29] water, sewer,

[1:46:32] um,

[1:46:35] garbage services,

[1:46:39] and they're restricted to our utilities.

[1:46:42] So, when we pay for those fees, they

[1:46:44] have to be used in that fund for

[1:46:48] services and upgrades. They can't be put

[1:46:50] anywhere else. They're fairly

[1:46:52] predictable in their being able to put

[1:46:55] them in the budget.

[1:46:57] You can change them against that going

[1:46:59] down to that highlighted

[1:47:02] uh bullet point down there as part of an

[1:47:04] overall fee discussion.

[1:47:07] They're tied directly to operational and

[1:47:09] capital costs.

[1:47:12] Next slide.

[1:47:16] So now that I've gone through all the

[1:47:18] different sort of overall

[1:47:22] understanding of our different fees and different pieces of our fees or

[1:47:28] sorry our revenues different pieces of

[1:47:30] our revenues in the city budget.

[1:47:34] What I'm going to do on the next few

[1:47:35] slides is pose some questions and I

[1:47:38] think we can take a break if you want to

[1:47:40] pick up and have a discussion on this.

[1:47:43] Um this is sort of where I'm giving you

[1:47:46] an opportunity to either ask me

[1:47:48] questions or ask each other questions.

[1:47:50] But we're hoping to sort of get your

[1:47:52] feeling or flavor on some of the some of

[1:47:54] these questions and it might we might

[1:47:56] not get it all tonight but to understand

[1:47:59] sort of what your feelings are.

[1:48:02] So starting with fees,

[1:48:04] do we feel that our service levels are

[1:48:06] adequate?

[1:48:08] Well, if they're not, we might need to

[1:48:09] improve our services and raise our fees.

[1:48:13] If they feel like they are adequate,

[1:48:15] then you know that goes into the

[1:48:17] question as well. How are our impact fee

[1:48:20] levels compared to surrounding

[1:48:21] communities?

[1:48:24] How do our how do we how do we look at

[1:48:26] our fees related to different types of

[1:48:30] planned growth?

[1:48:32] So if we have planned growth in

[1:48:35] commercial versus residential,

[1:48:38] how does that sort of how how does that

[1:48:40] flavor differently?

[1:48:43] There's the question of overall citizen

[1:48:45] burden. So

[1:48:47] a lot of times we look at taxes and fees

[1:48:51] in completely different universes,

[1:48:54] but there might be an opportunity to

[1:48:56] look at this holistically

[1:48:58] and see how the impact to the citizens

[1:49:02] are when you add it all together.

[1:49:09] » So that that I'll leave that with you.

[1:49:12] Are there are there any thoughts on this

[1:49:14] or questions you want to bring up or

[1:49:17] um points you want to debate? I'm kind

[1:49:20] of leaving the floor open on this

[1:49:22] particular slide.

[1:49:24] >> Peter, can I ask a question on the

[1:49:26] holistic view?

[1:49:27] >> Yeah.

[1:49:27] >> So, what you're what you're talking

[1:49:29] there is you're talking

[1:49:31] total total cost by citizens including

[1:49:34] property taxes,

[1:49:36] sales taxes.

[1:49:40] Yeah, I mean sales tax are kind of

[1:49:42] interesting. I don't know if I would

[1:49:43] include sales taxes, but

[1:49:46] >> but sewer, water, etc., etc.

[1:49:50] >> Tough the tough.

[1:49:52] >> Yeah.

[1:49:53] >> Just look at that burden, how it

[1:49:54] shifted. um and at least sort of kind of

[1:49:57] compare and contrast and see, you know,

[1:50:00] if that burden is um justifiable, if it's needed. It's uh just an area where you might

[1:50:12] want to kind of take a look at it and sort of assess that.

[1:50:21] Council member Fulber.

[1:50:23] >> Um I guess one thing and this could be I

[1:50:26] don't remember which meeting is because

[1:50:28] landing commission budget committee and

[1:50:30] this meeting tend to merge together in

[1:50:32] my brain sometimes. So apologize I don't

[1:50:34] remember which meeting but they were

[1:50:35] talking about how property tax um how

[1:50:38] our our differentiation between citizens

[1:50:42] not citizens but uh personal and

[1:50:44] commercial was off. And I think

[1:50:47] everybody understands that and I think

[1:50:48] that's why we're planning growth types

[1:50:51] is and and Scott can can attest to this

[1:50:54] is that that's part of what planning

[1:50:56] commission is doing right now. Um and

[1:50:59] the training stuff tomorrow about you

[1:51:01] know how do how are we changing our um

[1:51:04] general plan to accommodate andor switch

[1:51:08] certain zones so that we can u rep

[1:51:11] prioritize what we're doing because uh

[1:51:14] once we're built out we're built out. we

[1:51:15] can't start. Oh, sorry. We need a

[1:51:17] commercial here. You're going to have to

[1:51:19] clear off and rebuild something else.

[1:51:21] It's just not possible. So, I I guess

[1:51:23] that's the point is, you know, we can

[1:51:25] plan stuff, but I think what you're

[1:51:27] talking about, Peter, is is how how are

[1:51:29] we painting the picture for the average

[1:51:31] citizen? And I think um not so much I

[1:51:34] don't know about the holistic view. I

[1:51:36] think the the the big thing is

[1:51:37] understanding the budget year to year.

[1:51:40] And I think um I think that and I keep

[1:51:44] hammering on this is the two- pager and

[1:51:46] I think you know Sunset and some other

[1:51:50] uh North Salt Lake I think have have a

[1:51:52] pretty good um I don't know about

[1:51:54] Riverdale but um they have a good idea

[1:51:57] of how they project you know what we're

[1:52:00] going to do for this coming year. And I

[1:52:02] think that's that to me I think is is

[1:52:05] something we need to strive for whether

[1:52:07] or not you know

[1:52:10] we can talk about you know pay to serve

[1:52:12] type of thing. Um the the budget

[1:52:15] committee is going to tackle some of

[1:52:16] that. Um especially

[1:52:21] everything and I think and that that's

[1:52:23] what the budget committee is supposed to

[1:52:24] be is nothing's off the table. um you

[1:52:27] know the senior center I is there ways

[1:52:29] that we need to adjust certain things

[1:52:31] there uh you know aquatic center we've

[1:52:34] talked about that extensively of whether

[1:52:35] or not we're we're balanced there I

[1:52:38] think we are in my opinion I think we

[1:52:39] have the rec programs balanced where we

[1:52:41] need it um I think that's the policy

[1:52:44] that if you're paying for

[1:52:47] you know

[1:52:50] playing to play basketball and just FYI

[1:52:53] to John that one sheet that they came up

[1:52:55] with for the wreck activity I think was

[1:52:57] one of the best things I've seen come

[1:53:01] anyway from a department ever. So we'll

[1:53:04] talk about that later. But the the key

[1:53:05] thing is I think is projecting out each

[1:53:08] one of these departments where we're at

[1:53:11] and we see things going up or down. Um

[1:53:14] like you were talking about for each one

[1:53:15] of the revenues. That should be the same

[1:53:17] thing with expenses as well. But um for

[1:53:21] wreck fees I think I think we're

[1:53:23] monitoring that. I think that's the sunk

[1:53:26] cost is staff and I think we've all

[1:53:27] agreed to that. I don't know if anybody

[1:53:29] else has opinion on that but I think

[1:53:31] we're there. So um and I think we've

[1:53:34] always talked about going through

[1:53:37] expenses and you know yellow sheets etc.

[1:53:40] But I think we need to as a city focus

[1:53:44] more on coming up with revenue first

[1:53:47] before we start talking about expenses.

[1:53:49] And I think um I know revenue especially

[1:53:52] the sales tax part of it is which is a

[1:53:55] good chunk of of how we're figuring out

[1:53:57] stuff is brutally hard to to estimate.

[1:54:00] Um but I think in the long run that's

[1:54:03] going to be kind of our savior is if if we come up with a number in revenue

[1:54:08] and then expenditures is way off we got

[1:54:11] to figure something out. So, but I I

[1:54:13] think to to back into a budget is kind

[1:54:15] of what I've been seeing lately and I

[1:54:17] don't necessarily agree with that. But

[1:54:19] anyway, sorry talking too much.

[1:54:21] >> So, when when you're talking revenues,

[1:54:23] you're you're looking at growth patterns

[1:54:25] in each revenue. And then what that

[1:54:27] would suggest

[1:54:30] if the growth is down,

[1:54:33] biting the bullet and reducing the

[1:54:35] expenses then is what which is what

[1:54:37] you're saying there. if the growth

[1:54:38] pattern suggests that

[1:54:39] >> true and I think one of the biggest

[1:54:41] things is if you sales tax itself

[1:54:44] sometimes is

[1:54:47] what I'd want to avoid if there's an

[1:54:49] expense that we have to do um like this

[1:54:52] uh 20 the end year that we just finished

[1:54:55] up last June 2024 2025 I think that if

[1:54:59] you have

[1:55:01] if it forces you into even thinking

[1:55:03] about a property tax increase wait and

[1:55:05] think I mean to Um,

[1:55:09] could we increase certain revenues based

[1:55:13] on better estimate, not better

[1:55:15] estimates, but more rosy estimates? And

[1:55:19] then in the end,

[1:55:21] if there is a deficit, then we can pull.

[1:55:23] And I know people yell at yell and

[1:55:25] scream at me, especially the the former

[1:55:26] mayor, about that, but I think I had him

[1:55:28] turning the corner on that last at the

[1:55:30] audit committee meeting. because we had

[1:55:32] like Peter said over 500k in that end

[1:55:36] year when we had a five was it no 9.5

[1:55:40] propert tax increase and so that's to me

[1:55:42] that was like a a cringe type you know

[1:55:45] because we didn't need to so the whole

[1:55:48] point is that we need to but you know we

[1:55:51] make a decision based on the data that

[1:55:52] we have you know you have to like sketch

[1:55:55] your brain and restart you know once

[1:55:57] again because you can't be so worried

[1:56:00] about that that you're going to do that

[1:56:01] again and again. So if we can have

[1:56:04] better data, better guesses so that we

[1:56:07] can not do that again. I think that's

[1:56:10] the key thing.

[1:56:11] >> So Peter outlined for each revenue

[1:56:14] stream predictability

[1:56:17] and in some of those predictability

[1:56:19] elements he's built in a reserve because

[1:56:23] they're so unpredictable. So you're not arguing against that? No, but

[1:56:28] I just don't want to be so conservative

[1:56:29] that we, you know, are are in the whole

[1:56:32] >> Yeah.

[1:56:33] >> 500K when we don't necessarily need to

[1:56:35] be. Yeah. If I'm making sense. But maybe

[1:56:38] start that way.

[1:56:39] >> And I think we usually do that. Be

[1:56:41] conservative. Expenditures are a little

[1:56:43] bit heftier than we thought based on

[1:56:45] what the policies that we decided on,

[1:56:47] which is staff, you know, raises and

[1:56:50] whatever and buying a snow plow or

[1:56:53] whatever, you know, that we have to do.

[1:56:56] So then we do bite the bullet and either

[1:56:57] raise taxes or we have done this in the

[1:57:00] past. Pull from the reserve.

[1:57:03] >> Yeah. And I think I think I heard Peter

[1:57:05] say pull from the reserve in the current

[1:57:08] year so it's not thrown over the fence.

[1:57:12] So that's that becomes

[1:57:15] part of a way to be to help us. Yeah. To

[1:57:19] help us if we're wrong somewhere. I

[1:57:21] guess

[1:57:23] >> I just think it's more transparent. But

[1:57:25] I also kind of want to understand the

[1:57:27] reasoning

[1:57:28] for um why it was done the way it was

[1:57:32] done. I think there's a I think that was

[1:57:35] there's an argument to be made that you

[1:57:37] want to see what you've done first

[1:57:39] and make sure you've got that surplus in

[1:57:42] and then go ahead and move it over to

[1:57:44] your capital funds. Um

[1:57:47] but I think you can also do that in the

[1:57:49] same year. You don't necessarily have

[1:57:52] to. I've done that in the past budgets

[1:57:54] I've worked on where I've had a surplus

[1:57:56] I've been able to move um into like a

[1:57:59] capital fund.

[1:58:01] But uh it may and it just may to me just

[1:58:04] means there's more to explain to the

[1:58:07] public as to why you see a use of fund

[1:58:09] balance from a prior year.

[1:58:12] Uh and maybe that's okay. So um you know

[1:58:16] I just want to make sure we at least

[1:58:17] understand that there might be

[1:58:18] discussion point to be had there.

[1:58:21] Peter, I've seen a a kind of a hybrid

[1:58:23] there of a current year surplus where

[1:58:25] you use a surplus to help plug holes,

[1:58:30] but you still transfer some over to help

[1:58:33] the next year, too.

[1:58:34] >> And that's a discussion that we've had

[1:58:36] in previous years is a lot. And I think

[1:58:39] John, you mentioned last year, every

[1:58:42] year we know we're going to have a

[1:58:43] surplus in our revenues of two to

[1:58:46] 300,000. We don't know where it's coming

[1:58:48] from because some departments come in

[1:58:50] over under depending but we use that

[1:58:53] money to go to capital improvement fund

[1:58:55] for the following year. We can roll that

[1:58:56] into our budget and but then are we

[1:58:58] saving anything for the capital

[1:58:59] improvements? That's the discussion we

[1:59:01] should be having is do we want to be

[1:59:03] saving our surplus or do we want to use

[1:59:05] it in the budget?

[1:59:06] >> And that's what we're going to figure

[1:59:08] out.

[1:59:09] >> Yeah.

[1:59:13] » All right. All right. Well, let's go to

[1:59:14] the next uh um discussion. And this goes

[1:59:18] to

[1:59:20] uh sales tax. Um because you know,

[1:59:26] Chris, you just talked about that this

[1:59:27] is 50% of our budget.

[1:59:30] Um

[1:59:31] and so I'm just kind of lining out some

[1:59:33] different approaches.

[1:59:36] Again, we can do what council wants to

[1:59:39] do, but I just this is I want you to see

[1:59:43] my kind of thinking on this that you can

[1:59:45] help me figure out what makes best

[1:59:46] sense. So, for example, if I'm going to

[1:59:50] be conservative,

[1:59:53] I might uh

[1:59:57] essentially keep my

[2:00:00] sales taxes flat. And that's sort of

[2:00:03] where I've got it sitting right now on

[2:00:05] the budget going forward is I'm is I

[2:00:09] just don't know what going on in the

[2:00:11] country with wars and rumors of wars and so I'm thinking if we just hold it

[2:00:18] steady that's probably a good

[2:00:21] conservative move.

[2:00:24] However, it might be fine to tie it to

[2:00:27] like the CPI for example. So, and CPI's

[2:00:30] gone up and down. Um, and it's gone back

[2:00:34] up again just recently, but a month ago

[2:00:37] it was 2 2.5%.

[2:00:40] So, you could say, well, let's just t

[2:00:42] tag it to CPI, maybe do an annualized

[2:00:45] CPI and say that's a good um estimate.

[2:00:51] It might help us under it might help us

[2:00:56] um might hurt us, but yeah, that's a

[2:01:01] risk that you're willing to take. We

[2:01:02] could do that.

[2:01:05] And then it just goes up from there. So, I've got this predictive analytical

[2:01:09] where I can start digging into

[2:01:13] forecasting models and um and we can do

[2:01:17] that as well and it's resource intensive

[2:01:20] but it might help us improve our

[2:01:22] long-term accuracy. I know when I was at

[2:01:24] St. George last week at UGFOA.

[2:01:28] There's just this is a huge discussion

[2:01:31] point with uh finance directors all over

[2:01:33] the state looking at the way that the

[2:01:36] sales tax just kind of undulates. It's

[2:01:39] big one month and then down the next and

[2:01:42] the predictability and the trends and

[2:01:44] trying to figure out better ways to to

[2:01:46] kind of forecast.

[2:01:50] But at the same point, it's it's if we

[2:01:52] could do it really well, we would all

[2:01:54] quit our jobs and go work on Wall Street

[2:01:57] and make lots of money. So, um, so

[2:02:01] that's just something that I wanted to

[2:02:03] throw out there and and see what council

[2:02:05] thinks and kind of give me your thoughts

[2:02:07] on it.

[2:02:11] » Yep. Go ahead. So, I think the biggest

[2:02:13] thing um that I've done over the in the

[2:02:16] past years is to kind of look at what

[2:02:19] year-over-year sales tax does. And

[2:02:22] obviously, it's you know that's only

[2:02:24] point that's half of it and then the

[2:02:26] other half is population which we got

[2:02:30] I don't know what the proper term is. I

[2:02:31] don't know what I can use here but we

[2:02:33] got uh

[2:02:35] >> say what's your opinion on our

[2:02:36] population? our population should be

[2:02:38] more than what should be more than what

[2:02:41] it uh is that they're saying it is.

[2:02:43] Anyway, so um with that kind of that hit

[2:02:47] basically

[2:02:48] >> and this is I think Pulver's kind of

[2:02:50] guess was like 100 150k per year that we

[2:02:54] took a hit. So uh but I'm hoping that

[2:02:57] we'll flip come one July that they'll

[2:02:59] figure out that oh we don't just look at

[2:03:01] schools, we also have to think about

[2:03:03] home schools and private schools.

[2:03:04] Anyway, sorry that's a long story, but

[2:03:07] um year-over-year sales tax is going up.

[2:03:11] I don't think we've ever had a and what

[2:03:14] I was looking at less than 3% and I

[2:03:17] think the average was close to five and

[2:03:20] uh so that I think that's the number

[2:03:21] that I've always been trying to push. I

[2:03:23] know last year we kind of uh went way

[2:03:25] conservative but and that might be fine

[2:03:28] but I think the key thing is is if we're

[2:03:33] playing with a number that is 50% of of

[2:03:35] what we use in general fund then you

[2:03:38] know it needs to be pretty freaking

[2:03:41] accurate and so um sorry go ahead

[2:03:44] >> no I agree

[2:03:45] >> agree

[2:03:46] >> I was trying to come up with a word

[2:03:47] anyway

[2:03:47] >> so of those three options which one

[2:03:49] would you recommend this year

[2:03:52] >> this year I don't think we have time to

[2:03:53] do the the last one, the green one. I'd

[2:03:55] say definitely blue one, if not be a

[2:03:57] little bit more, I say risky. I don't

[2:04:00] know if that's the right word, but apply

[2:04:02] 5% based on what we see what we're going

[2:04:05] to get. You know, obviously everything's

[2:04:06] two months behind, which sucks.

[2:04:08] >> Um, anyway, go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead,

[2:04:10] Peter. I cut you off.

[2:04:11] >> Oh, no. I was just going to say I think

[2:04:12] your sort of year-over-year analysis is

[2:04:15] similar to the CPI kind of

[2:04:18] >> Yeah.

[2:04:18] >> approach. It's it's another way you can

[2:04:20] do it. I I didn't put it in here, but I

[2:04:22] definitely think that's a way we can

[2:04:24] look at it.

[2:04:26] >> Yeah. And I it's just one of those

[2:04:27] things that you can start graphing it

[2:04:29] and seeing kind of a trend even in the

[2:04:32] down quote down years and there's never

[2:04:34] been a negative year. But that, you

[2:04:36] know, like you said, the best way to the

[2:04:39] most conservative way to do is just make

[2:04:40] it flat. That's easy. But if you come

[2:04:43] out in the end that, oh well, we really

[2:04:44] want to give uh the staff 3%. then we're

[2:04:48] going to have to raise taxes by 25%.

[2:04:50] Maybe refigure your sales tax just to

[2:04:53] Anyway,

[2:04:55] that's just my thoughts.

[2:04:57] >> So, what's the rest of the council's

[2:04:59] opinion on our thoughts on sales tax?

[2:05:05] » Yeah, go ahead.

[2:05:07] >> Do we already have an aotment

[2:05:10] or saving for capital?

[2:05:16] Do we have that in the plan or if we

[2:05:18] were to miraculously guess the exact

[2:05:21] number then nothing would be added to

[2:05:23] capital?

[2:05:25] >> Oh, so we're just using what we've used

[2:05:27] in the past which is 300,000 for um is

[2:05:32] it roads and then two 279 for CIP or

[2:05:36] it's one or the other.

[2:05:38] So, we're just we were kind of doing

[2:05:40] this model in the past where we were

[2:05:43] doing that pulling the fund balance in

[2:05:45] from in the prior year and then

[2:05:47] transferring that that that amount out.

[2:05:49] It was been pretty it's been pretty set

[2:05:52] and that's sort of what I've got

[2:05:53] established

[2:05:55] at this point. Um

[2:06:00] » so if we're mimicking previous years

[2:06:03] then it seems that we would have an

[2:06:05] investment to capital funds whether or

[2:06:07] not um whichever option we choose here

[2:06:11] it won't be that capital funds left with

[2:06:14] no increase.

[2:06:18] Yeah, I mean that's the conservative

[2:06:20] model still predicts us moving

[2:06:24] um money to capital,

[2:06:26] >> right? But I'm just saying if we didn't

[2:06:28] choose that option, would anything get

[2:06:30] moved to capital?

[2:06:32] >> You could do more.

[2:06:41] » Maybe I'm not making sense. Sorry.

[2:06:44] But if all I'm saying is we

[2:06:47] if I'm looking at a conservative if I'm

[2:06:49] saying I'm going to take a real

[2:06:51] conservative approach with sales tax

[2:06:53] that conservative approach encapsulates

[2:06:55] the fact that we're going to move

[2:06:57] $579,000

[2:06:59] to capital.

[2:07:00] >> Yeah.

[2:07:01] >> If we

[2:07:03] um take a more assertive model, we might

[2:07:08] be able to move more or do other things

[2:07:10] with it.

[2:07:13] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:07:14] >> In your conservative model, are you

[2:07:16] saying no increase on sales tax?

[2:07:19] >> Correct. Sorry, it's not clear in here.

[2:07:22] It's budgeted flat. It didn't get

[2:07:25] transferred over. It's clear on your

[2:07:27] sheets, but not in the PowerPoint.

[2:07:29] >> In the predictive conservative,

[2:07:32] and you're saying tied to CPI, is that a

[2:07:35] would you guess that's a 3 to 5%

[2:07:38] increase in sales tax revenue?

[2:07:40] >> Well, when I looked at it, it was like

[2:07:41] 2.5%. Oh, 2.5.

[2:07:44] >> Yeah.

[2:07:47] » So, it's that's one way that governments

[2:07:50] have done this is they they've ti tagged

[2:07:52] it to CPI. And the nice thing about that

[2:07:54] is it's it's quantitatively assessed.

[2:07:58] So, you don't, you know, you just do it

[2:08:00] and if you're off, you're off, but at

[2:08:02] least you can justify how you did it.

[2:08:05] >> You don't get fired for guessing.

[2:08:08] >> Yep. I in my few years of being on the

[2:08:12] council, I find myself each year uh kind

[2:08:17] of overthinking what's happening in the

[2:08:19] moment. So, uh I I think kind of closer

[2:08:23] to what the CPI numbers would be a great

[2:08:26] approach this year for the budget.

[2:08:28] >> Uh an example would be, oh well, we just

[2:08:30] had 3% 3.4% inflation this month. The

[2:08:35] economy is going to go to crap. We're

[2:08:37] all everything's going to burn. You

[2:08:38] know, I find myself each year, I can't

[2:08:41] think specifically of each year, but

[2:08:43] almost every year there's something that

[2:08:44] happens that I feel emotionally like I

[2:08:47] need to react to it. Uh but the the

[2:08:50] numbers have shown in those few years

[2:08:52] that it always does go up by a

[2:08:54] reasonable percentage. Now, there could

[2:08:57] be that off year that it goes flat or

[2:09:00] goes slightly down or goes slightly up,

[2:09:02] but I I would feel comfortable being in

[2:09:04] the 2 to 4% range or something like that

[2:09:07] for our prediction.

[2:09:10] >> I would feel comfortable with that as

[2:09:11] well because if you look at Utah and its

[2:09:15] economic growth compared to the rest of

[2:09:16] the nation, I mean, we seem to continue

[2:09:19] to do very well there. So, I think 2.5

[2:09:25] would be a good target. Also,

[2:09:30] I would go higher, but I'm just, you

[2:09:32] know, I just have this conservativism

[2:09:34] kind of buried in me a little bit. So,

[2:09:37] going to the blue makes me riskier, but

[2:09:40] not much.

[2:09:42] >> Higher now. It's closer to three

[2:09:44] something.

[2:09:46] >> Yeah. Well,

[2:09:47] >> but that's tied to the war, so

[2:09:53] Okay. Did we Did we add money to our gas

[2:09:56] budget this year?

[2:09:57] >> We did. Actually, we did.

[2:09:59] >> Okay.

[2:10:00] >> In some areas we did we did that in

[2:10:02] other areas we just we figured we could

[2:10:05] we Yeah, we we looked at it pretty

[2:10:08] thoroughly the other day.

[2:10:10] >> All right. Sweet.

[2:10:14] >> Okay.

[2:10:14] >> All right. Next one.

[2:10:16] >> Yep.

[2:10:19] John, you need to push the button. Thank

[2:10:21] you.

[2:10:22] >> All right. Property taxes.

[2:10:26] And really, I wanted to just go through

[2:10:28] and tell you how things have changed a

[2:10:29] little bit.

[2:10:31] So, if

[2:10:34] we do a property tax, we have to

[2:10:38] designate in our budget an allowance for

[2:10:41] that expenditure. In other words, we

[2:10:44] can't obligate

[2:10:46] any funds for that planned property tax

[2:10:51] until that property taxes is a approved

[2:10:55] and b certified by the state.

[2:10:58] And I've got to show it in our books.

[2:11:01] So, what that tells me is I need to find

[2:11:04] either positions or programs that would

[2:11:08] correlate to that increase.

[2:11:11] That gives us a couple of different ways

[2:11:13] of it gives us a different way of

[2:11:15] thinking about it than we have in the

[2:11:16] past where we just say, well,

[2:11:20] we raise property taxes and then that

[2:11:22] gives people raises or we raise property

[2:11:25] taxes so we can um help improve the

[2:11:29] public service, the public service or

[2:11:32] the public safety sector. Now, it has to

[2:11:35] be a little more dialed in if that makes

[2:11:37] sense.

[2:11:38] And so what happens is I put something

[2:11:40] on the books that says here's where that

[2:11:43] if we're going to raise taxes, here's

[2:11:46] where that expense is going to go, but

[2:11:47] I'm not going to touch that budget until

[2:11:49] the tax rate is certified. If it's not

[2:11:52] certified, it stays as an allowance on

[2:11:54] the budget. It just it doesn't get

[2:11:56] touched. If it does get certified, then

[2:11:59] I can start spending it. And it's kind

[2:12:01] of weird because we don't get property

[2:12:03] taxes until the end of the year. So, the

[2:12:06] revenue is not going to come in, but

[2:12:08] what the state wants to make sure is

[2:12:10] that we're not obligating those funds

[2:12:13] before the rate actually gets approved

[2:12:15] and certified.

[2:12:17] >> Does that make sense?

[2:12:18] >> When's the timeline for the

[2:12:20] certification? You say at the end of the

[2:12:21] year?

[2:12:22] >> September, I think, is when the gets

[2:12:25] certifi when it gets certified.

[2:12:27] Maybe it's August. September

[2:12:30] was when it is when they come back and

[2:12:32] actually certify the rate. all the

[2:12:34] truth.

[2:12:34] >> We have to set the rate

[2:12:36] >> in August.

[2:12:37] >> Yeah,

[2:12:39] we have to set the rate

[2:12:42] and then we get truth and taxation

[2:12:46] and then there's a bunch of different

[2:12:48] procedures that we have to do to alert

[2:12:50] the public that are kind of new this

[2:12:52] year

[2:12:53] um about that. We have to have a a

[2:12:56] narrative that shows what that property

[2:13:00] tax increase is going for. And it could

[2:13:04] be just as simple as we're going to fund

[2:13:06] two new positions.

[2:13:09] So it sort of gives it a sense of you

[2:13:12] either raise the taxes or you don't fund

[2:13:14] the positions.

[2:13:16] >> And that it just that's sort of the

[2:13:19] narrative that it's going to play out

[2:13:20] with the public.

[2:13:22] And then at the end of that whole

[2:13:25] process and the truth and taxation

[2:13:28] and you go ahead and set your rate and

[2:13:31] then

[2:13:32] the state has to look at it and they

[2:13:34] decide we did everything right, dotted

[2:13:37] every eye, crossed every te then they'll

[2:13:40] certify it and then once it's certified

[2:13:42] then we can obligate those

[2:13:45] um and say there are two positions we

[2:13:47] would then go out and hire these two

[2:13:49] positions.

[2:13:51] And so

[2:13:53] we see our role as staff is to determine

[2:13:56] if the tax increases needed to fund

[2:13:58] additional programs and positions once

[2:14:00] we look at all the other revenue sources

[2:14:04] and then we'll come back at the end of

[2:14:06] the month and say yes we think no we

[2:14:09] don't think.

[2:14:11] Um, I have to actually present a

[2:14:14] statement, I believe, along with the

[2:14:15] mayor that that uh sort of lines this

[2:14:19] out in a more clear way,

[2:14:23] but you you can also determine

[2:14:26] to say we disagree or what we'd like to

[2:14:29] do is we don't like your you say you

[2:14:32] want to fund these two positions. We

[2:14:35] think it would be better served to, you

[2:14:37] know, restrict

[2:14:40] some other program or something.

[2:14:42] >> Yeah.

[2:14:43] >> So, the power free tax isn't passed or

[2:14:45] if it is passed, it'll fund this program

[2:14:48] over here or buy these widgets.

[2:14:51] And that's really up to that's something

[2:14:53] that you could then

[2:14:55] point back to us and go this is what

[2:14:57] we'd like to see that sort of allowance

[2:14:59] or restriction sort of set aside if the

[2:15:04] tax passes or doesn't pass.

[2:15:08] >> Does that make sense? John, do you have

[2:15:10] any color for this? You've been looking

[2:15:12] at it a lot as well.

[2:15:15] >> Uh we So it is a complicated process.

[2:15:19] We're going to we're going to actually

[2:15:20] over provide information to the

[2:15:23] residents so they can be involved. Um

[2:15:25] and the the biggest thing is that until

[2:15:29] we hit the dates in June, the number is

[2:15:31] going to be a little bit flexible. We're

[2:15:33] just kind of announcing, we're talking

[2:15:34] about it. In June, we have to pick the

[2:15:36] number we think we want and then in

[2:15:39] August you will actually adopt a number.

[2:15:42] Um there is obviously the option of uh

[2:15:45] Peter could announce that we are

[2:15:47] thinking of doing a property tax

[2:15:49] increase in May and then in June the

[2:15:50] council could say you know what we've

[2:15:52] reworked the budget it's not necessary

[2:15:54] and we just adopt the final budget and

[2:15:56] move on in June. So that's an option as

[2:15:58] well. That's the cleanest option. Um

[2:16:01] other than you know we probably need to

[2:16:03] look at uh programs or things that maybe

[2:16:06] are uh need to be scaled back.

[2:16:09] Does this affect uh uh if I remember

[2:16:13] correctly the yearly increases to

[2:16:15] employees is like July 1st. So is does

[2:16:18] this does this affect that since uh if

[2:16:22] the property tax a potential property

[2:16:24] tax was tied to employee increases?

[2:16:28] Would we have to wait until the c

[2:16:30] certification in August or September?

[2:16:32] >> Only if it is tied to it. So that that

[2:16:35] comes to the property tax impact

[2:16:36] statement. It will specifically say

[2:16:38] these are the departments being funded

[2:16:40] by the property tax. And so if it's tied

[2:16:42] to it, then yes. If it's not, then no.

[2:16:44] >> And I would

[2:16:45] >> or the tax increase.

[2:16:47] >> I would make the recommendation we don't

[2:16:49] tie it to wages or wage increases

[2:16:53] unless you want to become very

[2:16:54] unpopular.

[2:16:56] >> Well, no. I just I I was wondering if

[2:16:58] it, you know, how that would play out.

[2:17:00] I'm not saying it would be great. I just

[2:17:03] if that's literally how I just needed to

[2:17:05] understand it. But it's also uh

[2:17:08] technically it would be a lot it would

[2:17:09] be really challenging.

[2:17:12] We basically have to have an allowance

[2:17:15] um line in every single department.

[2:17:18] It's just easier to to pick three or

[2:17:20] four things

[2:17:21] >> and say, "Hey, these are the things that

[2:17:23] we really need in the city. We cannot do

[2:17:25] it if we don't have the property tax

[2:17:28] or in in some instances depending on the

[2:17:30] budget year. if we don't get this, we're

[2:17:33] gonna have to cut these programs or

[2:17:35] we're gonna have to, you know, um, phase

[2:17:39] out these positions. We're not in that

[2:17:41] position, but that's also one way you

[2:17:44] can kind of look at it is but to sort of

[2:17:47] like grab a few things instead of like

[2:17:50] having it peppered throughout the entire

[2:17:52] budget. I think that makes it a little

[2:17:55] easier to wrap your head around.

[2:17:58] >> What are we looking like in uh benefits?

[2:18:01] Are we thinking there's going to be an

[2:18:02] increase there or not? I mean, Peter,

[2:18:05] are you have you looked at that yet?

[2:18:07] >> Yeah, I think Yeah, John's going to be

[2:18:08] talking about that in a second, but but

[2:18:10] I think we're like anticipating an 8%

[2:18:13] increase.

[2:18:17] » 8%.

[2:18:18] >> Yeah. To health benefits.

[2:18:20] >> Oh.

[2:18:21] >> So, question I had with property taxes.

[2:18:24] We have a policy that says all property

[2:18:26] tax goes to police. Do we need to change

[2:18:29] that policy?

[2:18:31] because we can't pick projects and other

[2:18:34] stuff unless it's directly related to

[2:18:35] police right now. So if we have other

[2:18:38] citywide projects,

[2:18:40] we would not not be able to use property

[2:18:42] tax for them.

[2:18:44] The way our policy states right now,

[2:18:46] John, did that correct? We need to reop.

[2:18:58] » All right, I got one more. I got one

[2:19:00] more slide and then I'll be done. Um,

[2:19:04] just

[2:19:05] I want you to think about our overall

[2:19:07] budget approach when it comes to our

[2:19:10] fund balance and and this kind of goes

[2:19:13] back to the audit discussion to some

[2:19:15] extent. Um, because

[2:19:21] we could be very

[2:19:24] conservative again. We could say we're always going to plan a zero

[2:19:27] balanced budget.

[2:19:29] Recognizing as the year goes on,

[2:19:33] um if we were conservative in our

[2:19:35] revenues, we're going to estimate

[2:19:37] um low on the revenues, hoping that we

[2:19:41] actually get some savings in additional

[2:19:43] revenues. And we're going to estimate

[2:19:45] high on the expenses

[2:19:48] with maybe some potentially unplanned

[2:19:50] expenses. And then

[2:19:52] but if we estimate high, there's a good

[2:19:54] chance that we're going to come in low.

[2:19:56] And that's one way you can do it.

[2:19:59] Um

[2:20:01] but you but you could also try to be

[2:20:03] more accurate with some smaller

[2:20:04] variances. and and uh

[2:20:09] you know so

[2:20:11] I'm just pointing out that if we are are

[2:20:14] a little more predictive at that and

[2:20:17] when I say predictive I I think it's

[2:20:19] very difficult to

[2:20:21] if you plan for a zero budget

[2:20:24] and you come in at like $10,000 over I

[2:20:28] that's a really hard number to thread

[2:20:32] but if you're say like a 100 to $300,000

[2:20:35] over. That's probably a sufficient or

[2:20:38] that's probably a a really good um

[2:20:42] prediction for your zerobased budget.

[2:20:47] And there's just some pros and cons.

[2:20:51] You know, the pros to that is it

[2:20:53] improves your forecasting accuracy.

[2:20:56] Sounds like we need to do a little more

[2:20:57] of that.

[2:21:00] But there's also some risks that if you

[2:21:03] are off, you could have you could you

[2:21:06] could land a deficit

[2:21:08] um and then recognize that there's

[2:21:09] higher um resource inputs for greater

[2:21:12] accuracy. So it just takes a little more investment in that to kind of come

[2:21:17] up with that right number.

[2:21:19] And then the other approach and and I'm

[2:21:22] going to be honest, I've kind of come at this at this with this secondary

[2:21:26] approach because I've worked in a lot of

[2:21:29] scarcity

[2:21:30] um in my in my job in the past with as a

[2:21:35] financial officer where there's just

[2:21:37] been a lot of scarcity. And the best way

[2:21:40] for me to point is to be the I'm the

[2:21:42] truck driver on the road and I'm going

[2:21:43] to I'm going to drive as far away from

[2:21:45] the cliff as I can. Um although he's on

[2:21:49] the wrong side of the road, but you get

[2:21:50] my point. Um

[2:21:54] that way you're kind of almost

[2:21:56] guaranteed to avoid a deficit. One of

[2:21:58] the other things that that you may not

[2:22:01] know about is that when the auditors

[2:22:03] come in and do our audits,

[2:22:06] they they're it's funny what they care

[2:22:09] about, what they don't care about in

[2:22:10] terms of budget

[2:22:13] um budget planning.

[2:22:16] for example, they don't want to see that

[2:22:18] our departments go over budget.

[2:22:20] Um, statutoily, we we're not supposed to

[2:22:23] go over budget. So, the police

[2:22:25] department says we're supposed to spend

[2:22:26] $200,000.

[2:22:28] We can't go over $200,000.

[2:22:31] And so part of this conservative

[2:22:34] approach is to ensure that we're not

[2:22:36] we're keeping ourselves out of hot water

[2:22:38] with findings and with even possible the

[2:22:42] state could come down and say you guys

[2:22:43] over spent

[2:22:45] um

[2:22:47] is the city owes the citizens and you

[2:22:50] also are personally liable Mr. Peter

[2:22:52] Brown because you approved that

[2:22:54] expenditure

[2:22:56] and so we're going to come after you as

[2:22:58] well. We're trying to keep our

[2:23:00] departments and our our city out of hot

[2:23:02] water on a department basis to make sure

[2:23:04] that we're under budget.

[2:23:06] Um they don't necessarily care if it's a

[2:23:08] little bit over. Like I think reporter's

[2:23:12] office in 25 was like 30 bucks over.

[2:23:15] That's not what they're talking about.

[2:23:17] >> There's a materiality test there too.

[2:23:19] But but they

[2:23:21] that's sort of kind of one thing we're

[2:23:23] looking at in terms of of conservativism

[2:23:27] in the in the sense of expenditures, not

[2:23:31] necessarily revenues.

[2:23:33] Um but again, if we are too

[2:23:35] conservative, we risk breaching rainy

[2:23:38] day limits. We risk perceptions of

[2:23:40] excess funding

[2:23:42] um by the public. and we had that weird

[2:23:45] circumstance where we thought we needed

[2:23:47] a tax increase, but guess what? We

[2:23:50] probably didn't kind of a deal. So, this

[2:23:53] is sort of the last thing I wanted you

[2:23:55] to kind of chew on and then I'll be

[2:23:57] done.

[2:24:03] I'm in favor of the surplus guarantees,

[2:24:07] but I'd like to hear you guys' opinion

[2:24:09] as well.

[2:24:12] I would say I've been in

[2:24:16] higher ed for 40 years

[2:24:19] and

[2:24:23] you never have to apologize for being

[2:24:25] conservative. You might be criticized,

[2:24:29] but if you're too aggressive,

[2:24:33] you're placed at risk.

[2:24:35] I mean, that's just that's just the the

[2:24:38] world that I lived in there. And it

[2:24:41] feels like I live in this world, a

[2:24:43] similar world here. So,

[2:24:47] yeah. So, I I'm supportive of what

[2:24:49] you're saying, even though I did go to 2

[2:24:51] and a half% increase on the budget on

[2:24:54] sales tax.

[2:24:57] So I guess the one thing that always

[2:24:59] comes to my mind is

[2:25:01] >> because there's there's ups and downs

[2:25:03] that um cyclically that we we know about

[2:25:06] i.e. the elections that um I know we've talked about well you can't really

[2:25:11] plan for you know you can't budget for

[2:25:13] something that's not in that year. Well,

[2:25:15] there's got to be a way that we can

[2:25:16] smooth some of the the spikes that we

[2:25:18] see for stuff that is not on a

[2:25:21] year-to-year basis, but we know that

[2:25:22] it's going to be every third year or

[2:25:24] every whatever so that you can divide it

[2:25:26] and kind of smooth it out because that's

[2:25:27] what's killing us. At least from my

[2:25:29] point of view, when you see these boom,

[2:25:31] these spikes every other year or

[2:25:33] something like that, um that that kills

[2:25:36] us when it comes to the budget. And I

[2:25:37] think if you can smooth those out, which

[2:25:40] may lean towards the left, being more

[2:25:42] accurate on your predictions, I don't

[2:25:45] know. I guess I always lean by the fact

[2:25:47] that I don't want to tax anybody. But if

[2:25:49] you lean towards the right where it says

[2:25:52] everything, you know, surplus

[2:25:53] guaranteed, you have to tax every year.

[2:25:56] That's that's almost a a guarantee

[2:25:59] because um with like you said I mean I

[2:26:02] was just looking it up is eight benefits

[2:26:04] go up eight to to 12% a year on average

[2:26:08] and then you have if you want to give

[2:26:09] staff raises and what's the biggest

[2:26:11] what's this biggest expenditure in our

[2:26:13] city budget salaries bottom line and so

[2:26:17] if you want to say that you want to have

[2:26:19] guarantee a surplus with all of those

[2:26:21] automatic increases that we see in the

[2:26:24] biggest expense that we have you're

[2:26:28] guaranteed a big tax increase every

[2:26:31] year. So I to me I think there's a

[2:26:33] better way to to get there and I don't

[2:26:35] know obviously this year you know we're

[2:26:37] kind of already in it. Um, but I think

[2:26:40] we need to push for

[2:26:42] more, you know, what Peter's talking

[2:26:44] about, four year average or something

[2:26:45] like that or something that drives

[2:26:47] towards uh understanding the accuracy

[2:26:50] because I know I know the the budgets u

[2:26:54] for individual apartments are very very

[2:26:57] accurate and you see in the yellow

[2:26:59] sheets every year if there's a swing

[2:27:00] it's not that much unless there's a big

[2:27:02] expense um you know be it computers or

[2:27:05] something else but they do tend to do

[2:27:09] computers every, you know, not just 17

[2:27:11] in one year and zero in the other. They

[2:27:13] do try to smooth things out. I think

[2:27:15] that's the key thing is if we can smooth

[2:27:17] over the years, that that's going to

[2:27:19] help us understand what we're doing. Um,

[2:27:22] and I still think that some of that

[2:27:24] depreciation really should be banked to

[2:27:26] go buy a snowplow or something, but

[2:27:27] that's another discussion. Anyway, so I,

[2:27:31] you know, to me, I think we should be

[2:27:32] pushing to the left, but you know, I

[2:27:35] understand that more conservative means

[2:27:38] you're going to have less issue with

[2:27:40] risk, but at the same time, I'm not It's

[2:27:43] hard to look somebody straight in the

[2:27:44] face and say, "Yeah, we raised your

[2:27:45] taxes 10%, but we made a million5 last

[2:27:48] year." You know, I How do you, you know,

[2:27:52] that's that's what I worry about more

[2:27:54] than digging into the rainy day fund for

[2:27:57] 500k is explaining why you just took

[2:28:01] more money from you when you didn't need

[2:28:02] it.

[2:28:02] >> But I like what you say, moving towards

[2:28:05] accuracy helps, not a million dollar. It

[2:28:08] might be keeping you at 300, but

[2:28:11] >> yeah.

[2:28:11] >> But yeah,

[2:28:12] >> right. So, historically, and maybe this

[2:28:15] is where I need to be corrected, we're only having a $200 to $300,000

[2:28:19] excess. Is that correct, John? About

[2:28:23] >> uh so this in previous years, we

[2:28:26] budgeted $500,000 as an excess to go to

[2:28:28] capital in excess of BNC road funds. Um

[2:28:32] >> and this year in the budget, currently

[2:28:34] we have 200,000.

[2:28:35] >> So, if we're This is where I'm going to

[2:28:37] need some help from some some of these

[2:28:38] CPAs. If we have a $12 million budget

[2:28:41] and we have a $200,000 excess,

[2:28:45] how much are we actually what's our

[2:28:46] percentage of saving?

[2:28:51] » Well,

[2:28:52] >> we're pretty we're pretty close to both

[2:28:54] eyes.

[2:28:54] >> Pretty accurate.

[2:28:55] >> Yeah, we're pretty accurate.

[2:28:56] >> Yeah. Generally, you would say 15% is a

[2:28:59] conservative reserve of the total 15% of

[2:29:02] your budget.

[2:29:04] >> So, we're a lot lower than that.

[2:29:05] >> We're a lot Exactly. And that's my point

[2:29:07] is we're I think we're doing

[2:29:09] >> we had some surplus, but in my opinion,

[2:29:12] I think we're pretty dang close to

[2:29:13] bullseye.

[2:29:19] » I see what what I can see both sides. Um

[2:29:23] my hesitance is that if we play heavy on

[2:29:27] the risk side, what happens halfway

[2:29:30] through the year? um if there are some

[2:29:33] things happening, do we always have the

[2:29:35] rainy day bund budget or a fund that we

[2:29:37] can just pull from or is that when

[2:29:39] halfway through the year we have to

[2:29:40] scramble and have some kind of emergency

[2:29:42] where we have to um you know make some

[2:29:46] drastic changes halfway through the

[2:29:47] year? Uh so I I I'm nervous about that.

[2:29:50] I would rather not have to cancel things

[2:29:54] um let go of employees, you know, um pay

[2:29:57] our employees unfairly. I I would rather

[2:29:59] be able to um confidently move forward

[2:30:03] with the plans that we have in place. So

[2:30:06] um I guess what I'm saying is I feel

[2:30:09] like we've been pretty accurate so far.

[2:30:13] >> John, can I ask you a question? With the

[2:30:14] strategy of 500,000

[2:30:17] during COVID that when when it hit, was

[2:30:20] that was that an adequate reserve to

[2:30:22] handle

[2:30:24] without cutting salaries or positions?

[2:30:27] Uh for us it was Yeah,

[2:30:28] >> it was.

[2:30:29] >> Mhm.

[2:30:29] >> So that that's that's good then.

[2:30:31] >> Mhm.

[2:30:32] >> Yeah.

[2:30:35] » Which during COVID we actually cut

[2:30:38] council stipens and some other staff and

[2:30:42] they were only cut for a couple months

[2:30:44] because sales tax came screaming in.

[2:30:46] Right. It was a lot higher than

[2:30:48] projected

[2:30:49] >> the local uh the Amazon tax.

[2:30:52] >> Yeah.

[2:30:52] Saved us.

[2:30:53] >> Yeah. Exactly.

[2:30:54] >> Thank goodness for Amazon,

[2:30:55] >> right?

[2:30:56] But

[2:30:56] >> during

[2:30:57] >> it didn't hit us like we thought it was

[2:30:58] going to hit us.

[2:30:59] >> But thank goodness that res that reserve

[2:31:01] mentality that we've had here. We

[2:31:04] survived a pretty dramatic time frame

[2:31:08] >> and we keep talking about risk and I

[2:31:10] guess I want to identify at least what

[2:31:12] people are talking about risk. Um and

[2:31:16] because that's

[2:31:19] JD isn't that your job risk stuff or is

[2:31:21] that am I making that up?

[2:31:23] >> Yeah, it's a little bit

[2:31:24] >> a little bit. Anyway, for our job, it's pretty ginormous and you have um

[2:31:29] basically um it's green, yellow, red,

[2:31:33] and it's based on certain criteria in

[2:31:34] your X and Y axis. And one of them is

[2:31:38] the not opportunity, how much it's going

[2:31:40] to be. And then the other one is uh the

[2:31:43] probability of it occurring. And I guess

[2:31:45] that's the question I have is that when

[2:31:47] you're talking about risk, to me, the

[2:31:49] probability of sales tax coming in

[2:31:50] really really low is low. Yeah.

[2:31:54] >> And the amount that it would be under

[2:31:56] would be low. So to me, we're talking

[2:31:57] low low. So anyway, when we talk about

[2:32:00] risk, I just want to make sure that

[2:32:01] we're all understanding that it's not

[2:32:04] red. It's not like this is going to

[2:32:06] happen and that's going to be $3

[2:32:08] million, you know, it's not. So I guess

[2:32:11] that's my point is that if

[2:32:14] yes, it's more risky, you know, pushing

[2:32:16] more revenue into the into the budget,

[2:32:18] but

[2:32:19] >> but our rainy day fund could cover it.

[2:32:21] >> Yeah.

[2:32:21] >> So long.

[2:32:22] >> Yeah.

[2:32:23] >> Right. I don't I don't know. So,

[2:32:24] obviously, there's there's there's some

[2:32:26] >> Yeah. Right.

[2:32:27] >> Okay.

[2:32:28] >> Can I say one last thing on on this

[2:32:29] before I'm done?

[2:32:32] >> And that is it's not a binary. I think

[2:32:34] that we can do both. I think that uh we

[2:32:37] can do more to be more accurate.

[2:32:40] I for me, I just want to had that I just

[2:32:42] wanted to have the discussion. It's more

[2:32:46] um of a philosophy talk than anything

[2:32:48] else just so I can kind of sense the

[2:32:51] where everybody's sort of at

[2:33:00] » and I'm done.

[2:33:01] >> Thank you.

[2:33:05] » Any other comments to leave with Peter?

[2:33:10] >> Uh we're budget budget committees

[2:33:12] tomorrow FYI. Oh, perfect. Were we going

[2:33:15] to touch on this chart that was in the

[2:33:17] packet on the salary discussion? Uh,

[2:33:20] just to get an idea of what?

[2:33:22] >> Yep. I think

[2:33:22] >> staff is proposing and

[2:33:24] >> that's a John discussion.

[2:33:25] >> Okay,

[2:33:28] we ready for that then?

[2:33:29] >> Yep.

[2:33:30] >> Okay. So, council, this chart that you

[2:33:33] all saw, let me Oh, that is the

[2:33:37] that was the staff report, not the staff

[2:33:39] chart. There we go.

[2:33:47] So, um,

[2:33:51] oh, and I have to share it to Zoom so

[2:33:53] everyone else can see it too.

[2:33:55] >> Um, so this chart council uh is based on

[2:34:01] what we have essentially done in the

[2:34:03] past. Um, looking at raises for

[2:34:07] employees and typically we've done a

[2:34:09] range. Um the idea being that there

[2:34:12] would be a 3% minimum and then the last

[2:34:15] several years we've done an 8% maximum.

[2:34:18] Um and then what the chart shows is

[2:34:20] depending on the different ranges we do

[2:34:22] if we went from a 0% increase to a you

[2:34:25] know a fixed three for everyone or a 3

[2:34:27] to five is it shows how many employees

[2:34:31] um would be in theory over market um

[2:34:34] meaning they're making a little more an

[2:34:36] hour than the average person in their

[2:34:38] position across the state. So, it

[2:34:40] doesn't mean they're, you know, 40% over

[2:34:42] it. They're just higher than the the

[2:34:44] middle position. Um, 48 employees would

[2:34:49] be 3% or less under. Um, which uh may be

[2:34:54] close enough to the target that they're being compensated fairly because

[2:34:58] they're in the range of those that are

[2:35:00] in their same positions. Um, and then

[2:35:04] three would be still under by 4 to 6%,

[2:35:08] which is where I start getting more

[2:35:10] concerned. But obviously the the bigger

[2:35:12] concern is the more than 6%. Um, and so

[2:35:16] you can see as the different options

[2:35:18] across the top go through, a 0%

[2:35:21] increase, if there weren't raises, would

[2:35:23] leave 35 employees 6% or more under

[2:35:26] market or under what the study says. Um,

[2:35:30] if you did no limit, obviously we we'd

[2:35:32] catch everybody up and there wouldn't be

[2:35:34] anybody. And the majority of your

[2:35:35] employees would be in the 3% or less cuz

[2:35:38] that includes those that are paid spot

[2:35:40] on 100%. Um,

[2:35:43] and uh, just as a reminder, our range

[2:35:46] for employees is we take the market

[2:35:49] average pay based on the TechNet study

[2:35:53] and then we we decrease it by 90% to

[2:35:55] give us the bottom of the range and

[2:35:57] increase it by or sorry, we decrease it

[2:35:59] by 10% to give us 90% that's the bottom

[2:36:02] of the range and then 110% is the top of

[2:36:04] the range. Um, the goal is if an

[2:36:07] employee has been with the city and in

[2:36:09] that position for enough time. So,

[2:36:11] they've been a police officer one for

[2:36:13] four years that they will be paid the

[2:36:15] middle the the middle of the range. Um,

[2:36:18] a starting officer would obviously start

[2:36:19] at the bottom of the range. And so,

[2:36:21] these targets

[2:36:24] um are based on their years and their

[2:36:26] position as well. So, you may have three

[2:36:29] PO1s, one ones that's a three-year

[2:36:30] officer, one that's a two-year officer,

[2:36:32] one that's a one-year officer. and

[2:36:34] they're going to be closer to they'll

[2:36:36] be, you know, on target for their range,

[2:36:39] which one of them may be 2% higher than

[2:36:42] the starting salary and one's 4% higher

[2:36:44] and one's 6%. Um, they're not all going

[2:36:47] to be right at mid-range. So it there's

[2:36:49] a there's a lot more complicated in the

[2:36:51] back end of this and and we can go into

[2:36:53] that more detail in the future. But what

[2:36:56] I was trying to show is with the

[2:36:58] different financial or the different

[2:37:01] percentage increases what the financial

[2:37:03] implications would be. Um in particular

[2:37:07] um that the biggest impact is the

[2:37:10] general fund where uh

[2:37:13] about 70% of our employees are housed in

[2:37:16] the general fund. Um and so you can see

[2:37:20] that at the range that we would

[2:37:22] typically recommend the impact to the

[2:37:24] general fund or sorry the range that we

[2:37:26] are recommending I should say which is

[2:37:28] what we've done in the past the 3 to8%

[2:37:31] the impact to the general fund salary

[2:37:33] and benefits is $391,000.

[2:37:36] Um and then to the utility funds it's

[2:37:40] about 60 grand. Um, and then you can see

[2:37:43] on that row below

[2:37:45] that is, you know, of the general fund

[2:37:48] budget, currently over in the first

[2:37:51] column under zero, we're we spend $6.3

[2:37:54] million on salaries and benefits, which

[2:37:56] is not unexpected for a serviceheavy

[2:37:59] industry. You know, we don't um the flip

[2:38:03] side is you can see on the the enter um

[2:38:06] the enterprise, they only spend about a

[2:38:08] million dollars on salaries and

[2:38:09] benefits. But if you were to look at the

[2:38:11] capital outlay and the other expenses,

[2:38:13] the budgets are actually almost

[2:38:14] identical in the sense that both funds

[2:38:17] are spending $12 million, let's just

[2:38:20] say. Um, but it's because the enterprise

[2:38:23] funds are heavy on capital, heavy on

[2:38:25] equipment, heavy on those other things.

[2:38:27] So, um, they're less of a service

[2:38:30] related thing. Um, like I mentioned, my

[2:38:34] recommendation is to stick with the what

[2:38:35] we've done in the past, the 3 to 8%. Um

[2:38:38] Katie got a has worked on a spreadsheet

[2:38:41] with some other cities um to look at

[2:38:43] what they are doing for theirs. Um it is

[2:38:46] coming in

[2:38:48] around 5 to 6% as but most cities do a

[2:38:52] static everybody gets 5 to 6%. Um they

[2:38:57] don't really look at what the market's

[2:38:59] doing or evaluate it. Um, and most of

[2:39:02] those are built with a 2% cost of living

[2:39:05] increase and then a 3% merit increase or

[2:39:07] you might call that a time on the job

[2:39:09] increase. Um, and but every city's a

[2:39:12] little different, but that is kind of

[2:39:13] where it's trending. Um, in the past, as

[2:39:16] we've done the analysis, it's been in

[2:39:18] the the six to 7% range. So it seems

[2:39:22] like the market's slowing down a little

[2:39:23] bit, but I still think we have some

[2:39:26] catching up to do because we've by

[2:39:28] holding that 8% maximum increase, we

[2:39:30] still have people who are behind.

[2:39:33] >> So what are you suggesting in terms of

[2:39:35] cost of living and merit for us? Do you

[2:39:37] do a differentiation there?

[2:39:39] >> So we don't differentiate. Um you well

[2:39:42] you could argue we do that the 3% is a

[2:39:44] cost of living that because that's the

[2:39:46] floor that we give folks. Um, and then

[2:39:49] we do the the 8% as a cap. Um,

[2:39:55] and I I didn't show that on here, but

[2:39:57] like I mentioned, we could have done a

[2:39:58] 2% as a minimum. Um, one year we did do

[2:40:01] just a dollar amount. I I've heard that

[2:40:05] Pleasant View is doing a dollar amount

[2:40:07] this year. They're just saying this is

[2:40:08] the minimum people get um just not that

[2:40:13] they're putting a floor that's a dollar

[2:40:14] amount as opposed to a maximum.

[2:40:17] You're still doing merit though. Doing

[2:40:20] >> uh Pleasant Muse is not. So every every

[2:40:23] that's a Everybody's a little different.

[2:40:25] Um Ogden based on what we understand is

[2:40:28] doing a 2% cost of living and a 3% merit

[2:40:31] and theirs is just every employee gets

[2:40:33] well not every employee gets the 3%

[2:40:35] because if you don't qualify for the

[2:40:37] full merit, you don't get it. Um if you

[2:40:39] have some reprimands or other things.

[2:40:41] >> That was going to be my question is is

[2:40:43] any of it based on performance

[2:40:46] reviews? Uh so for in our system yes so

[2:40:49] the way someone gets their percent score

[2:40:53] it does take into account those who have

[2:40:55] performance review issues they can lose

[2:40:57] a percentage point or two.

[2:40:59] >> Okay.

[2:41:00] >> Um I you know we don't have a lot of

[2:41:03] employees on performance improvement

[2:41:04] plans but there is the the system is in

[2:41:07] there.

[2:41:08] >> So high achievers can get a little bit

[2:41:09] higher too.

[2:41:10] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:41:13] >> And and the other thing I'll tell you is

[2:41:15] not every employee not every not every

[2:41:19] department is allowed to have employees

[2:41:21] at 110% every employee. It'd be awesome

[2:41:23] if they could all get there, but just we

[2:41:26] have honestly kind of said, "Hey, we we

[2:41:28] will have a few superstars in each

[2:41:30] department that can get to that point,

[2:41:32] but if everyone was there, then it would feel like the system was broken

[2:41:36] and we were we were

[2:41:37] >> sure

[2:41:38] >> manipulating the numbers." So most

[2:41:40] departments might have one um that's at

[2:41:42] 110%. The bigger departments might have

[2:41:44] more, but we kind of um don't don't let

[2:41:48] people wiggle up there unless they

[2:41:50] really are, you know, star performer and

[2:41:53] we can't do without them.

[2:41:56] This sorry this spreadsheet was um I

[2:42:00] tried to make it simple, but it probably

[2:42:01] was more confusing than helpful out in

[2:42:03] the

[2:42:05] >> It's good.

[2:42:08] You said it was going to cost the

[2:42:10] enterprise fund 60,000, but I think you

[2:42:13] meant 47.

[2:42:15] >> Uh, so under the 38 8% plan, it's this

[2:42:18] $60,000.

[2:42:19] >> Oh, it is number.

[2:42:22] >> And again, there's there's so many

[2:42:25] nuances in this. So, a portion of the

[2:42:28] employees that are in this 391,000

[2:42:31] number are in motorpool and streets or

[2:42:34] motorpool public works inspections and

[2:42:36] some of the departments that we that the

[2:42:38] enterprise funds pay for. So, a portion

[2:42:41] of my salary is paid for by the

[2:42:42] enterprise funds. And so, even though I

[2:42:44] fall under a general fund employee, a

[2:42:47] portion still comes out. So, this

[2:42:49] doesn't capture all the nuances of how

[2:42:50] much enterprise is really paying. Yeah.

[2:42:53] >> Um, and that's something I know Peter's

[2:42:55] going to go into better detail on at a

[2:42:57] future council meeting that admin

[2:42:58] transfer is what we call it where the

[2:43:00] enterprise funds are helping fund

[2:43:02] motorpool streets and then like finance,

[2:43:05] HR and admin.

[2:43:07] >> Yeah. So obviously salaries is the

[2:43:10] number one priority

[2:43:13] in our budget process. That's very clear

[2:43:16] in the discussion today.

[2:43:19] >> Yes. I I liked something that the uh

[2:43:22] budget committee talked about um which

[2:43:24] helps the employees understand their

[2:43:26] total benefit package. I love the idea

[2:43:30] of producing a statement each year that

[2:43:32] says uh you know we paid $80,000 in

[2:43:35] benefits or whatever and has it all line

[2:43:37] itemmed out because I think that is a

[2:43:39] very very important piece to to people's

[2:43:42] benefits. Um I think it's also important

[2:43:45] to talk about uh the 8% increase in cost

[2:43:49] that it's going to be to uh medical

[2:43:52] insurance. Uh there are depending on the

[2:43:55] organization or the government entity,

[2:43:57] everyone handles it differently. Uh the

[2:44:00] federal government uh there are people

[2:44:03] that sometimes go slightly backwards

[2:44:06] because the the federal government does

[2:44:07] not adjust that each year. It's a it's a

[2:44:10] fixed percentage that the employee pays.

[2:44:14] 20% and the government

[2:44:17] pays 80%. So no matter what, they're

[2:44:19] taking on a percentage of that increase.

[2:44:22] Um, so I bring that up because I think

[2:44:24] it would be good for our employees to

[2:44:27] know if we decide to go forward with

[2:44:30] just absorbing that 8% increase that

[2:44:33] they understand that. I mean, it's kind

[2:44:35] of nerdy and it's not that exciting for

[2:44:36] them to see, but it it is something to

[2:44:39] understand and to say, well, um, uh, the people that are making the decisions

[2:44:45] decided to not have that impact their

[2:44:48] wallet. And I think that's important for

[2:44:50] them to know. Um, because I'm just

[2:44:52] thinking of my specific example, my

[2:44:55] personal situation as a federal

[2:44:56] employee. I there's it it's a very uh it

[2:45:01] takes forever for change to happen. So,

[2:45:04] um, the benefits situation, if it ever

[2:45:06] needed to be changed, it would take a

[2:45:09] literally an act of Congress. So, uh,

[2:45:13] so, um, I just think those are really

[2:45:15] cool things that we can point out. I

[2:45:16] like the idea of a total benefit package

[2:45:18] being shown to the employee. So, it's

[2:45:20] not just the hourly or salary rate. They

[2:45:23] can see it all in in one page.

[2:45:25] >> Yeah. In my previous organization I

[2:45:28] worked in, we did that and that was

[2:45:30] shocking sometimes to employees to find

[2:45:33] out. And good

[2:45:35] >> and good.

[2:45:36] >> And and last year we also budgeted for

[2:45:39] an 8% budget or benefits increase and it came in at six. I I don't want to

[2:45:45] promise it because we don't get our

[2:45:46] number till November, but we kind of

[2:45:48] start talking with our broker about what

[2:45:50] they think we'll see. And um so it's

[2:45:54] again we kind of air conservatively and

[2:45:56] then um but we did have one year where

[2:45:58] the benefit broker came back with like a

[2:46:01] 22% from our current provider and so we

[2:46:04] switched providers and found one that

[2:46:06] wasn't as high. So, we do expect this

[2:46:08] one to be a little more stable because

[2:46:10] we are with the the basically the state

[2:46:12] public employee health plan.

[2:46:17] » I agree with that. I think it's very

[2:46:19] important for them to know for someone

[2:46:21] like me that is self-employed and if

[2:46:23] it's an 8% increase, I see I see it

[2:46:25] straight out. I don't So, it I think it

[2:46:28] is good for them to see that that's

[2:46:30] another place they get a raise in a way.

[2:46:37] it. We can do it. Our our budget seat

[2:46:39] already kind of builds that into the

[2:46:41] analysis, so it'd be really easy for us

[2:46:43] to share that with them.

[2:46:44] >> I love that.

[2:46:48] » So, for discussion tonight, do we want

[2:46:50] to stay in the our historical 3 to 8% or

[2:46:54] do would you like to make changes?

[2:46:58] It it is kind of uh seems like it's hard

[2:47:01] to say without knowing what I I haven't

[2:47:04] even been given an an initial blush of

[2:47:07] if we do the 3%

[2:47:10] or 3 to 5% or 3 to 8% this is going to

[2:47:13] be the implications on potential truth

[2:47:15] and taxation. You know that's a that's a

[2:47:18] huge question. So, you know, I I think

[2:47:21] it's a little unfair to commit to one of

[2:47:24] these tonight because unless Peter or

[2:47:27] John has that initial I think I asked it

[2:47:30] in one of the last meetings if we had an

[2:47:32] idea of what we were looking like with

[2:47:34] potential truth and taxation, but

[2:47:36] without that idea of what the

[2:47:38] implications can be, it's hard to say,

[2:47:41] >> right?

[2:47:41] >> Does that make sense?

[2:47:42] >> Yes. And it

[2:47:44] and if I understand our new law

[2:47:46] correctly, I would be very hesitant to

[2:47:48] say whether or not we want to go to a

[2:47:50] truth in taxation at this stage

[2:47:54] >> based on salaries.

[2:47:55] and yeah, well, it's

[2:47:58] it it wouldn't be the line item for the

[2:48:00] truth and taxation, but it's still I

[2:48:02] mean it's just taking from one part of

[2:48:05] the budget and not putting it on that

[2:48:07] reason for truth and taxation and

[2:48:09] putting it elsewhere. So, it's still a

[2:48:11] part of the larger picture is what I'm

[2:48:13] saying.

[2:48:14] >> So, I can give you the number that's in

[2:48:16] Peter's spreadsheet.

[2:48:18] So, he may uh which is not a final, but

[2:48:21] by reducing our capital down to 200,000

[2:48:25] instead of the five, we currently have

[2:48:28] 82 thou an $82,000 surplus.

[2:48:32] So in theory, we wouldn't, but that

[2:48:35] includes a 5% tax increase, which is

[2:48:38] about 120 or $140,000.

[2:48:42] >> So the the big question is what sales

[2:48:44] tax number did he put in there?

[2:48:46] >> Flat.

[2:48:47] meaning the guess from last year or

[2:48:49] the actual

[2:48:50] >> premium 4896 4.896. See, to me that was

[2:48:53] that's in fact I wrote this question

[2:48:55] down because we're we're basing a guess

[2:48:57] off of a guess as opposed to an actual

[2:49:00] number from the previous year. So to me

[2:49:02] that's that's an argument. But anyway,

[2:49:06] well what what we could do is we could

[2:49:08] start basing our guess off of the fourth

[2:49:12] quarter of the previous year and then

[2:49:14] the f then the three quarters that we've

[2:49:16] got our tax dollars from, you know, so

[2:49:18] that in June you can have a better

[2:49:19] number. Um, so but it's it it's

[2:49:24] >> can do really.

[2:49:25] >> There's every time I talk to any city

[2:49:28] managers or finance directors, I say,

[2:49:29] "How do you guys predict your your sales

[2:49:32] tax?" And they kind of lick their finger

[2:49:33] and stick it up in the air and say,

[2:49:34] "Yep, sounds good."

[2:49:39] » Half of our budget of our

[2:49:41] >> Yeah. Say that.

[2:49:43] >> Yep. And I think what we're trying to

[2:49:45] say tonight is we just need to give them

[2:49:47] one of these

[2:49:48] >> chart numbers to put into the budget

[2:49:51] >> and anything can be changed later. Right

[2:49:53] now we're just at the draft stage.

[2:49:56] >> We're going to be talking budget for the

[2:49:57] next several months and every city

[2:49:59] council meeting we're going to be making

[2:50:00] different decisions not knowing how it's

[2:50:02] going to affect that end number.

[2:50:04] >> But all of all of it now is just a

[2:50:06] draft. Right.

[2:50:07] >> Correct. I'd stick to historical 3 to8

[2:50:09] and then

[2:50:10] >> I like the three.

[2:50:11] >> Same. And then just as you can tell by

[2:50:14] the chart, if it was, you know, to move

[2:50:16] up or down, you can see that, you know,

[2:50:17] if you went down, it would save 100

[2:50:19] grand. If you went up, it would cost an

[2:50:21] extra 40. Um, but that'll help us dial

[2:50:24] in a number so that when you see the

[2:50:25] tenative budget, it'll be kind of, hey,

[2:50:27] this was the the snapshot. Um, and

[2:50:31] understand that nothing's final until

[2:50:32] the council passes a budget either in

[2:50:34] June or in the truth and taxation

[2:50:36] process. Um, and uh, this will allow us

[2:50:40] to to fully input the numbers into the

[2:50:43] sheet and dial that 82,000 current

[2:50:46] surplus in a little better than it is

[2:50:48] right now.

[2:50:50] >> Can I make one comment for Cara and

[2:50:52] myself, Tara and myself? I don't know

[2:50:55] what the truth and taxation is. Do you,

[2:50:57] Tara?

[2:50:57] >> So, I do.

[2:50:58] >> Oh, you do? I don't. So truth and

[2:51:01] taxation, we get a number from the the

[2:51:04] county that says if we took all the

[2:51:06] buildings that were existing in the city

[2:51:08] last year

[2:51:10] and kept their taxes so that you got the

[2:51:13] same amount of number, your new tax rate

[2:51:16] usually goes down. So it would because

[2:51:19] houses go up in value, so the tax rate

[2:51:21] goes down. So it levels. Then the

[2:51:24] council decides if they want to increase

[2:51:25] that number up to to take a little bit

[2:51:29] more from each of the existing homes and

[2:51:31] it and then there's growth that comes in

[2:51:33] on top of it. So all the new buildings

[2:51:34] are kind of set in a different bucket

[2:51:36] and they come in at the very end.

[2:51:38] >> But that truth and taxation process is

[2:51:40] the formal process where we let the

[2:51:41] residents know we're thinking of doing a

[2:51:43] tax rate. We hold public hearings and

[2:51:46] then we hold a final public hearing

[2:51:47] where where tax rates actually adopted

[2:51:49] in.

[2:51:50] >> Okay. Okay. Well, that makes sense. you

[2:51:52] have a pretty you have a pretty reliable

[2:51:54] uh number of the property tax that can

[2:51:57] be collected because it has to be the

[2:52:00] same number

[2:52:01] >> um and then the net new building.

[2:52:04] >> So uh the only thing that will vary

[2:52:06] slightly is uh if we're seeing that

[2:52:08] building permits are down, you can

[2:52:10] predict that our increase in the net new

[2:52:13] increase from property taxes will be

[2:52:15] slightly lower. Mhm. But

[2:52:17] >> um it just depends year to year and

[2:52:19] >> it can go kind of the crazy one way or

[2:52:22] another.

[2:52:22] >> The crazy part is is that if your

[2:52:24] valuation of overall of of the

[2:52:26] properties in North Ogden go up that

[2:52:28] means your t tax if you and they don't

[2:52:31] do anything your tax increment goes

[2:52:32] down.

[2:52:33] >> So to keep your tax increment the same

[2:52:36] you have to raise taxes. So go figure

[2:52:38] that one anyway.

[2:52:39] >> Yeah it is kind of weird.

[2:52:41] >> And and when the market crashed in 2008

[2:52:43] and values plummeted

[2:52:44] >> Yeah. the tax rate went up to capture.

[2:52:47] So most people think as my house

[2:52:49] inflates in price, my taxes go up

[2:52:51] because every year everyone's taxes go

[2:52:52] up.

[2:52:53] >> It's not actually tied as much to your

[2:52:55] home value as you think. It's it's

[2:52:57] because, you know, us or the school

[2:52:59] district or the fire district fire

[2:53:02] district

[2:53:02] >> expensive

[2:53:03] >> raises theirs.

[2:53:04] >> They need their money.

[2:53:05] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:53:06] >> So that's what it

[2:53:07] >> they're financing budgets. And cities

[2:53:10] are unique in that we we get funding

[2:53:13] through lots of different re revenue

[2:53:15] sources. Um the fire district for

[2:53:17] example kind of has property taxes and

[2:53:19] then a little bit of revenue from the

[2:53:20] ambulances and some sometimes some

[2:53:23] revenue from federal grants and things.

[2:53:24] But you look like at like the mosquito

[2:53:26] abatement districts and some of those

[2:53:27] places property tax is the only place

[2:53:30] they get money from.

[2:53:31] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:53:36] » Okay. Do we have any other discussion on

[2:53:38] the budget tonight?

[2:53:41] >> Uh the only thing that kind of leads

[2:53:43] into the next one was code enforcement

[2:53:45] that we are asking for code enforcement

[2:53:48] positions. This is kind of just an FYI

[2:53:50] or at least one um to help with keeping

[2:53:54] up on these rules, you know, signs and

[2:53:56] in particular water, which is the next

[2:53:58] discussion which I promise will be

[2:54:00] short.

[2:54:01] >> Okay.

[2:54:01] >> Now, that one would be a pretty safe one

[2:54:03] to put on the property tax reason,

[2:54:05] right? because you're

[2:54:06] >> you're not offending a current employee,

[2:54:09] you're just,

[2:54:10] >> you know, trying to get an additional.

[2:54:12] So, that would be a really good one to

[2:54:14] put on the actual reason.

[2:54:16] >> And and that that's a great idea. And

[2:54:17] that's the kind of stuff we've been

[2:54:18] looking for is what what are the things

[2:54:21] that should be tied to? If there's an

[2:54:23] increase, what should it be tied to?

[2:54:26] >> Okay.

[2:54:27] Moving on to item number 11. This

[2:54:30] is ordinance 2026-09

[2:54:33] unauthorized unauthorized use of

[2:54:35] culinary water and our dis our presenter

[2:54:37] will be John call. Okay, council. So,

[2:54:40] this ordinance was written uh because we

[2:54:44] had some residents who who on Facebook

[2:54:47] when we posted a hey, we're going to

[2:54:49] have water on in the parks, you know,

[2:54:52] just as a reminder, we're get we're

[2:54:53] dialing in the system. We're not

[2:54:54] watering yet, and please don't use

[2:54:56] culinary water outside. And we got

[2:54:58] several comments that said, "Where does

[2:55:00] it say in the rules? You can't use

[2:55:02] culinary water." So, we're just

[2:55:03] clarifying that. Um, I will say, and I

[2:55:07] probably should have included this in my

[2:55:08] staff report, the penalty at the bottom,

[2:55:11] I just put in what the maximum penalty

[2:55:14] that the state will allow us, which is

[2:55:16] $1,000.

[2:55:18] That is not staff recommendation. And I

[2:55:20] haven't heard any of you say that yet,

[2:55:22] just so everyone's on the same page. But

[2:55:24] the idea is that this is an ordinance

[2:55:27] that will now be in our code around

[2:55:29] culinary water that allows residents

[2:55:31] when the governor declares a drought

[2:55:33] emergency to water their plants and

[2:55:35] their trees and their bushes with

[2:55:37] culinary water if the secondary systems

[2:55:38] turned off. Um but in but in theory um

[2:55:43] culinary water use will not be used for

[2:55:46] anything unless

[2:55:48] >> there's a drought declaration

[2:55:50] >> and their small gardens as you

[2:55:52] >> and gardens. Yes,

[2:55:53] >> small gardens. small gardens, not big

[2:55:55] gardens like on, you know,

[2:55:58] >> who enforces this.

[2:55:59] >> So that that turns into the code

[2:56:01] enforcement question

[2:56:03] >> because and it also turns into the

[2:56:05] citation. I I can tell you that and you

[2:56:08] probably have all seen this if you've

[2:56:09] had your secondary water meter

[2:56:10] installed. The thought of paying a $500

[2:56:12] fine for going a gallon over your usage

[2:56:14] seems obscene. Um, and I think that we'd

[2:56:18] get a similar reaction for a $1,000 fine

[2:56:20] for using culinary water use. In fact,

[2:56:22] the way it's written in is that they

[2:56:24] would at least get one written warning

[2:56:25] before the penalty would be imposed. But

[2:56:29] that's something that you're going to

[2:56:30] politically going to have to wrestle

[2:56:31] with is do you want to fine? And if so,

[2:56:34] how much? Because if you do $25, you'll

[2:56:37] have people who will pay it

[2:56:38] >> and they they'll just they'll just water

[2:56:40] their lawns and they'll pay the $25 a

[2:56:43] day. And if you do $1,000, you'll have a

[2:56:46] lot of people who will not be thrilled.

[2:56:50] And um

[2:56:53] you'll you might find less enforcement

[2:56:56] because the code enforcement folks or

[2:56:59] the officers or me don't are we're just

[2:57:02] done getting yelled at. And I know that

[2:57:04] that's our job is to enforce the rules,

[2:57:06] but you'll I mean you're you'll get

[2:57:08] yelled at too. You know, you've all been

[2:57:10] called and yelled at. And

[2:57:11] >> I think a thousand is too high. I'll be

[2:57:13] the first to say. So

[2:57:15] >> have any uh stipulations for new um gra

[2:57:19] new sod or new plants? Because the best

[2:57:22] time to plant sod is either you know

[2:57:25] fall right before winter or early

[2:57:27] spring. So if someone just put in sod or

[2:57:31] just put in can can they have a little

[2:57:33] bit of an exception so they're yard can

[2:57:37] start to grow. I mean we're lucky right

[2:57:39] now because it's raining. We don't

[2:57:41] hopefully we don't have too many issues,

[2:57:43] but if it stops raining for the next

[2:57:44] couple months,

[2:57:47] we'll be on secondary. We'll be back on.

[2:57:50] >> I guess that's more of a

[2:57:52] >> we'll probably be fine. It's we we're

[2:57:54] getting a lot of rain right now.

[2:57:55] >> Paul,

[2:57:56] >> I'm overthinking it.

[2:57:57] >> But I mean, in our

[2:57:58] >> that was a question that came up on

[2:57:59] Facebook.

[2:58:00] >> I I agree that too. I that was my

[2:58:02] comment too is that I thought there was

[2:58:04] a stipulation in there someplace and I

[2:58:06] couldn't find it. It was in the

[2:58:08] declaration that the that was done that

[2:58:10] said, you know, well, it actually said

[2:58:13] >> you could in that situation if you've

[2:58:15] already started basically, but then it

[2:58:17] said you are you don't have to install

[2:58:19] your lawn like we extended the the the

[2:58:23] landscape installation period for new

[2:58:24] homes so that they wouldn't have to use

[2:58:26] culinary to keep their lawns going.

[2:58:29] >> Well, they know that though.

[2:58:32] >> No. And the the hard thing about all the

[2:58:34] rules and ordinances, they typically

[2:58:36] don't know about them until they get

[2:58:38] that personal contact.

[2:58:40] >> But yeah,

[2:58:41] >> what what is the ordinance for new homes

[2:58:43] for new yards?

[2:58:43] >> Uh front yards within 12 months,

[2:58:45] backyards within 18

[2:58:49] >> and code enforcement chases it all the

[2:58:51] time. And then we even have nuances for

[2:58:54] if you have animals, there's these

[2:58:55] rules. if it hasn't been fully if it

[2:58:57] hasn't actually been developed yet,

[2:58:59] there's a different set of rules because

[2:59:00] we do have, you know, the hillside above

[2:59:03] the cove, we obviously don't make them

[2:59:05] mow down the weeds because doing so

[2:59:07] would cause more problems and probably

[2:59:09] fires than it's worth the risk of.

[2:59:12] >> So, are people calling dispatch to

[2:59:14] report these problems right now? And

[2:59:16] we're sending the officers

[2:59:18] >> sending code enforcement.

[2:59:19] >> Code enforcement. Okay.

[2:59:21] >> So, it's routed the same as a

[2:59:23] non-emergency call. I mean, I don't know

[2:59:25] how hard it is to change the the fines,

[2:59:28] but a thousand seems extreme after one

[2:59:32] written.

[2:59:32] >> John can change it real easy.

[2:59:34] >> But I mean, I would I would say if it

[2:59:36] was $100 the first time, $250 the

[2:59:39] second, and then a thousand or something

[2:59:41] and we and you site them the very first

[2:59:43] time, not do a warning.

[2:59:45] >> No, I I don't know.

[2:59:46] >> I I disagree on that. I think warning

[2:59:48] has to be the first one because John

[2:59:50] said nobody knows about most

[2:59:51] >> That's true. I guess and and usually

[2:59:54] it's

[2:59:55] >> fast.

[2:59:55] >> I liked there was a interaction one time

[2:59:58] I had educate and release I think is

[3:00:00] what um the most of the times I do use

[3:00:04] the the code for it anyway. So but

[3:00:06] that's that's what I would recommend but

[3:00:08] I don't disagree on the thousand for

[3:00:12] right off the gate for first time. Hey,

[3:00:14] I know it sucks, but at the same time,

[3:00:16] it provides teeth because you can

[3:00:18] probably get away with one or two, you

[3:00:21] know, if you just say, "Oh, well, you

[3:00:23] know, slap on the hand the first time or

[3:00:24] educate the first time, slap on the hand

[3:00:27] the second." So, you have to keep track

[3:00:28] and keep going back to the offenders

[3:00:30] three or four times. I don't know. I I I

[3:00:33] just think that it needs to have teeth.

[3:00:34] And that's why we were I think, you

[3:00:36] know, Pine View is doing the right

[3:00:37] thing. 500 bucks. Pay attention.

[3:00:40] >> Right. But that's once at the end of the

[3:00:41] season after you've used your Max. No, that's during the season. So, if you

[3:00:45] hit your your limit at the season, it's

[3:00:47] 500 bucks even to turn it back.

[3:00:48] >> I guess I assume it's the end of the

[3:00:50] season. What whatever you you use your a

[3:00:52] lotment though and they've notified

[3:00:54] everyone by mail. I feel like that's

[3:00:56] it's different in my opinion.

[3:00:59] >> I I could I could see people

[3:01:03] like, you know what, I'm going to chance

[3:01:04] it because I know I get a written

[3:01:06] warning first and then it goes to a

[3:01:07] thousand. So I can see a lot of people

[3:01:08] like I'm going to do it till I get

[3:01:10] talked to where if they know they get

[3:01:11] talked to the first time say a h 100red

[3:01:14] bucks then a thousand I don't know I

[3:01:16] don't I think

[3:01:18] post it it

[3:01:21] if culinary is as well all I'm saying is

[3:01:23] that if culinary is as we had because

[3:01:25] the Jordan Park thing was a huge issue

[3:01:27] >> let's do let's do $1,000 dollars and

[3:01:30] Pver will be the lead on for any

[3:01:32] complaints.

[3:01:33] >> That's fine. I've already been watching

[3:01:36] just literally out my window going, "Are

[3:01:37] you stupid or something?" I mean, it's not that hard to understand you

[3:01:41] shouldn't be watering your lawn. No.

[3:01:43] >> Before,

[3:01:44] >> can I ask a random question? This is off

[3:01:46] topic a little bit.

[3:01:48] >> If we were to not have had a drought

[3:01:50] this year and all the restrictions and

[3:01:52] the limit limited water, if we pretend

[3:01:55] this never happened, would we still have

[3:01:57] been asked this budget year to add a um

[3:02:02] code enforcement officer? Would we still

[3:02:04] have been asked?

[3:02:05] >> Yes.

[3:02:05] >> Okay. So, if we do need a code

[3:02:07] enforcement officer added, when does

[3:02:09] that position get added? After Truth and

[3:02:11] Taxation

[3:02:12] >> if it was tied to it like Yes.

[3:02:14] >> Right. But by the time that they are

[3:02:16] trained and employed, then what happens

[3:02:19] if next year and the next year aren't

[3:02:21] even a drought year?

[3:02:22] >> They they're going to have plenty to do

[3:02:25] and they might end up being more

[3:02:27] proactive than our reactive approach. I

[3:02:30] mean it's it's uh Chief Einan asked for

[3:02:33] two additional csos last year, right?

[3:02:35] >> So it's it's been needed for years. It's

[3:02:38] that just because of this drought thing.

[3:02:41] >> I think my point is is that if we are in

[3:02:43] such a need for a cso right now and we

[3:02:46] before we even had this increased need

[3:02:48] for a cso, now we already need a cso and

[3:02:52] we're adding an increased need for the

[3:02:54] cso. We're already very spread very

[3:02:56] thin, I guess, is what I'm saying. Is

[3:02:57] this the time where we're going to

[3:02:59] change our philosophy and instead of

[3:03:00] being reactive, we're going to be

[3:03:02] proactive? I don't know. That's what I'm

[3:03:04] saying.

[3:03:06] >> Reactive

[3:03:08] >> is when we say reactive previously,

[3:03:10] we've been doing it reactive at when

[3:03:11] someone files a complaint or goes into

[3:03:13] the portal and reports something. That's

[3:03:16] our reactive.

[3:03:18] >> So, so

[3:03:20] that that means the code officers aren't

[3:03:22] driving around noticing someone with a

[3:03:24] hose in their mouth in in their mouth in

[3:03:25] their hand.

[3:03:28] Correct. I mean, I don't think that's that's not something that is is

[3:03:31] in the design. There's no way they can

[3:03:33] >> still. So, so the philosophy then has

[3:03:35] been in the past that they're going to

[3:03:37] wait until a neighbor calls. Is that

[3:03:39] what we're still continuing to

[3:03:43] >> with the I mean, you have two officers

[3:03:45] who could tell you what their philosophy

[3:03:46] is. If they got two additional cso

[3:03:48] officers that they might tell you what

[3:03:50] their be this moment when we are in need

[3:03:54] during the drought, right?

[3:03:56] I don't know. Just throw.

[3:03:58] >> So, so my my my

[3:04:00] hope my hope is if we're saying that we

[3:04:03] want a new cso and it's tied to this

[3:04:06] reason for a TNT, uh, then it it would

[3:04:10] be the correct time to draw a line in

[3:04:13] the sand to say we are more proactive.

[3:04:15] whether that's that that additional cso

[3:04:18] is 100% proactive or is at least, you

[3:04:21] know, 50% of their time proactive and

[3:04:24] 50% reactive. It it's a line in the sand

[3:04:27] moment to me. I feel like I feel like it

[3:04:30] would make no sense to add an additional

[3:04:32] cso if there's no additional proactive

[3:04:34] nature of the position. And I think

[3:04:36] Lieutenant Long or Brinks here will have a comment,

[3:04:43] but because this is something they've

[3:04:45] been philosophically shifting,

[3:04:48] >> they're fighting over going to respond.

[3:04:50] >> Well, and it's also fire life safety.

[3:04:52] It's not necessarily watering the lawn.

[3:04:54] That's that's going to be a priority.

[3:04:55] And that's the thing that the budget or

[3:04:58] not budget, good heaven, sorry, is the

[3:05:01] code enforcement committee is coming up

[3:05:03] with priorities and that's what they go

[3:05:04] for. So, is watering going to be a

[3:05:07] priority? Probably not.

[3:05:10] >> As you all are aware, um, they wear many

[3:05:13] hats, you know, animal control,

[3:05:15] evidence, code enforcement, um, putting

[3:05:20] speed trailers out, and everything else.

[3:05:21] So there

[3:05:23] adding an additional cso would allow for

[3:05:26] more proactive instead of reactive

[3:05:29] waiting for the calls to you know we we

[3:05:32] try and keep at least a the top 10

[3:05:36] properties that we need to pay attention

[3:05:38] to. But the proactiveness is they're

[3:05:43] spread thin trying to take care of all

[3:05:45] their

[3:05:51] And I'm fine with that philosophy. I

[3:05:53] guess all I'm saying is I wonder if this

[3:05:56] um urgent need for the culinary water is

[3:05:58] really only going to last the next month

[3:06:00] and extra cso.

[3:06:03] >> Pine view is getting shut off early.

[3:06:06] >> It needs to be out period.

[3:06:07] >> Well, it does. I'm not saying it

[3:06:09] doesn't.

[3:06:10] >> Sorry. Maybe to your point is if the

[3:06:12] council wants to talk about this more,

[3:06:14] we basically have another week till Pine

[3:06:16] View's on. I think it's the 20th. Yep.

[3:06:20] >> And so they're going to start charging

[3:06:21] lines. So there may be less of a need

[3:06:25] now as there will be at the end of the

[3:06:27] summer. So if the council really would

[3:06:28] like more time,

[3:06:30] >> that's okay.

[3:06:31] >> So we're we're talking about this to

[3:06:33] address the fall needs. And by that

[3:06:35] time, will there be a CSO, an extra CS?

[3:06:37] >> I thought it was Monday May.

[3:06:39] >> Uh if it's tied to truth and taxation,

[3:06:41] we won't advertise the position till

[3:06:43] September 1st. So they won't be hired

[3:06:45] till the water's turned off. Okay. So,

[3:06:47] actually in October when we you know

[3:06:49] they could go but so so council if you want to have something on the

[3:06:54] books so people can start educating

[3:06:56] >> I want to have something on the books.

[3:06:57] Let's just get her done and then if we need to uh add to this later when

[3:07:04] we've thought about it more we'll bring

[3:07:05] it back

[3:07:06] >> this summer or whenever.

[3:07:08] >> I would love to see what violation

[3:07:10] >> they're doing

[3:07:11] >> warning and then $1,000.

[3:07:13] >> I are we voting on this

[3:07:16] What else to their job besides just

[3:07:18] water? I mean the all the things that

[3:07:20] they mentioned. I would love to see

[3:07:22] that.

[3:07:24] >> We will bring a report on what the csos

[3:07:26] do so that you can because the list is

[3:07:29] long. Um they have taken over a lot of

[3:07:32] what our uniformed officers used to do

[3:07:34] to free uniformed officers up to handle

[3:07:36] the more severe calls so we don't have

[3:07:38] to keep adding officers or not as many.

[3:07:41] So, um, yeah.

[3:07:46] >> Can I throw out 250 or 500 versus the

[3:07:49] thousand?

[3:07:51] >> Yes.

[3:07:52] >> All right. We're going to we're going to

[3:07:53] split hairs. It's one written warning

[3:07:55] and then a $500 citation.

[3:07:59] Don't care. It's It's It's probably

[3:08:02] going to be a non-issue. We We just got

[3:08:03] dumped on with rain. I I mean, I don't

[3:08:06] know. I

[3:08:06] >> think it's a non-issue.

[3:08:10] Okay.

[3:08:11] Did it

[3:08:15] do a motion? Do you

[3:08:16] >> Okay. I I want to leave this meeting, so

[3:08:19] I will do a motion. Uh, I move that we

[3:08:23] approve ordinance 2026-9

[3:08:28] uh with uh a written warning first and a $500

[3:08:35] uh fee or fine if if cited.

[3:08:40] >> Each occurrence. Yeah.

[3:08:42] >> For each occurrence. Sure.

[3:08:43] >> Okay. Motion by council member Dowz.

[3:08:46] That was for ordinance 2026-09.

[3:08:49] Correct.

[3:08:50] >> Yes. Yes, I think I said that.

[3:08:51] >> I think you did, but just clarifying

[3:08:53] >> and a second by council member Pulver.

[3:08:55] Do we have any other discussion?

[3:08:58] >> I would say I like the 500 because it

[3:09:01] aligns with fine view a little bit.

[3:09:03] >> Yeah.

[3:09:03] >> Correct.

[3:09:03] >> Yeah.

[3:09:04] >> Okay. This will be a roll call vote. So,

[3:09:06] Council Member Carney,

[3:09:08] >> yes.

[3:09:08] >> Council member Dalpaz,

[3:09:09] >> yes.

[3:09:10] >> Council member Neighbor,

[3:09:11] >> yes.

[3:09:11] >> Council member Watson,

[3:09:14] >> yes.

[3:09:15] >> And council member say no.

[3:09:17] >> Yes. Okay, that motion passes.

[3:09:20] All right, moving on. We're

[3:09:23] now we're on to item number 12 or city

[3:09:25] council pillar assignment updates.

[3:09:27] Council member Pulver and Council Member

[3:09:29] Dalpath, do you have I I just went

[3:09:33] through the monday.com thing and and

[3:09:36] honestly, I know that the Barker Park

[3:09:37] had their open house, which I thought

[3:09:39] was was awesome. Um I know they're doing

[3:09:42] dog park stuff. I don't know if there's

[3:09:45] any update on that. in uh Northshore,

[3:09:47] they're still researching the bubble. Um

[3:09:50] and then uh we were talking about the

[3:09:52] general plan zoning that they're going

[3:09:54] to update. Uh recycling, I know that's

[3:09:57] been an issue back and forth. And then

[3:10:00] also um Hillside Trail, I know that

[3:10:03] hasn't started, but and uh I also heard

[3:10:05] welcome signs, which I think I was

[3:10:07] hammering on pretty hard. And I think

[3:10:09] that's uh that's not started either, but

[3:10:11] I know I've seen um asking local

[3:10:14] artists. In fact, I kind of pinged a

[3:10:17] couple people to to say, "Hey, you said

[3:10:19] you wanted to do this, you know." So, I

[3:10:22] think all of those are good things. Um,

[3:10:24] I don't know if there's any anybody has

[3:10:26] to status or want to chat on that, but

[3:10:47] So, they're still going to be in the

[3:10:48] same spot, which technically is not

[3:10:50] where the North Ogden starts, but I get

[3:10:52] it.

[3:10:54] Like, like right where Mountain View and

[3:10:56] technically North Ogden starts back at

[3:10:58] 1500ish, but you know, I I understand

[3:11:01] that it's the spot. And then once

[3:11:03] Cooper's Cooper Town, yeah, eventually,

[3:11:07] but you know, keeping the Kuanas one

[3:11:09] where it is is probably a good idea

[3:11:10] until then. Uh the only thing that I

[3:11:13] will add is that uh Cherry Days is

[3:11:16] starting to look for sponsors for Cherry

[3:11:19] Days. Uh so if you are interested in

[3:11:22] being a sponsor as a business uh in

[3:11:24] North Ogden or the surrounding area, uh

[3:11:28] reach out to Morgan Cherudi. Uh she can

[3:11:31] be reached at cherrydays 2026gmail.com.

[3:11:36] Thanks.

[3:11:38] >> Okay. Thank you. And then an employee

[3:11:42] update that I have is P PD swore in

[3:11:46] officer Arnell last week and she's

[3:11:48] officially sworn in and I've seen her

[3:11:51] with my other role out on some calls so

[3:11:54] she's out working. Then we've hired four

[3:11:57] seasonal parks employees and they have

[3:11:59] three position positions still open.

[3:12:01] Interviews are taking place this week.

[3:12:03] They are hiring for seasonal North Ogden

[3:12:06] Aquatic Center employees with training

[3:12:08] scheduled to begin the end of April.

[3:12:10] Then a huge thank you to the parks team

[3:12:12] for their hard work at the Mountain View

[3:12:13] Park, which couple of the council

[3:12:15] members were up there when we opened

[3:12:16] that up this last week and for all the

[3:12:18] residents that came out. And then Arbor

[3:12:20] Day is coming up next week, so we'll

[3:12:22] have another event.

[3:12:27] » Okay. Item number 13, public comments.

[3:12:31] If anyone if all of our public would

[3:12:34] like to come up and make a comment, feel

[3:12:36] free to come on up.

[3:12:46] Brent call. Um what an incredibly boring

[3:12:50] council meeting tonight. not a single

[3:12:52] controversy to keep us entertained. But

[3:12:54] no, it was I really appreciate the the

[3:12:58] discussions on budgets and uh very

[3:13:00] enlightening um for me. Um so I really

[3:13:05] appreciate that to see a little bit more

[3:13:06] about that process and understand that a

[3:13:08] little bit better. Couple of comments

[3:13:10] with that. Uh during the discussion

[3:13:13] about deposits,

[3:13:16] um a thought came to me that well a

[3:13:20] comment was made about sometimes those

[3:13:23] deposits contain substantial

[3:13:26] checks

[3:13:28] and uh in our business

[3:13:32] uh we never deposit a check. Uh they're

[3:13:35] all done virtually.

[3:13:37] um our accounts receivable actually has

[3:13:41] a scanner that's connected to the bank

[3:13:44] and I don't know if that's you know

[3:13:45] maybe I don't understand the process

[3:13:47] well enough but um but that's something

[3:13:50] that we do and uh so checks are never

[3:13:54] you know hand carried delivered to the

[3:13:57] bank um if that's a possibility maybe

[3:14:01] something to look into as far as the

[3:14:04] other uh discussion about the

[3:14:08] um you know being more conservative on

[3:14:12] the budgeting versus being a little bit

[3:14:14] more take a little bit more risk. As

[3:14:19] one citizen anyway, I like the

[3:14:22] conservative approach. Um I would much

[3:14:27] prefer

[3:14:29] that uh the city budgets more

[3:14:33] conservatively,

[3:14:34] has that excess

[3:14:36] and just educates the public. That's the

[3:14:40] way in my opinion everybody ought to run

[3:14:42] their budget. So anyway, just a couple

[3:14:45] comments there. Thank you again for your

[3:14:47] service. Thank you for all that you guys

[3:14:49] do.

[3:14:50] >> Thank you.

[3:14:50] Brent.

[3:14:58] » Okay, not seeing any hands up and

[3:15:01] no other. Oh, one just popped up. Okay,

[3:15:04] go ahead,

[3:15:05] >> Susan.

[3:15:10] » Hi, you all. Do you remember me?

[3:15:13] >> Yes.

[3:15:14] >> Okay. First of all, I want to say, and

[3:15:17] it may not be considered city business,

[3:15:20] but happy belated birthday, council

[3:15:23] member Dell Pass.

[3:15:26] >> Well, that's old news, but thank you.

[3:15:28] >> What do you mean old news?

[3:15:30] yesterday.

[3:15:32] >> That's what I said. Anyway, I also want

[3:15:36] to say that I wholeheartedly agree with

[3:15:39] Council Member Pulver and I think that

[3:15:44] you guys need to put the hammer down now

[3:15:47] and fast on water usage.

[3:15:51] And I'm telling you, I belong to a group

[3:15:54] called Utah Alliance Coalition. And if

[3:15:57] you look at Long Range, yeah, we may be

[3:15:59] having rain right now, but look at Long

[3:16:02] Range. And please,

[3:16:06] I guess you guys have already voted on

[3:16:08] it. So, I'm just giving you my opinion

[3:16:10] that I wish you would have kept with the

[3:16:12] 1,000 because I guarantee you if you

[3:16:16] gave me a warning and said, Susan and

[3:16:20] Carter, if you use that water, you're

[3:16:24] going to pay $1,000. I'm not going to do

[3:16:27] it. So, whatever.

[3:16:30] Anyway, it's good to see all you guys.

[3:16:32] Sorry, I've been busy trying to solve

[3:16:35] world problems in leaving the city to

[3:16:38] you. So, have a good night you guys.

[3:16:42] >> Thanks, Susan.

[3:16:47] » All right, moving on. Mayor, council,

[3:16:50] staff comments. We'll start with staff.

[3:16:52] Ryan, Dave, Scott,

[3:16:56] Lieutenant, Chief. Okay, John. Uh, no,

[3:17:03] nothing. Council,

[3:17:06] >> uh, I know we're short on time, but I do

[3:17:07] want to share this cuz it's really cute.

[3:17:09] Uh, we ran into Officer Arnell right

[3:17:12] before she came over to North Ogden

[3:17:13] City. She was over at the car wash

[3:17:15] washing her vehicle there. And my little

[3:17:20] daughter was just like she was a

[3:17:23] superstar. She we Lauren and I were

[3:17:26] talking to her and my daughter, she she

[3:17:29] just barely opens up the door and like

[3:17:31] is peeking her head out and she just has

[3:17:33] this smile like like this lady is

[3:17:36] awesome. And so I I just wanted to share

[3:17:38] that because it was super cute and I I'm

[3:17:41] excited to have her on the force and I I

[3:17:44] think these officers are amazing and

[3:17:46] there's a lot of people that are looking

[3:17:47] up to them.

[3:17:50] >> Nice. Anyone else from council?

[3:17:55] I have two things real quick. Um, first

[3:17:58] off, we are working with Pleasant View.

[3:18:02] Um, they are building a decant facility

[3:18:04] where we can take all our street

[3:18:05] sweeping waste. But in the meantime,

[3:18:07] we're going to bring back something if

[3:18:08] you're immunable next council meeting to

[3:18:10] allow them to start using our green

[3:18:12] waste facility for Pleasant View

[3:18:13] residents. We'll charge them I don't

[3:18:16] know if it's a little bit more. We're

[3:18:19] working on it, but we'd like to start it

[3:18:20] now so they can start using it. And then

[3:18:22] we'll bring it back in the end of April,

[3:18:25] whether it's an agreement or and then as

[3:18:27] they get their decanned up, we'll get an

[3:18:29] more better interlocal agreement written

[3:18:32] with them. But does anyone have any

[3:18:35] issues with them using our green waste

[3:18:37] facility?

[3:18:42] not an issue, but just have we looked at

[3:18:44] how much extra space or that we would

[3:18:47] need to, you know,

[3:18:50] in the areas I know I mean we use the

[3:18:52] crap out of it when it comes to tree

[3:18:54] branches and

[3:18:56] end of year waste and stuff like that

[3:18:58] and I know it's heavily used so I don't

[3:19:00] know

[3:19:02] um 50% more I don't know

[3:19:06] speak

[3:19:07] >> yeah and speaking with their mayor he

[3:19:09] doesn't think there will be that big of

[3:19:10] an

[3:19:11] from their residents. Speaking with my

[3:19:14] other job, I get all the burn permits in

[3:19:16] the area and right now is the open burn

[3:19:17] season. Pleasant View pulls almost twice

[3:19:19] as many burn permits as North Ogden

[3:19:21] because we do one big burn. So if you're

[3:19:24] an air quality enthusiast, this is

[3:19:27] actually a better solution.

[3:19:28] >> Okay.

[3:19:29] >> So I'm not I'm like the idea.

[3:19:31] >> I do. I think it's a great idea.

[3:19:33] >> Thumbs up.

[3:19:34] >> Okay. And then second with this is also

[3:19:36] includes Pleasant View. We were invited

[3:19:39] to help participate in their founders

[3:19:41] day in a pickle ball tournament with our

[3:19:43] council and their council.

[3:19:45] >> H I have to learn pickle ball in that

[3:19:47] >> get even better that we want to split up

[3:19:50] the teams. So have one city council

[3:19:51] member from North Ogden and one on

[3:19:53] Pleasant View on the same team. So we'll

[3:19:55] be teaming up so we get to know each

[3:19:56] other's councils and staffs and mayors

[3:19:58] will be competing and city managers and

[3:20:01] maybe some other council me or staff

[3:20:02] members.

[3:20:03] >> I believe this was Ryan's idea.

[3:20:05] >> No, it was not. This was not my idea.

[3:20:07] >> This is cute. Can we like all just go to

[3:20:09] lunch instead?

[3:20:11] >> Well, they hold they do

[3:20:13] >> play pickle ball.

[3:20:14] >> They do hold a big pickle ball

[3:20:15] tournament for founders day and they're

[3:20:17] trying to we're trying to figure out a

[3:20:19] way how to get our cities to work better

[3:20:22] together.

[3:20:22] >> Yeah,

[3:20:22] >> I love it. Um I do know that the Kit

[3:20:25] Collins thing is that morning. So I

[3:20:27] don't know if that if we could plan it.

[3:20:29] It's the same day the

[3:20:31] >> pickle ball tournaments are usually not

[3:20:32] on Founders Day. It's like on Wednesday

[3:20:35] or Thursday the week. Awesome. So, we

[3:20:36] still got to learn pickle ball.

[3:20:37] >> Yep. You got time.

[3:20:38] >> Yeah, that that sounds awesome. And I do

[3:20:41] need to start to learn how to play.

[3:20:42] >> I'm going to be the kid that the last

[3:20:44] one they pick. Like, who wants that old

[3:20:47] girl on there?

[3:20:48] >> Okay, that's all I have

[3:20:50] other than Arbor Days next week. So,

[3:20:53] >> yep.

[3:20:53] >> Okay. We lift up our motion.

City Council Meeting April 14, 2026 (edited to remove comments about sensitive security items)

Transcript