[0:00] plenty of we set aside plenty of time
[0:02] for Q&A. So that is on purpose. uh we we
[0:08] this to be a a good discussion
[0:12] workshopping this this subject and uh of
[0:17] course um LRB does have a bunch of you
[0:21] know slides and data to to present and
[0:23] go over but they also have the
[0:26] spreadsheets that back up this data and
[0:28] they and uh they can take us through a
[0:31] an interactive process too if if you
[0:35] want to dive deeper on to any particular
[0:38] item that they share with us.
[0:40] >> Right. Thank you. I do need to um
[0:43] mention we need to excuse council member
[0:45] Kilpac. He will not be here today, but
[0:48] everyone else is here. All right.
[0:51] Lauren Fred, are you ready?
[0:53] >> I am ready. Uh will you
[0:55] >> welcome.
[0:56] >> Will you be able to see my screen if I
[0:59] share it?
[1:02] » Well, that's a good question.
[1:05] We will find out.
[1:08] Share.
[1:09] >> It's in progress.
[1:10] >> Then request.
[1:12] Okay. [clears throat and cough]
[1:17] Multiple presenters can share.
[1:22] All right. Can you see my screen now?
[1:26] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:27] >> Oh, that's not the that's not the
[1:31] >> It should say city of Oram property tax
[1:33] discussion. Oh yes, yes.
[1:35] >> Yes.
[1:36] >> Excellent. Okay. So, um, no budget or
[1:40] finance discussion would be complete
[1:42] without a discussion of property taxes,
[1:44] right? I'm sure you were all thinking
[1:46] that. Um, [clears throat] first of all,
[1:48] thank you for allowing Fred and I to uh,
[1:51] you know, continue to work with the city
[1:52] in this capacity. Um, ORM has been a
[1:56] client of mine since I was as green as
[1:58] grass in this industry, even before I
[2:00] started LRB. So, [clears throat] a part
[2:03] of my heart and soul is in Orum. And um
[2:05] my kids can tell you as I as we drive
[2:08] through the city and come to events, I'm
[2:09] like, "Oh, we financed that. I financed
[2:11] that." [laughter]
[2:12] That was every time I meet someone new,
[2:14] I'm like, "What city are you from?" And
[2:15] I tell, "Oh, we finance the the rec
[2:18] center." And people were raving about
[2:19] it, by the way. So, [clears throat]
[2:22] um uh we love working with you and
[2:24] appreciate the opportunity. So,
[2:27] um one of the and I want to thank you
[2:30] for allowing me I think in Bren's ideal
[2:33] world, I would, you know, not be coming
[2:35] first with a, you know, hit him out of
[2:37] the the shoot with uh a property tax
[2:40] discussion, but I have a doctor's
[2:42] appointment this afternoon that I really did not want to cancel. And so,
[2:46] we've um reorganized things a little bit
[2:48] differently. So, [clears throat] um this
[2:51] is probably the least fun um uh part of
[2:54] the discussion, and that is about
[2:56] property taxes. We've had some of this
[2:58] discussion before at your retreat. I
[3:01] have paired it down. Uh but just want to
[3:03] remind everyone uh you know some of the
[3:05] things that you need to be cognizant of
[3:08] as well as the very unfortunate fact
[3:11] that the legislature uh decided in their
[3:15] infinite wisdom to make some changes to
[3:18] um you know what you have to do if you
[3:20] are going to uh seek to raise your
[3:22] property taxes. Um, I could pontificate
[3:25] for hours about how angry and frustrated
[3:28] I am about what they've dreamt up, but
[3:31] uh, nonetheless, we all have to comply
[3:33] with it. But I'll I'll talk about it
[3:34] here a little while later.
[3:37] So [clears throat] again, by way of
[3:39] reminder, property tax uh process in
[3:41] Utah is designed so that you have
[3:46] substantially the same dollar revenue
[3:49] from year to year, regardless of whether
[3:53] or not property value of existing
[3:55] structures is going up or down. It's
[3:58] designed on a collective basis. So, um
[4:02] you [clears throat] know, if a uh you
[4:04] know, a neighbor does a big remodel and
[4:07] the other one's house partly falls down,
[4:10] um [clears throat]
[4:11] it really is on a on a global basis of
[4:14] the taxable value in the city and the
[4:17] tax rate will generally adjust downward
[4:20] unless the local government um you
[4:23] [clears throat] know takes action as I
[4:25] would you know implore you again to uh
[4:28] strongly consider even under the new uh
[4:30] rules. rules that are that are being
[4:31] imposed. Um because the property tax
[4:35] rate as shown here uh does not account
[4:39] for inflationary increases that you get
[4:42] on the expense side. It's like saying,
[4:46] "Okay, your allowance in, you know,
[4:50] let's see, when was I 10 and buying
[4:52] candy? Your allowance in the 1970s is,
[4:56] you know, $5." And your allowance today
[4:59] is $5. Now, go and buy the same
[5:02] fill-in-theblank candy bar, comic book,
[5:04] whatever it was. I I couldn't do that
[5:06] with $5 today. But that is what our
[5:10] property tax structure is um is set up
[5:14] to do. I have heard people say that when
[5:17] the legislation was initially put in
[5:19] place to hold um the revenues level that
[5:23] they wanted, you know, they did it so
[5:24] that governments would be transparent
[5:26] and people would know that you're
[5:28] raising the rate. And what has happened
[5:31] um with many many cities is what ORM has
[5:34] done. they just let the rate fall fall
[5:39] um and uh you know except for new
[5:41] construction you don't [clears throat]
[5:43] really get to capture um um any
[5:46] additional revenues. So this graph this
[5:50] is ORM city's tax rate from 2016 to
[5:54] today.
[5:56] What I want you to really think about,
[5:59] we'll I'll talk about some of the
[6:00] reasons why, is um you know, seeking to
[6:03] maintain
[6:05] um you know the the rate uh so that you
[6:09] can capture some of what you need to uh
[6:13] in in terms of inflationary costs.
[6:18] So here we go. [clears throat] This
[6:19] graph. So again going to go back here.
[6:21] This is the property tax rate goes down, down, down because your taxable
[6:26] value is going up as new uh new
[6:29] construction occurs.
[6:32] This graph shows property tax revenues
[6:35] increasing. And so you might say, well,
[6:37] Lara, rates gone down, but look, we're
[6:39] we, you know, we were collecting 10
[6:41] million back in 2015 and we're now maybe
[6:43] at 11 and change, whatever that is.
[6:47] >> [clears throat]
[6:47] >> But you've got to remember that you're
[6:50] capturing that because of this growth in
[6:53] um the growth in revenues is tied to new
[6:56] construction. So you do get to capture
[6:59] oh you know XYZ business built a new
[7:03] office building. You do get to capture
[7:05] that when that that tax rate's being set
[7:08] because it comes with a need to provide
[7:11] additional services. You build a new you
[7:14] know someone built a new Walmart. Yay.
[7:16] get the the value, but you also get, oh,
[7:18] we're going to have to police that for
[7:19] shoplifting or whatever calls you have
[7:22] to go out there.
[7:23] >> So, as a city is nearing or at buildout,
[7:27] I know you probably, you know, starting
[7:28] to see some um vertical, you know,
[7:31] stacked construction, but as you are
[7:34] nearing buildout, relying on property
[7:36] tax revenue from new growth, it's just
[7:39] not sustainable. Again, Fred's going to
[7:41] talk to you about sustainability
[7:43] planning. And if you're trying to rely
[7:47] on um you know new growth, new Woodbury
[7:50] developments, new carve lots, whatever,
[7:54] it's just not sustainable when you a
[7:56] have added expenses when new businesses
[7:59] come in and new homes come in and you
[8:02] have um um added uh reduced um you know
[8:08] total revenues. So I'm going to jump
[8:11] back to this one here. My
[8:15] beat the horse dead here. Goal is to
[8:19] maintain my opinion the goal of cities
[8:22] should seek to at least maintain
[8:25] increase if and where necessary above
[8:28] your you know current certified rate but
[8:30] to at least maintain your um current
[8:33] certified rate.
[8:36] So um again I showed this at your treat.
[8:39] I'll do it very quickly here so that you
[8:40] can see cities that have gone through uh
[8:43] the process to increase their rate. So,
[8:45] anything where it's green, a a city has
[8:49] gone through a process to increase their
[8:52] rate above the the previous year's
[8:54] certified rate because unless they've
[8:56] had no growth [clears throat]
[8:58] um um and no increase in property
[9:02] values, which that hasn't happened in a
[9:04] long time, these rates just naturally
[9:07] fall. like um you know yours down here
[9:11] in bold and Salem's just they just keep
[9:14] naturally falling. Um this shows a
[9:17] three-year average of [clears throat]
[9:19] these um selected cities in Utah County.
[9:23] And um of those that we've selected um
[9:26] and granted I will say you know Vineyard
[9:28] is the the high tax rate in in Utah
[9:31] County because uh something like 75% of
[9:35] their property [clears throat] is in an
[9:37] RDA. So they're really only capturing
[9:40] their real full property tax off of, you
[9:44] know, 25% of of the city and then the
[9:47] share they get from the RDA. But, you
[9:50] know, your tax rate is is very very low.
[9:54] I know that if you seek to raise tax
[9:56] rates, people generally come with their
[9:58] pitchforks and all the anger that they
[10:00] can muster. And you know, if you choose
[10:03] to go ahead with that, um, I'm happy to
[10:05] participate in education of citizens
[10:08] because I don't think your average
[10:10] citizen understands this. I think your
[10:12] average citizen would say, "Well, my
[10:15] taxes go up every year." And that may
[10:17] be, but they haven't gone up every year
[10:20] because of Orum, right? If their house
[10:23] used to be worth 300 and it's now
[10:24] worth500 and you used to collect $300
[10:27] and their house is now worth 500,000,
[10:29] you're still collecting the same old
[10:30] $300 from them. Um, school district may
[10:34] have increased. County may have
[10:35] increased, water district may have
[10:36] increased. So, their total tax bill may
[10:39] have increased, but ORM's not getting
[10:41] any of that. [clears throat]
[10:43] So, had you held So, let's go back here.
[10:46] 2019, the tax rate 001260.
[10:51] Stick with me here. [clears throat]
[10:53] That was clear back here 9 2019.
[10:58] Had you maintained that tax rate
[11:01] [clears throat] just every year readopt
[11:04] um you know to bring it up to that flat
[11:06] a flat tax rate the city would be um
[11:10] collecting5 million more dollars a year
[11:12] than it is today. [clears throat] So
[11:14] this is my opinion is like your lost
[11:16] buying power because things are still
[11:18] more and more expensive.
[11:22] Something else you need to think about
[11:23] in terms of you [clears throat] know
[11:25] your revenue mix
[11:28] um as you're thinking about you know
[11:30] property tax increases is your property
[11:34] tax revenues as a portion of the whole
[11:37] of ORM's revenues has continued to
[11:40] dwindle. It used to be, you know,
[11:42] rounded, we'll call it 49%, rounded
[11:45] here, um, oh no, sorry, reading sales
[11:47] tax. Rounded here, 21%
[11:50] rounded here. Property taxes now make up
[11:53] about 17%.
[11:55] And that decline um in how much property
[12:00] tax revenues are making up of your total
[12:03] revenue mix is um important from a
[12:07] stability perspective. So you think
[12:09] about you as a government. What can you
[12:12] control and what can't you control? You
[12:15] can't control prices of you know goods.
[12:18] You can't control um you know you can't
[12:21] make people shop. You can't make them
[12:23] buy expensive steaks if they want to buy
[12:25] hot dogs. Um [clears throat]
[12:28] so this um property tax is kind of the
[12:32] only thing that you can rely on. It's
[12:35] what's you know consistent that you can
[12:37] to a very large degree control because
[12:39] you can control the rate. So as this the
[12:44] property tax has declined as a
[12:46] percentage of your um total it should be
[12:49] frankly of a concern to you in in terms
[12:52] of being able to maintain the level of
[12:54] service that you have provided in the
[12:57] past. So [clears throat] I will tell you
[13:00] it is a concern rating agencies and
[13:02] investors because their first question
[13:05] when you're this reliant on sales tax
[13:07] you know 48 49% is what's going to
[13:11] happen in a recession I mean they all
[13:14] stress it back to the 0809 you know
[13:17] whatever they call that wasn't a
[13:18] recession the almost recession um
[13:21] [clears throat]
[13:22] um uh they all you know put that in as their stress case scenario when we go
[13:27] to get a rating and they know that sales
[13:32] tax revenues will decline in in a
[13:34] recession. Um, again, we've talked
[13:36] about, you know, the city needing to be
[13:38] mindful of what you can and can't
[13:40] control and you can control the the
[13:43] property tax rate.
[13:46] So, I know because I've, you know, been
[13:49] in many city council meetings when
[13:51] they've, you know, wanted to raise taxes
[13:53] and what do citizens say? Well, cut
[13:55] expenses, cut expenses. And then we
[13:58] start saying, "Okay, well, what services
[13:59] don't you want? Do you want less police?
[14:01] Do you want less fire?" "No, no, no. We
[14:04] I'll pick some mow the parks less often
[14:08] or something like that, right?" So there
[14:12] is a practical limit to how you can
[14:15] control expenses
[14:18] and most everybody kind of conveniently
[14:21] forgets that most local governments so
[14:25] this this is true of you of South Jordan
[14:27] of Ogden whoever most local governments
[14:31] budgets their general fund budgets about
[14:33] 65 to 75% generally is made up of
[14:39] salaries ies, wages and benefits.
[14:43] So you know these idea of cutting you
[14:46] know of non-s salary items like oh we
[14:49] will you know not put new light bulbs in
[14:53] the library or [laughter] whatever right
[14:55] so it's not a salary we'll really find
[14:57] ways to save on whatever you know is a
[15:01] non salary thing chances are they're not
[15:04] those things are not going to move the
[15:06] needle much I believe because ORM has
[15:08] seen that um you know um not very large
[15:12] increase in your property tax revenues
[15:15] um an added um you know citizens and
[15:19] businesses that you need to serve. Um,
[15:22] [clears throat] I think Gorm's squeezed
[15:24] about as much blood out of the turnup
[15:25] historically as it can without cutting
[15:29] salaries and wages which will have a
[15:31] direct impact on your service levels
[15:34] whether that's again police, fire,
[15:36] crossing guards and I don't know what it
[15:38] would be but it's when you start talking
[15:40] about that to citizens of okay are you
[15:42] okay with you know 10 less officers a
[15:46] year because great there's a there's a
[15:47] good cut for us right so you need to be
[15:51] mindful of if if the push is going to
[15:53] be, oh, we got to tighten our belt some
[15:55] more. We got to get more efficient. Um,
[15:58] that what it's really going to come down
[16:00] to is what services do you want to cut
[16:02] staff from?
[16:05] Um, from [clears throat]
[16:07] March of 25 to March of 26, um, CPI has
[16:11] gone up by 3.3%.
[16:13] Uh, the next release won't occur until
[16:15] almost the middle of May. Um the
[16:18] [clears throat] index for energy has
[16:20] risen as you can all imagine because you
[16:22] go to the the gas station and buy gas by
[16:26] uh 10.9%
[16:28] which was largely driven by this 21.2%
[16:31] increase in the index for gasoline. And
[16:34] when you think about that from a city's
[16:35] perspective, think about every vehicle
[16:38] that's a city vehicle that is rolling on
[16:41] your streets. police, fire, roads
[16:45] maintenance, sweepers, I can, you know,
[16:48] whatever. Those trucks that vacuum out
[16:50] the sewers, they all use gas. And this
[16:53] year, that's going to go up a lot,
[16:56] right? So, back to, okay, what can we
[16:59] and can't we control? Can you cut those
[17:01] costs? Not without cutting services,
[17:04] right?
[17:06] um [clears throat] from December of last
[17:08] year to uh December 24, December 25,
[17:12] wages increased by 3.4%
[17:15] which is uh slightly higher than even um
[17:18] CPI.
[17:20] I'm going to get on my soap box just a
[17:22] little bit
[17:24] related to the state. One of my huge
[17:27] frustrations um when big brother state
[17:31] comes in and says, "Oh, you city have to
[17:33] do your property tax increase this way
[17:36] because you know we get complaints from
[17:38] citizens they don't like property
[17:39] taxes."
[17:41] Well, the state doesn't have to deal
[17:43] with what you deal with related to that
[17:47] falling revenue source. So, two of the
[17:50] largest revenues to the state are sales
[17:53] tax, which you benefit from. Think about
[17:56] poor school districts that don't get
[17:58] that, right? You at least benefit from
[18:00] when prices go up, people pay more and
[18:04] you collect more sales tax until prices
[18:06] go up too high and they quit shopping.
[18:08] The state benefits from income taxes,
[18:12] which should be top of mind for all of
[18:13] us since they're due tomorrow.
[18:15] >> [clears throat]
[18:16] >> So as inflation goes along, so those you
[18:19] know 3.4% a year and five and nine when
[18:23] it was really bad, [laughter] right?
[18:25] What that does is it drives salary
[18:28] increases.
[18:29] >> I earn more money. I pay more income
[18:32] tax. So their revenue streams are a
[18:36] little bit more directly tied to capture
[18:38] the benefits, you know, of inflation
[18:42] where your property tax is not. It
[18:44] ignores inflation entirely. It's why I
[18:47] really really hate when they come down
[18:50] with the you have to do it this way
[18:52] because they don't do anything like
[18:55] that. Okay. Off my soap box. Okay. Um
[18:59] now we'll look at the ability and
[19:01] willingness to raise revenues um when
[19:03] necessary except for property tax rates.
[19:07] All other rates, sales, franchise fees,
[19:10] everything else that you can um uh you
[19:13] can control is at the maximum rate. Your
[19:16] sales tax is at the maximum rate. Your
[19:18] franchise fee rates at the maximum rate.
[19:20] So again, you don't have any ability to
[19:23] say, "Oh, we're just going to put on a
[19:25] new sales tax. I do some work in
[19:26] Arizona." And they do have that ability.
[19:29] And it's sometimes a very wackadoo tax
[19:32] structure. I mean, they there's like 30
[19:36] different items and each of them have a
[19:37] different sales tax. It's really wild. I
[19:39] don't know how they control it, but in
[19:41] Utah, you don't have that. So, the only
[19:43] element that you can really control is
[19:45] that property tax rate.
[19:49] >> Okay. So, the recent legislation um uh
[19:53] is are these two uh House bill and
[19:55] Senate bills. And [clears throat]
[19:59] um I've I've put in here again it's not
[20:01] anything you as um you know city council
[20:03] will need to go oh we've got to do this
[20:05] on you know June 22nd. I mean it's
[20:08] something um your uh you know great
[20:11] staff and recorder will will take care
[20:14] of. But if you're going to seek to um
[20:17] raise a property taxes there um are are
[20:20] certain deadlines that you have to give
[20:22] notice to the county auditor and tax
[20:24] commission. you have to um you know
[20:28] receive whatever the certified tax rate
[20:30] is going to be. You know, if you don't
[20:31] do anything, we don't have that yet. Um
[20:34] then if you're going to seek to adopt a
[20:36] new rate, you have to um um put a notice
[20:40] of hearing out. They put some new
[20:42] requirements in in that regard. Has to
[20:45] be at least 10 days after this notice
[20:47] evaluation.
[20:49] uh at least 14 days before the hearing,
[20:52] [clears throat] you have to hold the tax
[20:54] increase hearing and no other general
[20:57] business meetings of the city can be
[20:59] held the same day. So, you can't say,
[21:01] "Oh, we need to take action on, you
[21:03] know, fixing whatever at the park."
[21:06] Nope. You will hold a hearing on taxes.
[21:09] It has to be at 6:00 p.m. or later. you
[21:11] have to allow for reasonable um um time
[21:15] for people to stand up and respond
[21:18] without limiting them too much because
[21:20] then they feel like that's unfair.
[21:22] And you have to do all of that before
[21:25] September 1st and then within 7 days
[21:28] after you do adopt a new rate, you have
[21:30] to notify the the state and the county.
[21:34] So these requirements down here are some
[21:36] of the things that I'm [clears throat]
[21:38] really dialed up about. I won't
[21:40] quantificate anymore. But you have to
[21:42] state that you're considering a tax
[21:44] rate. That doesn't give me any concern.
[21:47] The approximate dollar amount of the
[21:49] revenue increase doesn't give me any,
[21:51] you know, great concern. Um,
[21:54] [clears throat] percentage public
[21:56] hearing, and this is the one that I just
[21:58] want to go berserk over. For each
[22:01] department of the city whose budget
[22:03] would be affected by this
[22:05] [clears throat]
[22:05] um you have to outline the budget
[22:07] increase or decrease to the department
[22:11] and um articulate the operational impact
[22:14] to the department if the city approves
[22:16] or does not approve the increase.
[22:20] So [clears throat] in the olden days in
[22:22] 2025
[22:23] you could have said we are going to
[22:26] increase our tax rate by 5% that'll
[22:28] generate whatever you know dollars are
[22:30] making up a number half million dollars
[22:33] and that just you know you hold the
[22:35] hearings people come complain but you
[22:38] now have that money um you know if it
[22:39] gets approved that money will then come
[22:41] into your general fund without having to
[22:43] effectively I mean line iteming is a
[22:46] little bit of an overstretch but it's
[22:48] almost I mean Brandon's is going to have
[22:50] to um you know put forth what you're
[22:52] going to do with this money.
[22:54] [clears throat] And the state has made
[22:55] it amply clear that they intend to um
[22:57] follow up and make sure that that's
[22:59] reflected in um your [clears throat]
[23:02] budgets and your your actual um audits
[23:04] at the end of the year. I think it's
[23:07] crazy and unfair, but nonetheless,
[23:09] that's what they're doing. Um uh you
[23:13] have certain advertising uh requirements
[23:16] um similar to what we talked about
[23:17] before. It has to be on your website,
[23:20] has to be published in utileleals.com.
[23:23] And I did note that the geo bond rate
[23:27] will not be will still not be included
[23:29] in the percentage increase. That seems
[23:30] to be one one little nice small bone
[23:32] that they they threw to you.
[23:35] So, uh, the recent legislation does
[23:38] require the that you identify the need
[23:40] and use of those revenues. And um you
[23:43] know just to bring it home I think the
[23:45] best practice with the city is to seek
[23:47] to maintain your current tax rate and
[23:49] identify how you're going to do that. Uh
[23:52] they don't really limit it. I I think
[23:54] you could say no we're going to do is
[23:57] we're going to identify this to help us
[23:58] cover for in costes costs of of
[24:02] inflation on health insurance or
[24:05] gasoline whatever. The challenge is
[24:08] then, you know, um, Brandon and your
[24:10] finance staff have to be able to figure
[24:12] out how to document that. Um, so
[24:17] there you go. Any questions related to
[24:20] taxes specifically? I'll be turning it
[24:22] over to Fred to really get into the meat
[24:25] of the financial sustainability plan.
[24:27] Again, the model is such that um, you
[24:29] know, he can um, you [clears throat]
[24:31] know, uh, adjust it. You can do the the
[24:34] whatifs. what if we, you know, lose 10
[24:36] police officers? What if we add 10
[24:38] police officers? Um, you know, within
[24:40] some limits, uh, he can show you, uh,
[24:42] how what what those impacts will be.
[24:46] >> Thank you, council. You have any
[24:48] questions for Laura about what she's
[24:50] presented?
[24:54] » Just are we going to have access to
[24:56] these documents sometime soon?
[24:59] So that presentation I already have. So
[25:03] I can send that out today. That would be
[25:05] good.
[25:06] >> Thank you, Laura. boarding.
[25:28] » Can I ask a question?
[25:29] >> Yes.
[25:30] >> Hey, Laura. Yes.
[25:31] >> Can you hear me?
[25:32] >> Yep. seen that legislation as it was
[25:35] going through the different revisions
[25:37] and we were attending LPC and and they
[25:40] were viewing those with us. Um there was
[25:42] conversation about remodeling
[25:46] being counted as new growth. Did that
[25:49] end up in the final version? Do you know
[25:52] anything about that? I
[25:53] >> I don't know, but I could certainly find
[25:54] out.
[25:56] In my opinion, it should have already
[25:58] been being counted that way. Um, but I
[26:01] will I will find out. As [clears throat]
[26:04] as someone who has remodeled my home now
[26:06] twice, um, you know, time will tell
[26:10] because I don't have this year's tax
[26:11] notice yet, but um um, when I remodeled
[26:15] my house the first time, I mean, I go
[26:16] through the proper channels, I hire
[26:18] contractor, we get building permits with
[26:20] the city, and um, when I [clears throat]
[26:23] did my first remodel, they didn't pick
[26:25] up any of it. I mean, they didn't know
[26:28] whether I had spent $100,000 or 10.
[26:32] >> So, in our finance conference the other
[26:35] day, my understanding from that was if
[26:38] the uh any remodel expands the square
[26:42] footage
[26:43] of the home, that would count. If it is
[26:47] remodeling within the existing square
[26:50] footage of the structure, it would not.
[26:53] So where we're at a position where we
[26:55] will we're seeing revitalization. I mean
[26:58] quite frankly my whole neighborhood got
[27:00] new roofs and new sighting from that
[27:01] hell storm.
[27:03] >> So is this something that would be
[27:05] beneficial for us to then approach our
[27:07] legislators
[27:08] in order to help our budgeting our piece
[27:11] of the pie? certainly would as my
[27:14] understanding of what would count
[27:15] towards an improvement to the home and obviously change its its value which
[27:22] again it's all just a change in value
[27:24] and so that would count as new if we can
[27:27] get that to count as new growth I think
[27:30] that is their their logic is that's not
[27:34] new growth right that's simply keeping
[27:37] what is already there there so I think
[27:41] that's their argument and and that would
[27:43] probably end up being a tough uphill
[27:45] battle. Um, so I'll be honest, I do sort
[27:49] of understand what they were saying as
[27:51] far as obviously if you're adding square
[27:52] footage to the structure, if you're adding growth to that particular
[27:59] value. So value in and of itself value
[28:04] owned above what that base is, right?
[28:07] because just changing the value doesn't
[28:09] really that only matters to that one
[28:11] taxpayer. It doesn't affect us in the
[28:13] total.
[28:15] >> So if we I mean to me we should join
[28:19] with other legacy communities and get
[28:21] credit as we're built out. You know
[28:24] maybe we don't want to go up. Maybe
[28:26] we're where we are and we're happy here
[28:28] and we will pay for what we have. But as
[28:30] people improve and keep our community
[28:33] vibrant,
[28:35] I would think we would should be
[28:36] rewarded by that. Um, here's my question
[28:39] though. When did they change this?
[28:41] Remind me that the year that we could
[28:43] have the stable budget that
[28:46] >> it's been that long.
[28:46] >> Has it been a really long time?
[28:48] >> Yeah. Long, long time. They where they
[28:51] set they fixed so that you had the same
[28:54] dollar amount of revenue coming in.
[28:56] That's why your tax rate declines as
[28:59] total property values increase. So
[29:01] again, my home goes from, you know,
[29:04] 500,000 to 600,000 just because the
[29:06] market's gotten better. you, the city,
[29:10] school district, county, none of you
[29:12] will get any benefit from me off of that
[29:15] $100,000 in increased value because what
[29:18] will happen is the tax rate adjusts down
[29:21] so that in total you collect the same
[29:24] dollar amount that you did the previous
[29:25] year
[29:26] >> based on the budget we submit. Correct.
[29:29] Or based
[29:30] >> we don't submit they they tell us
[29:31] >> they dictate to you. Yes.
[29:33] >> The school does the school district
[29:35] submit a budget? uh school district goes
[29:38] in and sets
[29:40] >> the county tells them this is what your
[29:42] certified tax rate is
[29:44] >> do you want to go through TNT and change
[29:48] that certified tax rate
[29:50] >> okay
[29:51] >> up or down obviously very rarely goes
[29:53] down so
[29:54] >> it's a good time to have that
[29:55] conversation as the environment in our
[29:58] cities especially us on the in the foot
[30:01] of the mountains has changed
[30:03] >> now we're hell do we have those kind of
[30:06] conversations with our legislators. This
[30:08] would be I I get it. It's an uphill
[30:11] thing, but maybe those convers we should
[30:13] start those conversations if we want to
[30:16] be seen as being different right now.
[30:19] We're not the high growth anymore. We're just not going to get there
[30:22] because we're built out. And maybe our
[30:25] state needs to respond
[30:27] come up with ways to respond to
[30:29] communities on the um foothills of the
[30:32] mountains that are the legacy
[30:34] communities here.
[30:36] I disagree.
[30:38] >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
[30:42] >> Comments or questions, council?
[30:45] >> All right. Turn it over to you.
[30:47] >> Thank you.
[30:48] >> Um, one other element to consider as
[30:51] you're talking about discussions with
[30:53] legislators, policy makers is uh the
[30:56] perspective of those policies. So um the
[31:01] certified tax rate calculation truth and
[31:03] taxation process is a is a way to do
[31:06] that to address
[31:08] um fluctuations and valuations and uh
[31:12] revenue generation.
[31:14] But I would argue from the perspective
[31:15] of the legislature, it's a it's a
[31:17] proactive or tax protective approach,
[31:21] meaning you as a legislative body have
[31:23] to take action versus what you're
[31:25] describing, which is an automatic
[31:26] adjustment potentially based on
[31:28] appreciation of property. So depending
[31:30] on your perspective, those could be, you
[31:32] know, those perspectives could be good
[31:34] or bad, right, on what tool you use
[31:35] here. But as Lara was describing,
[31:39] uh there is protection for you as an NC
[31:41] that you don't lose revenue. you just
[31:43] don't gain revenue other than new
[31:45] growth. So you're not going to uh see
[31:48] the the benefit of appreciation but you
[31:51] don't suffer appreciation
[31:54] and
[31:54] >> well in a way we do because of inflation
[31:56] that was her point
[31:57] >> that she
[32:00] well I I have some slides that will uh
[32:02] highlight that a little bit more and
[32:03] then we'll talk about um our purpose
[32:07] relative to this model. We'll go through
[32:08] the modeling assumptions that I've baked
[32:10] into this um and it's a large
[32:14] spreadsheet um that we bring everything
[32:17] together relative to revenues and
[32:18] expenses and I can show you that then
[32:20] we'll talk about the baseline scenario
[32:22] and um this is where you know graphs are
[32:25] a little scary and um this is typically
[32:28] the outcome when we look at these
[32:31] factors and the and inflationary
[32:33] pressures and level of service changes.
[32:35] Then we'll talk about what tools we have
[32:37] to use in the context of this model. Uh
[32:39] and we can play around with those
[32:41] scenarios if we if you'd like to or if
[32:43] you want to just talk highle scenarios
[32:45] that you'd like me to go work through
[32:47] with staff, we can we can do that as
[32:49] well.
[32:50] All righty. Um our our purpose again is
[32:54] addressing sustainability and how we
[32:56] evaluate sustainability is from these
[32:58] three metrics here. We look uh well
[33:00] sustainability is is um a reflection of
[33:04] efficiency or uh cost reduction and or
[33:08] revenue generation. Our model focuses on
[33:11] this last element which is revenue
[33:13] generation. But we look to staff
[33:15] department heads to help us understand
[33:17] the first two buckets which is
[33:19] efficiency. how how have we been
[33:20] efficient in uh the levels of service
[33:23] and resources that we manage and is
[33:26] there been any cost reduction or future
[33:28] cost reduction that we can program into
[33:29] the model. So uh for instance is we may
[33:33] receive um input for a specific budget
[33:36] line item that says we think that cost
[33:37] could go down over time because of x y
[33:40] and z and we can program that into the
[33:42] model
[33:43] and in this exercise we're always uh
[33:46] balancing um specificity with uh ease of
[33:51] administration right so these models can
[33:54] get very complex and so we have to
[33:56] balance that and determine what are the
[33:57] primary drivers in this exercise what
[34:00] can be assumed away, what do we need to
[34:02] focus on? Um, so while we have
[34:05] assumptions and we've programmed a model
[34:07] that can be manipulated, we could say,
[34:09] well, we think we need to adjust
[34:10] something here and we can build that
[34:11] into the model. So, there's a lot of
[34:13] flexibility on how we we build this and
[34:16] what areas we focus on. But again, I
[34:18] want to highlight that our model when we
[34:20] look at sustainability,
[34:23] uh the efficiency and cost reduction
[34:24] often come to us as inputs or feedback
[34:27] from staff and then we're manipulating
[34:29] the model to determine how much revenue
[34:31] do we need to to uh mitigate any
[34:33] shortfalls or do we go back to
[34:35] efficiency and cost reduction and change
[34:37] the assumptions to get us to where we
[34:39] need to be.
[34:41] So, uh this is the process that we go
[34:44] through. We look at historic budget data
[34:46] and information that we receive uh from
[34:48] staff. That is the uh foundation for the
[34:51] model. We then meet with department
[34:53] heads to discuss um unfunded needs,
[34:56] level of service issues,
[34:59] um changes in those expenditure line
[35:01] items, trends that may exist and how we
[35:03] might want to interpret those trends.
[35:06] That allows us to create a baseline
[35:08] model that we then go back and review
[35:10] those assumptions with staff. Say,
[35:12] "Okay, here's what we thought you said.
[35:13] is that what you actually said and help
[35:15] us review all the spreadsheets here in
[35:17] this in this model. We then recalibrate
[35:20] the model based on that input and then
[35:22] we work towards adoption. uh we can also
[35:25] have a circular equation in this and
[35:27] that we get to the reccalibration of the
[35:29] model and we have to go back to staff
[35:30] say hey this isn't looking like what it
[35:32] should look like and we get your input
[35:35] and uh legislative uh directive may say
[35:38] hey go back to the drawing board you
[35:40] need to fix all this I don't you know
[35:41] however you need to do that just fix it
[35:43] kind of thing so there can be a circular
[35:46] equation in this it's not um perfectly
[35:48] linear that once we get to finalization
[35:50] that it's done um in addition entities
[35:53] will review this uh on an annual basis
[35:56] or every couple of years to to make sure
[35:58] that they're accounting for changes and
[36:00] assumptions.
[36:02] All righty. So again, we look at
[36:05] historic uh we're focused on the general
[36:07] fund here. This is an exercise that is
[36:09] similar to when you've evaluated your
[36:11] utility rates.
[36:13] essentially determining what our
[36:15] historic uh general fund revenues and
[36:17] expenditures look like, what's our
[36:18] taxable value trends, uh what are our
[36:21] property tax revenues look like and
[36:22] other revenues. And then we make
[36:24] projections with that inflationary
[36:26] component and say, okay, let's program
[36:28] inflation rather than looking at a
[36:30] singular year as it relates to
[36:33] budgeting. What happens if we push that
[36:34] out several years and um what does a
[36:38] trend line look like? As I mentioned, we
[36:41] also then collect uh new or unfunded
[36:43] mandates from a department head
[36:46] perspective. So this is essentially
[36:47] saying tell us what you need that's over
[36:51] and above the existing budget line item
[36:54] expense.
[36:55] Uh so that may be an addition to an an
[36:58] existing expenditure line item or it may
[37:00] be a allgether new expense that doesn't
[37:03] exist in the budget. We get all of that
[37:05] from department heads and there's a lot
[37:07] of again information that goes in the
[37:09] spreadsheet that we summarize and then
[37:10] add it to this model. So that's layered
[37:13] on top of that inflationary variable. So
[37:17] uh that's another metric that we need to
[37:19] think about when we talk about
[37:21] sustainability. Laura really stressed on
[37:24] uh inflationary pressure, but these
[37:26] unfunded mandates, level of service
[37:28] changes are also a pressure point that
[37:31] is applied uh when you talk about the
[37:33] general fund and how do we manage that.
[37:36] Uh so our model pulls that in. We
[37:38] isolate that as a separate expense line
[37:40] item so that we can see what that's
[37:42] doing and we can also turn it off in
[37:44] total if we need to or want to.
[37:48] Uh so then we look at uh deficits in the
[37:51] model saying okay what happens uh when
[37:53] we apply all of this data the
[37:55] projections on on revenue and expenses
[37:57] and our other elements within the budget
[37:59] and then we go through the decision-m
[38:02] process. What do we do about it? Go
[38:04] again going back to the elements of
[38:06] sustainability. Do we become more
[38:07] efficient, reduce costs or do we raise
[38:10] revenue or do we do something a little
[38:12] bit of all of that? Right? And that's
[38:14] typically what needs to happen.
[38:17] All righty. So, uh, we've highlighted
[38:19] this, um, again, changes in revenue.
[38:22] We've talked about your issues that as
[38:25] you become a a builtout community, your
[38:28] revenue trends might change as you look
[38:30] to the future. So, the idea of sales tax
[38:32] revenue continuing to grow at a at a
[38:35] certain percentage may not be realistic
[38:37] or may not want to count on that that
[38:40] revenue line item. So, the the
[38:41] fluctuations in revenue are an item that
[38:44] we need to think about. Laura touched on
[38:46] inflation. Right now we're uh we well we
[38:49] experienced some high inflation in
[38:51] previous years that cooled off and then
[38:54] we're now seeing some inflationary
[38:55] pressure as a result of uh national um
[38:59] issues that are affecting some key
[39:01] metrics of inflation. So that could pick
[39:03] back up. You can see inflation becoming
[39:05] more pronounced. Uh the onetime expenses
[39:08] and then those level of service use
[39:09] issues are all these elements that we're
[39:11] feeding into the model. And we talk
[39:14] about level of service issues. This can
[39:15] be a positive or a or a debit or a
[39:19] credit into this model, right? We could
[39:21] say, hey, we're going to pull back on a
[39:23] level of service, meaning we don't want
[39:24] to we don't want to provide a that high
[39:27] of a level of service, which would
[39:29] result in an expenditure decrease. Or we
[39:31] may say we actually want to do more than
[39:33] what we're providing, in which case
[39:35] we're adding to that that cost.
[39:37] [clears throat]
[39:38] or we they may say when we visited with
[39:41] staff said if we want to just keep what
[39:42] we have this is what we think we need
[39:45] with regards to new or additional
[39:48] expense. So that's that's that bucket.
[39:52] All righty. Uh any questions on that? I don't want to keep chugging along
[39:59] without opportunities to speak to have
[40:01] dialogue. Any any feedback there? A lot
[40:03] of it's stuff we've discussed, but
[40:08] >> thank you.
[40:10] >> Um, all righty. So, let's start talking
[40:12] about some of the specifics of this
[40:13] model. Um, we've used 2019 through 2024
[40:17] actuals that we've pulled from your
[40:19] budget documents. So, every year when
[40:21] Brand is working through the budget
[40:23] documents, uh, there's information
[40:25] relative to historic actuals that are
[40:27] provided as part of that. So, we look
[40:29] back and get all that information and
[40:31] bring it into the model. Um in that
[40:33] process there's obviously changes uh
[40:35] over time relative to reporting how you
[40:38] budget the software you use for
[40:39] budgeting and that creates some
[40:41] challenges as we aggregate data and put
[40:43] it into this model. We've done our best
[40:45] to account for that uh with Brandon's
[40:47] help say what what should be in this
[40:49] model as we focus on the general fund
[40:52] alone. There's there are transfers that
[40:54] go out of the general fund enterprise
[40:56] funds that are all providing services.
[40:58] We're focused on the general fund and
[41:00] what it provides and pushing everything
[41:02] else away from the model.
[41:05] Uh we're bringing in 2025 projected
[41:08] actuals and our 2026 budget numbers.
[41:12] Um we then project that to through 2041,
[41:15] but we focus on uh a 5-year planning
[41:17] horizon when it comes to actual policy
[41:19] discussion. And that's really based on
[41:21] the fact that, you know, as you go uh
[41:24] farther and farther along in time
[41:26] relative to our understanding of
[41:28] assumptions, that gets murkier and
[41:30] murkier, right? Our crystal ball is just
[41:32] going to get really foggy um as you get
[41:35] too far out there. So we don't want to
[41:36] necessarily make policy decisions based
[41:39] on those out years. But it does help us
[41:41] understand trends and say okay for
[41:43] example if we had a huge capital
[41:44] investment that was coming into the
[41:46] tenant we could program that in the
[41:48] model and see if we want to make any um
[41:51] uh policy decisions now to help mitigate
[41:53] that that issue. I'm working with
[41:56] several uh solid waste utility or solid
[41:59] waste districts and they have some of
[42:01] this issue where their closure uh
[42:04] they're uh the closure of those
[42:05] facilities are happening in in 2039
[42:07] 2040. So I want to start thinking about
[42:09] how they plan for that now making
[42:12] incremental changes rather than huge
[42:14] changes when we get to 2035 example.
[42:18] So uh the other thing I wanted to
[42:20] highlight here is the model is based off
[42:23] budgeted figures.
[42:26] So in any uh budgeting process
[42:29] uh across the state of Utah there is a
[42:32] an exercise to ensure that your um to to
[42:36] be conservative
[42:37] uh we may underp project revenues a
[42:40] little bit and overp project expenses a
[42:42] little bit right so that when we get to
[42:43] reality we don't get into trouble. Well,
[42:46] that this model perpetuates that, right?
[42:48] We're taking your budgeted figures and
[42:51] applying assumptions to those figures
[42:54] and then adding all those other uh
[42:56] elements that we discussed relative to
[42:58] level of service uh inflation
[43:01] um and unfunded mandates on top of that.
[43:04] So, that's something to think about as
[43:06] we talk about uh impacts and uh the
[43:09] trends within the general fund.
[43:12] In addition, uh we we start with a $25
[43:15] million fund balance of this is
[43:17] unrestricted funds that we're saying,
[43:19] "Hey, this is available to do with what we will relative to dedicate. You
[43:25] could dedicate it to operations, which
[43:27] we don't typically recommend. You can
[43:29] fund capital improvements, whatever.
[43:32] It's unrestricted."
[43:34] So, that's our starting point. That's
[43:35] what we're going to measure against our
[43:37] yard stick when we when we look at um
[43:40] the trend of our cash at the you know at
[43:43] the end of each fiscal year.
[43:46] We've also assumed uh that there would
[43:48] be a tough administrative contribution.
[43:51] Uh we know that's not finalized uh but
[43:53] we did make some assumptions relative to
[43:55] some revenue that might come into the
[43:57] mall relative to that. starting off at
[43:59] about 250,000 and then getting up to
[44:01] 500,000 in year five as that becomes uh
[44:05] more refined than then we can make
[44:07] assumptions or you can make assumptions.
[44:09] >> It's tough.
[44:10] >> Oh, sorry. Transportation utility fee.
[44:12] >> Okay. Thank you.
[44:13] >> So, you've probably noticed uh with the
[44:16] legislature that there's been a a
[44:18] concentration on this element relative
[44:20] to what you can and cannot do. And in
[44:23] this legislative session, they they
[44:25] clearly articulated what you can do with
[44:27] the transportation utility fee and put
[44:30] some very detailed uh guardrails on that
[44:33] which I think is very beneficial. Um uh
[44:36] so so it uh can be used as a resource
[44:39] within those parameters. Uh so many
[44:41] entities are going through the
[44:44] transportation utility fee exercise and
[44:46] wanting to establish that fee.
[44:49] We're also continuing the transfer
[44:51] assumptions relative to um what goes out
[44:55] of the general fund. For example, uh
[44:58] debt service. We're we're perpetuating
[45:00] those transfers and saying, "Hey, yeah,
[45:01] the general fund's going to keep doing
[45:03] that." Um but we did not uh do an
[45:06] analysis of those other funds. So, uh,
[45:08] we're perpetuating, uh, existing trends
[45:11] and with Brandon's input and and, uh,
[45:13] Brandon's input on what we want to
[45:16] assume relative to those transfers just
[45:17] to make sure that we're accounting for
[45:19] that. But you could have, for example,
[45:22] an analysis of, uh, sub funds um, that
[45:26] say, hey, we need to transfer more out
[45:28] of the general fund if we want to keep
[45:29] that sustainable. That has not been done
[45:31] here. So, we're isolating it to the
[45:33] general fund and the services that are
[45:35] covered in the general fund.
[45:38] And then our target relative to our uh
[45:40] fund balances, we're trying to see to um
[45:44] achieve 25% of our revenues as our
[45:48] target. Whatever we collect in general
[45:51] fund revenues, take 25% of that and
[45:54] that's what we'd carry over as a fund
[45:55] balance which has been reduced. Uh
[45:58] previously it was 35% that was paired
[46:01] back to say hey no maybe that's a little
[46:03] too much. So let's let's look at 25% as
[46:05] a as a target there.
[46:08] >> Fred, just to clarify, fund unrestricted
[46:10] fund balance is part of our rainy day
[46:13] funds essentially.
[46:14] >> Yep.
[46:15] >> Yeah. So again, that's something you
[46:17] keep
[46:18] uh to um some entities will use it for
[46:22] um budgeting stabilization. For example,
[46:25] if if we had an event like COVID where
[46:28] uh there's substantial challenges
[46:30] relative to revenues and expenses, you
[46:32] call you you draw on that fund balance
[46:34] to get you through that without taking
[46:36] dramatic action in in a period of crisis
[46:39] or we could have a a substantial capital
[46:41] investment that's the general fund needs
[46:43] to contribute to and pull from that. But
[46:46] we reserve it for those unknowns that
[46:49] rainy day fund and and to keep that uh
[46:52] keep that in place. Another benefit is
[46:55] um that also provides you some uh
[46:57] benefit when you go to issue debt and
[46:59] you uh speak with rating agencies and um
[47:03] those types of entities. They'll look at
[47:04] what you have relative to your general
[47:07] fund balance say is that a positive or a
[47:10] negative? Do you have enough there uh
[47:12] relative to what you need? And that
[47:13] would influence your your borrowing cost
[47:16] if you were to uh utilize um the general
[47:20] fund. Now, that's a little different
[47:21] because uh you have multiple revenue
[47:23] resources within your general fund like
[47:25] sales tax revenues versus property tax.
[47:27] So, there's a lot of nuance there, but
[47:29] that that's also a benefit to that that
[47:31] rainy day fund.
[47:33] >> And Fred, if I can just clarify for the
[47:35] benefit of the council, uh we'll be
[47:37] talking a little bit more about
[47:38] transportation utility fund and process
[47:42] and study. Chris will be talking about
[47:45] that a little bit later. That being
[47:48] said, um wanted to make sure that you
[47:51] were aware that it was included in this
[47:53] study
[47:55] essentially to show that we we tried to
[47:56] think about this as comprehensively as
[47:59] possible.
[48:01] >> We talked about impact fees earlier. Is
[48:03] that included in that as well or is that
[48:05] >> the impact fees be addressed here? So
[48:08] what we're isolating in this analysis is
[48:11] the general fund portion of those
[48:14] projects. So, if we had a onetime
[48:16] investment that's required, we'd account
[48:18] for impact fees. If that was covering
[48:20] 50% or 80% of the project, let's shave
[48:23] off that cost, exclude it, and only
[48:25] include the remaining percentage in the
[48:28] general fund analysis. So, that's an
[48:30] example of something that's isolated.
[48:32] So, as an example, Jeff
[48:36] expansion of the police station here and
[48:39] the and the remodel here. We take
[48:42] whatever we can from police impact fees
[48:44] to contribute towards it, but obviously
[48:47] the bulk of it is covered from our
[48:49] general fund revenues. So that's the
[48:51] portion that was uh taken into account
[48:54] in this study.
[48:58] All righty. So here's a lot of numbers.
[49:01] Um what this is highlighting is the
[49:04] assumptions and how we pull that into
[49:06] our model. So um this is showing in our
[49:10] model the specific line items that we
[49:12] have identified relative to the revenues
[49:15] that come into the model and the
[49:16] expenses. So the expenses we've
[49:19] highlighted down at the bottom here. But
[49:21] for the majority of the revenues we're
[49:23] assuming uh no growth. We're saying okay
[49:26] they're they're not really going to
[49:27] grow. Uh we are going to assume some
[49:30] growth for example in sales tax revenue.
[49:32] If you recall back to Lara's slides and
[49:34] I'll show you another slide, that is a
[49:36] big chunk of the revenue you receive.
[49:38] And so changes in that line item have a
[49:41] huge impact and um your your
[49:45] sustainabilities.
[49:46] What we saw with regards to sales tax
[49:48] revenues is historically you've had a
[49:51] higher growth here than 3%. But when you
[49:54] look at the last two years of actuals,
[49:56] you're seeing we're seeing a plateau of
[49:58] that where um you could have an instance
[50:02] where sales tax revenues are not
[50:03] growing. Um even the 3% may be
[50:06] aggressive, right? That you get to
[50:08] essentially your um your limit the the
[50:12] public's limit relative to to buying uh
[50:15] spending and you're not going to see as
[50:17] much growth there unless there's
[50:19] redevelopment, economic development
[50:21] changes, those types of things. ask a
[50:23] stupid question.
[50:24] >> So, food places, food joints,
[50:26] restaurants, everything. Do we get sales
[50:28] tax or do we get the um tourism whatever
[50:32] tax?
[50:33] >> You do get sales tax and on some
[50:36] businesses you get both. You'd have a a
[50:38] tourism tax on top of that.
[50:40] >> Um but yes, all of all of your eating
[50:42] establishments
[50:43] >> that goes in our I guess that I mean
[50:45] that goes in our general fund. That's
[50:47] >> we do not receive that else. Okay.
[50:48] >> You don't receive the the one extra 1%
[50:52] restaurant tax.
[50:53] >> We don't get that.
[50:55] >> Okay. We don't
[50:55] >> we do get 1% sales tax, right?
[50:58] >> Yes. There's a sales tax portion
[51:00] >> that component. We get 1% in our general
[51:03] fund and 1% in the
[51:06] >> I believe it goes to the county.
[51:07] >> Yes.
[51:07] >> To the county. And that's the one that
[51:10] we don't typically get back when we
[51:11] begin.
[51:12] >> Correct.
[51:13] >> Yes.
[51:15] Can you tell us what that you talked
[51:17] about that plateau for uh sales tax
[51:19] revenue over the last couple of years.
[51:20] What does that actually look like? What
[51:21] does that mean for us? It means we
[51:23] didn't get 7% that means we got 3%. It
[51:25] means we got 1%.
[51:26] >> So
[51:27] >> yeah, let me see what our
[51:29] >> I don't need specifics. Just like
[51:30] general trend.
[51:31] >> One was negative.
[51:33] >> You say one.
[51:34] >> I don't remember if that was 24 or five.
[51:37] Um I want to say it was 24. I mean five
[51:40] last year. I want to say it was negative
[51:42] last year.
[51:43] >> December to December. 24. So 23 actuals
[51:46] you were at 32 million and then 24
[51:49] actuals you were 300,000 less than. So
[51:53] you went from from 2022 23 and 24 you
[51:58] hovered around 31.7
[52:00] to $32 million. So actually 3 years of
[52:05] flat
[52:06] um really no growth in sales tax
[52:09] revenues. Now, prior to that, so when
[52:11] you look at 2019 actuals, you were at
[52:13] $22.7 million taxable sales. And so you did grow when you when you went from
[52:19] 2019 to 2021 and then to 2022, yes, we
[52:23] were growing. Then 2022 hits and you did
[52:26] not see really any growth in taxable
[52:29] sales. uh through 24 actuals and then we
[52:33] budgeted to be consistent at about $32
[52:36] million in sales tax revenues and and
[52:39] the same with uh 26. We just did a
[52:41] slight increase in sales tax but really
[52:44] no growth. So we're programming 3% to
[52:48] the model which could be aggressive. It
[52:51] could be that you again plateau and have
[52:54] no growth in taxable sales or as 1% you
[52:58] know that we see this this grow. Um, so
[53:02] what what that highlights again when I
[53:04] do these types of studies because
[53:06] there's so many moving parts in a
[53:08] general fund, so many services that
[53:10] you're providing, the key to me is
[53:12] identifying where does our risk lie?
[53:15] What what factors are we relying on? And
[53:18] is there a risk and is it substantial?
[53:20] Is it minimal? Do we want to do anything
[53:22] about that? Because I'm going to show
[53:24] you slides that are really scary, right,
[53:26] relative to these benchmarks. But that's
[53:28] really intended to help us say what are
[53:30] the risks we're trying to mitigate here?
[53:32] What are the factors influencing
[53:34] sustainability and how do we tackle
[53:36] those problems? We're not going to
[53:37] tackle everything all at once, but there
[53:40] there's action that we can take to help
[53:43] create sustainability and reduce risk in
[53:46] our model. And that's that's what I how
[53:48] I view it. Again, like any investment
[53:51] port portfolio, our objective is to say,
[53:54] how do we reduce risk and and are what
[53:57] are those risk factors and do we want to
[53:58] take action? So,
[54:01] all righty. Um,
[54:04] okay. So, here we've uh again our
[54:07] primary assumption has to do with sales
[54:08] tax revenues. The other revenues we're
[54:10] keeping pretty constant. Um again there
[54:14] are fluctuations that we've seen um and
[54:16] we can play around with those but
[54:19] franchise tax is in a similar boat here
[54:21] where um
[54:24] you're likely hitting a plateau and
[54:26] we're accounting for that in this in
[54:28] this instance. Um and then on the
[54:30] property tax that that top line item
[54:32] where we see where we show new property
[54:34] tax revenues that that's not a
[54:37] reflection of new growth that's going to
[54:40] happen naturally. Right? So our model
[54:41] accounts for an assumption within the
[54:45] valuation calculation that that assumes
[54:48] some new growth. Every year you get a
[54:50] little bit of new growth in your uh
[54:52] taxable value. What this is saying is
[54:55] over and above that are we going to
[54:56] assume any increase to our revenue
[54:58] generation? Meaning we're going to
[55:00] change our certified tax rate to
[55:02] generate more revenue than what uh the
[55:05] mod or the truth and taxation and
[55:07] certified tax rate process would allow.
[55:10] That's that line item. So, we're saying
[55:11] no, we're the baseline is do nothing
[55:13] with property tax except let let it grow
[55:16] naturally. Let's uh add some revenue
[55:19] with regards to sales tax. Um and then
[55:22] now let's start looking at our expenses.
[55:25] So down here at the bottom
[55:27] uh we've isolated some specific uh
[55:30] variables that we wanted to manipulate.
[55:32] So for personnel, for example, we're
[55:34] applying a 5% inflationary assumption,
[55:37] which is higher than the CPI that Laura
[55:41] referred to, that hovers around 3 to 3
[55:44] and 1.5%. You look at other cost indices
[55:46] like a municipal cost index or uh uh um
[55:51] construction cost index, those are
[55:53] similar. We see about a 3 to three and a
[55:55] half. Maybe the construction cost index
[55:57] is a little bit higher. Those are
[56:00] national trends. uh when you look
[56:02] locally your construction cost index can
[56:04] be higher than that. Um but here what
[56:07] we're saying is we assume that this
[56:09] specific specific line item is going to
[56:11] grow at a higher rate than general
[56:13] inflation which is typical. Uh usually
[56:17] personnel um there is higher pressure
[56:20] and that's driven by not only salary
[56:22] cost but the cost of benefits over time
[56:25] that that just gets more costly. There's
[56:28] just a lot of pressure there. Um then we
[56:31] have assumptions relative to uh public
[56:34] safety, our sworn officers. Um this is
[56:36] information provided by staff to say hey
[56:38] that's going to in order to keep up with
[56:39] the market and pressure to retain um
[56:43] officers and keep the level of service.
[56:46] Uh there's a a need to um have a higher
[56:50] growth on that side. This is also fairly
[56:52] common. Um I've been in many um meetings
[56:56] with entities where one of their primary
[56:58] fears is just losing officers um and
[57:01] firefighters to other locations
[57:04] essentially training them and then
[57:05] letting them go somewhere else where
[57:07] they get more money. There's just a lot
[57:08] of pressure there relative to that uh
[57:11] service operation.
[57:13] We also had input relative to legal to
[57:16] have a little bit higher growth on that
[57:18] side. Um uh so you can see here based on
[57:22] input uh we're able to isolate specific
[57:25] line items and apply an inflationary
[57:27] pressure and then generally speaking uh
[57:30] outside of those specifics we apply
[57:33] again that 3% operational expenditure
[57:36] growth. So any line item that wasn't
[57:38] specifically identified we apply just
[57:39] that general inflationary number and
[57:41] grow that. Uh so those are the
[57:44] assumptions there uh as it relates to
[57:47] this. Yeah.
[57:48] >> Just before we move on too far from uh
[57:51] revenue assumptions, could you or
[57:52] Brandon speak to the utopia rebate uh
[57:56] figure uh which is 7% there?
[57:59] >> Yes.
[58:00] Uh
[58:02] I mean I
[58:04] >> Yeah. So that uh basically Utopia has grown and captured more of the
[58:11] market and their infrastructure is going
[58:13] past um essentially all the addresses
[58:17] within its member cities now. And so
[58:21] that percentage that we assumed in there
[58:23] has been based off of conversations with
[58:25] Utopia and and really kind of looking at
[58:28] the last handful of years they've
[58:30] increased what they pay back to the
[58:34] city. So the city still pays
[58:38] um more towards the UT utopia debt than
[58:42] we receive. I think that net negative is
[58:45] about roughly around two and a half
[58:47] million dollars a year.
[58:49] Um, but every indication we get from
[58:52] Utopia and Roger Timberman, the director
[58:55] there, is that that
[58:58] things are looking like they will
[59:00] continue to narrow that gap every year
[59:03] um until
[59:05] well, right now they're saying that they
[59:07] think that they'll be able to fully
[59:09] cover that uh debt impact by about the
[59:14] time that their debt falls off. But
[59:17] they're also keeping on their books that
[59:19] liability. So they'll continue to pay us
[59:21] back uh into the future.
[59:27] » The current falls off 2039, right?
[59:32] >> And so
[59:32] >> 2040.
[59:34] >> Okay. 2040 or fiscal 20.
[59:36] >> Yes.
[59:37] >> Fiscal.
[59:38] >> There's a moment in time where the
[59:40] amount we pay and the amount we get back
[59:42] break even. break even
[59:44] >> and then we start receiving more money.
[59:47] And about what year do we think that's
[59:49] going to be break even?
[59:53] >> They say no later than 2040.
[59:56] Um, but I've heard I've heard of
[59:58] projections as as aggressive as in about
[1:00:02] seven years. So it just depends if their projections are
[1:00:10] aggressive or not and or [clears throat]
[1:00:12] if they just stay on the trend that they
[1:00:14] have been for the last handful of years.
[1:00:17] So with the 7% that we're just putting
[1:00:19] that assumption in the model, but that
[1:00:21] 7% is off of two and a half million. Is
[1:00:24] that what you said?
[1:00:25] >> The growth
[1:00:26] >> it's growth what we receive which I
[1:00:29] think we're at about 1 million or 1.1. I
[1:00:31] do have a slide on that in my
[1:00:33] presentation.
[1:00:34] >> I just wanted to get the scale. We're
[1:00:35] talking about less than $100,000.
[1:00:37] >> Yes. Yeah. I show your your um rebate is
[1:00:41] 1.1 and then it grows to one and a half
[1:00:44] within the 5year based on that 7%
[1:00:47] increase. Whereas if I look at the um
[1:00:53] see our
[1:00:57] transfer is that would that be the
[1:00:59] offsetting cost utopia pledge transfer
[1:01:03] >> 3.3
[1:01:04] >> yeah it goes up that's
[1:01:07] >> yes yep so we have it at 3.6 in the 26
[1:01:10] and that grows only by 2% so within the
[1:01:13] five years there's
[1:01:16] a small number in the Yes,
[1:01:18] >> percentage looks big, number is not as
[1:01:20] small
[1:01:21] >> and it's nothing but I mean it can it's
[1:01:23] only going to get better hopefully.
[1:01:26] >> Yes. So
[1:01:28] >> yeah, every again because because
[1:01:30] they're going in front of every address
[1:01:33] now where before they weren't, their
[1:01:35] market is bigger and they've been even
[1:01:39] with that increasing their market
[1:01:42] capture from year and they're right at
[1:01:44] about 40%
[1:01:46] of of ORUM residents uh use the Utopia 5
[1:01:51] network.
[1:01:52] >> Sorry to back you up. If there was
[1:01:53] anything else on I did a question.
[1:01:55] >> Yes. Go
[1:01:56] >> just on the senior citizens operational
[1:01:58] expenditure. That's a why is it 10%. Can
[1:02:00] you just help class understand that a
[1:02:01] little bit?
[1:02:05] » My notes. Um,
[1:02:12] » so usually this is just again input from
[1:02:15] staff on um if they felt we needed to
[1:02:21] have more increase than just
[1:02:23] inflationary increase to maintain the
[1:02:25] level of service that is provided. So
[1:02:27] essentially saying we're already too
[1:02:29] skinny and we need more than just 3% in
[1:02:34] our expense growth rate. Uh so that's
[1:02:37] where we would would have applied that
[1:02:39] say hey okay let's program that 10%. So
[1:02:42] our questions to staff would centered on
[1:02:46] um really those buckets of of impact
[1:02:49] saying okay is inflationary pressure
[1:02:51] sufficient for what you're providing?
[1:02:54] And if they said yes then we'd apply the
[1:02:56] 3%. if they said no. In this case,
[1:02:58] senior citizens saying saying no, we
[1:03:00] need we need more. We're already too
[1:03:02] skinny and and we think our expenses
[1:03:04] need to grow at a higher rate and that's
[1:03:06] what this represents.
[1:03:07] >> That looks like a big number, but in
[1:03:08] terms of the overall impact on the
[1:03:09] budget, it could be very very small.
[1:03:11] >> Yes. Same same thing. The scale is
[1:03:13] small.
[1:03:14] >> Is that Oh,
[1:03:15] >> well, and I'll but I'll also say that uh
[1:03:19] our senior citizen center is also it's a regional draw. So because it's so
[1:03:25] successful, because we have so much
[1:03:26] programming, we get more people that
[1:03:29] come in. And then we also have um
[1:03:33] internalized the the food preparation
[1:03:36] and most other senior centers don't do that.
[1:03:40] Now, that's a higher level of service.
[1:03:43] Residents get better food. Um but, you
[1:03:46] know, there's there's a cost to that
[1:03:48] operationally.
[1:03:49] >> It might also be reasonable to assume
[1:03:51] that over time we will have more
[1:03:52] seniors.
[1:03:54] bunch of baby boomers coming.
[1:03:57] >> We're all getting up there.
[1:04:01] >> It also might be a factor too of in the
[1:04:04] '9s we built that building. We've done
[1:04:06] pretty good job of maintaining it, but
[1:04:09] we suspect that that'll be one of our
[1:04:11] older buildings that may need some more
[1:04:13] attention relative to other buildings
[1:04:15] moving forward.
[1:04:16] >> And I guess that was going to be my
[1:04:17] question. Is there a syncing fund that
[1:04:18] we're using for um anticipated capital
[1:04:22] expenses through that?
[1:04:24] >> Is that part of it or not? Is that
[1:04:26] purely operations?
[1:04:28] >> Yes, that that 10% is operations.
[1:04:31] >> So no syncing fund. It's not the
[1:04:33] syncing. Okay.
[1:04:33] >> So it's not capital replacement for
[1:04:35] there's just our fund balance which you
[1:04:38] you've seen us come with some budget
[1:04:39] amendments
[1:04:41] killers
[1:04:42] >> porings. Okay. That's right.
[1:04:44] >> So that's not
[1:04:45] >> you that are using some of that. So
[1:04:47] >> and I don't think in our onetime expense
[1:04:49] we have anything related to
[1:04:52] the center. So no
[1:04:55] >> I mean
[1:04:56] >> this ne the next slide it'll talk about
[1:04:58] that but yeah there's no
[1:05:01] >> we have done some significant
[1:05:03] improvements.
[1:05:03] >> We have two years.
[1:05:10] » Any other questions on this slide? So
[1:05:13] the capital expenditure, average annual
[1:05:15] growth, that's really to capture the
[1:05:17] difference between those indices
[1:05:19] relative to operational cost versus
[1:05:21] capital cost. Typically your
[1:05:23] construction cost index is higher. This
[1:05:26] wouldn't reflect um
[1:05:29] again probably from 20 uh 19 to 2023 24
[1:05:36] there was huge inflationary pressure
[1:05:38] relative to
[1:05:40] um construction costs within Utah. So
[1:05:44] this is more of an average. So if we saw
[1:05:48] if if there was a substantial
[1:05:49] inflationary pressure this I'd say hey
[1:05:52] that's something you can think about
[1:05:53] right that up but right now the model is
[1:05:56] intended to cover at least average
[1:05:59] inflationary assumptions and see what
[1:06:02] happens in the model when we again lay
[1:06:04] off each other
[1:06:05] >> and I'm sorry to be that person. You got
[1:06:07] about 20 minutes.
[1:06:08] >> Okay.
[1:06:10] >> Well, stop asking question. [laughter]
[1:06:11] >> No, no, no. We need to ask questions.
[1:06:14] And uh yeah due to the complexity of
[1:06:17] this again the idea here is to get
[1:06:19] feedback and we can iterate on this
[1:06:22] exercise. You know this this model is
[1:06:24] supposed to be lineage. All righty. Uh
[1:06:27] let's let's talk about some of the um
[1:06:30] new or unfunded one-time expenses and
[1:06:32] the operational expenses. Here shows you
[1:06:35] the totals that we're bringing into the
[1:06:37] model. So dollar-wise, you know, for my
[1:06:41] budget, these are huge numbers, right? I
[1:06:43] would love to have this in my bank
[1:06:44] account before a capital project list. I
[1:06:47] mean, we see projects and hundreds of
[1:06:48] millions of dollars, right? So, um but we are including uh one-time
[1:06:54] expenses that the general fund uh is is
[1:06:58] intended to cover in this model. And
[1:07:01] notable projects include uh park uh
[1:07:04] construction, renovations, the fire
[1:07:07] station, as Bren mentioned, there's some
[1:07:09] other uh one-time expenses from other
[1:07:11] departments. public [clears throat]
[1:07:13] safety that we're bringing into the
[1:07:14] analysis. Um these again in the model
[1:07:17] are programmed as a singular occurrence.
[1:07:19] So we're not um we need to try to cover
[1:07:22] these expenses, but we're also using the idea is to potentially use the fund
[1:07:27] balance to help smooth that out. Right?
[1:07:30] the the bigger issue as it relates to
[1:07:32] property taxes and your revenue
[1:07:33] generation is ongoing expenses and
[1:07:35] trying to say what is the new trend
[1:07:37] relative to cost and do we need to
[1:07:39] change our revenue projections to to
[1:07:42] cover that but we do have onetime
[1:07:44] expenses here's an illustration of the
[1:07:47] ongoing expense and this is cumulative
[1:07:50] so what happens with ongoing is once we
[1:07:52] layer it in the model it stays in the
[1:07:54] model and we inflate that while adding
[1:07:58] future years ongoing expense on top of
[1:08:00] that. So that dollar can increase pretty
[1:08:03] quickly which is what you see here when
[1:08:04] we asked from the departments tell us
[1:08:07] everything you know um this is the
[1:08:10] outcome of that we said what FTEES new
[1:08:13] uh full-time equivalent positions would
[1:08:15] you need new uh operational elements
[1:08:18] supplies uh anything relative to your
[1:08:20] budget infusion of additional uh
[1:08:23] operating costs uh into a budget line
[1:08:25] item tell us everything. And so that
[1:08:27] exercise we we spent several weeks back
[1:08:30] and forth uh evaluating that and by 2032
[1:08:34] the cumulative impact of those uh
[1:08:37] requests, level of service uh issues,
[1:08:40] unfunded mandates come to about $6.5
[1:08:43] million. So that's on top of again
[1:08:47] inflation to your base expense that we
[1:08:49] reviewed on that previous slide. those assumptions relative to inflation.
[1:08:53] We're also adding uh up to $6 million in
[1:08:57] 2032 and that will continue to grow. So
[1:08:59] the same inflationary pre pressure that
[1:09:01] is applied to your base is applied to
[1:09:03] any new expense that we bring into the
[1:09:06] model. Um so
[1:09:09] while um you know your return on
[1:09:12] investment is is a positive that
[1:09:14] compounding effect is very positive the
[1:09:16] reverse applies as it relates to expense
[1:09:18] and inflation. is compounding and it can
[1:09:21] hurt over time because that continues to
[1:09:23] grow. That further stresses that that
[1:09:26] need to evaluate revenue resources. How
[1:09:29] do we mitigate inflationary pressure?
[1:09:31] Because the compounding effect can be
[1:09:34] very detrimental if left unchecked. We
[1:09:36] get to a point where entities say we
[1:09:39] need a 50% tax increase because of all
[1:09:41] this pressure that we've let fester
[1:09:44] essentially. We we haven't looked at. So
[1:09:47] we we try to avoid that.
[1:09:49] All righty. Laura showed a slide like
[1:09:51] this. We've isolated to just the general
[1:09:53] fund uh relative to budgetary figures.
[1:09:57] This shows less of a decrease on your
[1:09:59] property tax, right? So, um going from
[1:10:02] 11% down to 10%. It shows uh an increase
[1:10:06] in reliance on sales tax. So, the
[1:10:08] similar concept here that we're using
[1:10:11] the uh growth in a specific revenue line
[1:10:13] item to support uh expenditure growth.
[1:10:16] So we have to watch that. The the other
[1:10:20] issue here that I just kind of screamed
[1:10:22] to me as I looked at these uh charts is
[1:10:25] again proportionality. I do a lot of
[1:10:27] work in impact fees, cost of service
[1:10:29] studies and proportionality is a big
[1:10:31] component of that. So understanding
[1:10:34] proportionality and this these charts is
[1:10:36] also critical. So here you're relying on
[1:10:40] one stream of revenue or or heavily
[1:10:42] reliant on one stream of revenue that
[1:10:44] sales tax bucket. So again that that
[1:10:47] could cause some concern especially if
[1:10:49] that uh changes over time.
[1:10:52] We also wanted to highlight uh the
[1:10:54] expenditure growth within the general
[1:10:56] fund from 2019 to 2026 showing your
[1:10:59] expenses um plateauing out here. This to
[1:11:03] me is is really focusing on efficiency
[1:11:07] but the other metrics that we've talked
[1:11:09] about that are a little difficult more
[1:11:10] difficult for us to quantify but showing
[1:11:13] that the city is is really trying to
[1:11:15] keep uh those expenses matched to that
[1:11:18] revenue stream and you can see that
[1:11:20] plateauing effect happening on the
[1:11:21] expense side
[1:11:24] depending on your perspective that's it
[1:11:25] can be a positive and negative. um as a
[1:11:28] taxpayer I'd look at that as positive
[1:11:30] right our expenses are are um are being
[1:11:32] controlled from a level of service
[1:11:35] perspective that can be uh concerning
[1:11:37] right um understanding inflation what I
[1:11:40] know I'm I consider myself an informed
[1:11:42] taxpayer I would look at that and say
[1:11:44] well what's happening to our level of
[1:11:46] service right if expense doesn't grow is
[1:11:48] our level of service being compromised
[1:11:50] over time and am I okay with that right
[1:11:54] feel about that
[1:11:57] Uh this is uh to bring this home again
[1:11:59] what Laura spoke to. It's just a
[1:12:00] different way to show this which is your
[1:12:02] buying power. This shows the percentage
[1:12:05] of ORM's uh your tax rate as a
[1:12:08] percentage of the total. So adding up
[1:12:09] every all the other tax levies uh school
[1:12:12] district uh the county uh other
[1:12:15] districts
[1:12:16] in uh 2005. So going back you know
[1:12:19] further in time you uh accounted for 17%
[1:12:23] of the total tax levy. uh and fast
[1:12:25] forward to 2025, you're at 9%. So what
[1:12:28] that suggests is other entities are
[1:12:30] increasing their tax levy uh
[1:12:33] proportionally speaking, whereas you are
[1:12:35] not. So your your buying power is
[1:12:38] another expression of how your buy
[1:12:39] buying power is decreasing relative to
[1:12:42] the property tax. Now that's not saying
[1:12:44] that you're not generating new revenue,
[1:12:45] right? Your sales tax revenues have
[1:12:47] grown, other revenues are growing, but
[1:12:49] it does illustrate what you're relying
[1:12:51] on. you're keeping this constant or or
[1:12:53] reducing buying power and letting other
[1:12:55] areas pick up the slack.
[1:12:58] All righty. Um so here's the scary part.
[1:13:01] We're going to show what happens when we
[1:13:02] bring it all together and track the $25
[1:13:05] million fund balance over time and see
[1:13:07] what happens to that. Um this is no new
[1:13:10] property tax. Let's keep everything on,
[1:13:13] you know, all of our new expense, uh
[1:13:15] onetime expense, operating expense. No
[1:13:17] other tools are being used like bonding
[1:13:19] other than we do have an assumed bond
[1:13:22] payment relative to the uh cremation
[1:13:25] memorial bond payment that's already
[1:13:27] kind of we're assuming it is an existing
[1:13:29] assumption. So we're not adding new
[1:13:33] bonding resources here uh to mitigate
[1:13:36] any funding shortfalls as it relates to
[1:13:38] onetime expenses.
[1:13:41] Um I won't go into this. This is just
[1:13:43] reiterating the assumptions that we're
[1:13:45] pulling into the model relative to the
[1:13:48] revenues and expenses. Uh I'll provide
[1:13:50] this slide deck so you can see these uh
[1:13:53] what it's showing is what the 2019 to
[1:13:55] 2024 actual change in those categories
[1:13:58] were compared to what we're assuming. So
[1:14:00] it'll help you see um what those
[1:14:02] assumptions were making relative to
[1:14:04] revenue growth. So that question of
[1:14:06] sales tax 2019 to 2024 you had almost a
[1:14:10] 7% growth. we're assuming 3% but if you
[1:14:13] isolate just the last three years of
[1:14:14] actual that's really 0% historic growth.
[1:14:17] So that that's what we have to be
[1:14:19] careful of is it it really depends on
[1:14:21] the window we're looking at relative to
[1:14:23] historic trends. Yes.
[1:14:25] >> And without getting off on too much of a
[1:14:26] tangent, do we have anything to account
[1:14:27] for that drop in those last two years of
[1:14:29] the plateau? Um my thought I can just
[1:14:32] make um a guess but you might have been
[1:14:36] going through a rebound relative to um
[1:14:40] the impacts of COVID to say okay people
[1:14:43] start purchasing more as you've got out
[1:14:45] of that that time and then once that new
[1:14:49] norm is established then you'll say okay
[1:14:52] this this is where I'm comfortable
[1:14:54] spending right how many times I go out
[1:14:55] to eat and yeah
[1:14:56] >> well and I'd be curious too I don't know
[1:14:58] if we can comment on this but vehicle
[1:14:59] sales
[1:15:00] They're they [clears throat] were highly
[1:15:03] inflated
[1:15:04] and are just now starting to be
[1:15:06] realistic. So how many postpone buying a
[1:15:10] car?
[1:15:10] >> Yes. Yeah.
[1:15:11] >> So some of those trends and actual cost
[1:15:13] of of a product would influence this. So
[1:15:17] um in inflation can benefit you on this
[1:15:20] side of your revenue stream, right?
[1:15:22] Because it's a percentage of total
[1:15:24] expense when we look at sales tax
[1:15:25] revenue. 1% of the dollars that go out
[1:15:28] the door. If I have to spend more on the
[1:15:31] basket of good goods and services that
[1:15:33] I'm accustomed to buying, municipalities
[1:15:36] and other taxing entities will get more
[1:15:37] tax revenue. As that inflation cools
[1:15:40] down, then that revenue is going to
[1:15:42] plateau because we're not spending as
[1:15:44] much on the same basket of services that
[1:15:47] we buy. don't uh it can benefit you but
[1:15:51] in this case I would guess it's those
[1:15:53] factors are causing a slowdown other
[1:15:56] factors your economic development if
[1:15:58] you've had growth redevelopment and then
[1:16:00] that stops then you're going to see that
[1:16:03] uh plateau as well where you've reached
[1:16:06] a new norm essentially
[1:16:10] all righty uh again a lot of data here
[1:16:13] uh what this is showing is the
[1:16:15] culmination of those assumptions as it
[1:16:17] relates to your revenues and expenses.
[1:16:19] So, we've summarized the revenues up top
[1:16:21] here. This is taking those assumptions
[1:16:23] and making projections relative to your
[1:16:25] budget and saying what do we think
[1:16:26] revenues will grow to and then what do
[1:16:29] we think our expenses will grow to uh
[1:16:32] based on um all of those assumptions. Uh
[1:16:36] here you can see that the disparity um
[1:16:41] >> what was that
[1:16:43] >> this meeting is being recorded
[1:16:45] >> that I don't know
[1:16:47] >> that's kind of stuck with
[1:16:50] >> you're stuck with it.
[1:16:52] >> Okay.
[1:16:56] » Yes.
[1:17:01] It's gonna be smaller, but uh
[1:17:05] >> Oh, no, no, no, no, no. That that little
[1:17:08] thing has the number. [laughter]
[1:17:11] >> I'll show you in the next slide that
[1:17:14] I'll illustrate.
[1:17:15] >> This was covering some numbers and so
[1:17:17] >> yes. So again what what I look for is
[1:17:21] what's happening in the model and what
[1:17:23] are the factors leading to that because
[1:17:26] there are assumptions in this model and
[1:17:27] assumptions by nature are guesses
[1:17:29] relative to the future and we can change
[1:17:31] those assumptions. It just introduces
[1:17:34] risk into the model. If our assumption
[1:17:36] is conservative and we're not
[1:17:37] comfortable with that be aggressive
[1:17:39] which increases the risk scale right it creates more risk in the model. So
[1:17:45] here because we've made assumptions
[1:17:47] relative to revenue, the growth is a lot
[1:17:49] slower. Whereas our expenses, we've
[1:17:51] included everything and grown those at a
[1:17:54] at what things a little more maybe
[1:17:57] realistic or aggressive growth rate to
[1:18:00] capture uh changes in expenses. So you
[1:18:03] can see the deficit just grows over
[1:18:05] time. we we do not have enough uh buying
[1:18:09] power or revenue growth to handle that
[1:18:12] inflationary pressure and unfunded
[1:18:14] mandates within our proforma and that
[1:18:16] causes this. So if you can go back to
[1:18:19] the last one.
[1:18:20] >> So it's interesting to know so if we got
[1:18:23] to that point you could completely get
[1:18:24] rid of the city manager but you'd still
[1:18:26] be in that debt.
[1:18:30] [laughter]
[1:18:34] That's an important
[1:18:36] on the dollar.
[1:18:38] >> Consider that.
[1:18:41] Um it does highlight though, you know,
[1:18:44] that uh comment does highlight what
[1:18:47] Laura stressed, which is when you start
[1:18:50] talking about issues and the magnitude,
[1:18:53] then you determine okay, if we go back
[1:18:55] to our metrics relative to
[1:18:58] sustainability, efficiency, cost
[1:19:00] reduction and revenue generation.
[1:19:03] There's a lot of service provided here.
[1:19:05] uh you know when you look at the general
[1:19:07] fund and it becomes very challenging to
[1:19:09] say what are we willing to remove from
[1:19:12] this equation or what are we willing to
[1:19:16] um control relative to this equation so
[1:19:19] it's removal of cost the control of that
[1:19:22] cost and then the revenue generation on
[1:19:24] top of that all of that has to be
[1:19:26] considered when we talk sustainability
[1:19:28] but the magnitude is what I focus on
[1:19:30] right is the magnitude of impact is
[1:19:32] pretty substantial um And when I compare
[1:19:36] what you generate from property tax, it
[1:19:39] becomes even more substantial. We're
[1:19:41] generating $7 million in property tax
[1:19:43] revenue relative to a deficit of 25
[1:19:48] million by 2030. That that's a big nut
[1:19:51] to crack there. So, um I'm not saying
[1:19:55] essentially what I what I'm saying is
[1:19:56] this is a a challenging dilemma to be
[1:19:58] in. And so, um understanding it is the
[1:20:01] first step and then determining what do
[1:20:02] we do about it.
[1:20:04] Um this graph highlights two things. Uh
[1:20:08] what I wanted to show was again our fund
[1:20:10] balance. That blue line is is calculated
[1:20:12] based on those numbers above. We
[1:20:14] essentially eat up all of our $25
[1:20:16] million fund balance then go negative.
[1:20:18] We cannot sustain the assumptions that
[1:20:21] we have programmed into the model. But
[1:20:23] then I also included a pink line which
[1:20:26] is I turned off all of our uh one-time
[1:20:29] expense and um new operational needs. So
[1:20:34] this highlights the inflationary
[1:20:36] pressure. The pink line is essentially
[1:20:38] saying if we have slow revenue growth
[1:20:42] and just the inflationary pressure in
[1:20:44] our base expense, we still have a
[1:20:47] problem. So, it helps me understand that
[1:20:50] it's not just level of service issues or trying to quest a Cadillac when all
[1:20:56] we can afford is a Ford, right? There's
[1:20:59] this inflationary pressure that will
[1:21:00] affect you regardless. And so, it's
[1:21:03] controlling that and balancing that. So,
[1:21:05] that gives you an idea of of those two
[1:21:07] scenarios.
[1:21:09] I wanted to bring home I've I've
[1:21:10] highlighted this throughout the
[1:21:11] presentation.
[1:21:13] We focused on we're talking about
[1:21:15] revenue generation. in this model, what
[1:21:16] we do with your property tax rate. How
[1:21:18] do we make assumptions relative to sales
[1:21:20] tax and other revenues? These elements
[1:21:22] are still very important, but it's
[1:21:24] that's a little bit more on your side,
[1:21:26] right? As legislators, how do we manage
[1:21:28] our level of service? What are we
[1:21:29] willing to fund? What are we willing to
[1:21:31] remove from the equation? Those are
[1:21:33] definitely hard uh discussions, but
[1:21:35] something that happens outside of this
[1:21:37] model.
[1:21:39] Um,
[1:21:41] see, we've got three minutes. Uh let's
[1:21:43] go to
[1:21:45] this slide. This was um really a a
[1:21:48] comparative slide that showed um some
[1:21:50] comp communities. Sorry, you can't see
[1:21:53] the ones over there. Logan is the last
[1:21:56] comp here, so there's nothing over
[1:21:57] there. This is our 24, 25, and 26
[1:22:00] budget. Showing where orange stands
[1:22:03] relative to expenses per capita. And
[1:22:06] this is purely a total expense uh
[1:22:10] divided uh by the the population. It
[1:22:13] does not address level of service issues
[1:22:15] between communities. So um comparative
[1:22:18] data can be very challenging because
[1:22:20] every city is different on what is
[1:22:22] provided within the general fund, how uh
[1:22:24] services are funded with other other sub
[1:22:27] funds. But it does give an idea going
[1:22:29] back to the um total expense growth
[1:22:32] within the general fund that I showed in
[1:22:34] the previous slide that ORM over the
[1:22:37] last several years is focusing on those
[1:22:41] other metrics which is cost containment
[1:22:43] and efficiency, right? Because our cost
[1:22:45] per capita here is on the lower end and
[1:22:48] staying pretty constant, right? Relative
[1:22:50] to our population changes. Um so that
[1:22:55] that's an important consideration as we
[1:22:56] look at those other metrics within this
[1:22:59] um sustainability model.
[1:23:02] All righty. Um as we talk about what to
[1:23:05] do next, we look at what levers we can
[1:23:08] push and pull in the model. We can
[1:23:09] obviously address assumptions. If we
[1:23:11] want to again change those assumptions,
[1:23:13] we can do that. We can turn on and off
[1:23:15] expenses relative to those new or
[1:23:18] unfunded expenses. property tax is um
[1:23:21] one of the levers that you can actually
[1:23:23] specifically manipulate in the form of
[1:23:25] the truth and taxation process. So you
[1:23:27] can change that. You can also change um
[1:23:31] the bonding tool that you utilize. So
[1:23:33] you can use that to help mitigate
[1:23:35] one-time expenses.
[1:23:37] The one-time expenses that the general
[1:23:39] fund is covering is not a a huge
[1:23:41] component of this uh relative to a
[1:23:43] bonding perspective, especially relative
[1:23:46] to your total general fund expenses. Um
[1:23:50] and then the other item that you can
[1:23:51] evaluate which the city has done over
[1:23:53] the years which is strategic revenue
[1:23:55] evaluation. It's looking at your charges
[1:23:57] for services for example and saying are
[1:23:59] those where they need to be. Make sure
[1:24:01] that's maximized. You've addressed
[1:24:03] impact fees. That's not directly related
[1:24:05] to general fund but maximizing those
[1:24:07] ensures that there's less pressure on
[1:24:09] the general fund. So that strategic
[1:24:11] evaluation is very beneficial and should
[1:24:13] not be overlooked. It's just not a
[1:24:15] specific lever that we pull in the
[1:24:17] general fund as it relates to revenue.
[1:24:20] And then alternative revenues, we've t
[1:24:22] touched upon that with the
[1:24:24] transportation utility fee. If those
[1:24:26] come up, they can be utilized again to
[1:24:29] help uh alleviate pressure on that
[1:24:32] property tax. Uh so using those
[1:24:34] strategically is very beneficial.
[1:24:36] Ultimately, um you know, we need to look
[1:24:41] at what scenarios you're comfortable
[1:24:43] with. Um you know, are we willing to
[1:24:46] manipulate the property tax and if so,
[1:24:48] to what magnitude and how does that
[1:24:50] influence this um this model? And then
[1:24:53] discussing implementation. So, uh again,
[1:24:57] I'm in the envious position of just
[1:24:59] presenting data. [laughter]
[1:25:01] You're in the challenging position of
[1:25:04] implementation. and you're where the
[1:25:05] rubber hits the road and and taking
[1:25:07] action. But hopefully this gives you an
[1:25:08] idea of of the the issue and then what
[1:25:12] we can do about it. I think it's
[1:25:14] everything and I didn't give you a lot
[1:25:16] of time for questions. Uh so
[1:25:19] >> are you looking for uh are you looking
[1:25:20] for an answer from us today or can you
[1:25:22] go? [clears throat]
[1:25:24] >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Um
[1:25:26] >> not for long. I know I know you need
[1:25:28] time is of the essence. I get that. But
[1:25:31] I'm not prepared after getting booking
[1:25:33] and all that to say let's work that into
[1:25:36] that because
[1:25:38] >> we also need the presentation.
[1:25:40] >> Yes. And we'll also provide um some
[1:25:42] additional information relative to the
[1:25:43] onetime expense.
[1:25:44] >> Very informative
[1:25:45] >> and the uh ongoing expense so you can
[1:25:47] see exactly what is included in the
[1:25:50] model and so it's not just a a total
[1:25:53] number can show details relative to
[1:25:55] that.
[1:25:56] >> This is very very interesting. Thank
[1:25:58] you. So, we'll send out the
[1:26:00] presentations. Um, also, you can, uh,
[1:26:04] you don't have to wait till the next,
[1:26:06] you know, work session to provide
[1:26:08] follow-up questions or requests
[1:26:11] that we could then make back to to Fred.
[1:26:14] We can still, Fred, we can still keep
[1:26:16] you busy. Yes.
[1:26:17] >> Using this model, right? And could we
[1:26:20] even potentially have you come back?
[1:26:22] >> Yes, for sure. Yeah.
[1:26:24] >> What is your expectation on a timeline
[1:26:26] or hope for a timeline on this? I mean
[1:26:28] once we talk about it, review it, what is that point?
[1:26:31] >> I would say let's uh let's review what
[1:26:35] how Brandon is proposing that we we do a
[1:26:39] null implementation of of some of these
[1:26:42] >> the next presentation which is our next
[1:26:43] item.
[1:26:44] >> Oh, so you've got some ideas for them.
[1:26:46] >> It's it's our budget. is just
[1:26:49] got it ready.
[1:26:50] >> I mean, again, you notice that Fred had
[1:26:52] a little bit of he he gave you a very 50,000 foot level uh preview of
[1:26:59] some of what we might propose in the
[1:27:01] budget.
[1:27:02] >> Okay.
[1:27:02] >> And again, it's long-term. Ultimately,
[1:27:04] we deal with the budget on a
[1:27:06] year-by-year basis. So guess I mean we
[1:27:10] could receive feedback from you on an
[1:27:12] ongoing basis with this but ideally we
[1:27:15] at least get more feedback on how we
[1:27:17] apply
[1:27:19] some of this information or or some of
[1:27:21] this uh feedback or or advice from LRV
[1:27:27] for a budget year. We would hope for
[1:27:29] that over the next
[1:27:32] month.
[1:27:34] >> Yeah. And I I think based on our
[1:27:37] analysis, what we believe our objective
[1:27:40] is and conclusion relative to that 50
[1:27:43] foot is
[1:27:45] uh there is a need and um utilizing your
[1:27:49] property tax and uh that process of
[1:27:52] truth and taxation and adjustments of
[1:27:54] the certified tax rate should be
[1:27:56] considered. Right? If if we want to
[1:27:58] address inflation, recognizing the
[1:28:01] limitations of your revenue stream, that
[1:28:02] is where we're seeing a a need.
[1:28:05] Magnitude of that is is really right up
[1:28:07] to you on how aggressive you want to
[1:28:09] address that. But that would be our
[1:28:11] conclusion is we're seeing a need to
[1:28:14] take action. And Fred, even though Lara
[1:28:16] needs to go, are you still staying with
[1:28:18] us here at this meeting in case there's
[1:28:21] something that a connection made between
[1:28:23] Brandon's presentation and and what you
[1:28:26] shared with us, or do you have to uh I
[1:28:28] have about 30 minutes? That's okay.
[1:28:32] >> All right. Thank you. All right,
[1:28:34] council. How are we doing? Do we need a
[1:28:36] five like a literal five minute break?
[1:28:40] >> Three minute break.
[1:28:43] food, whatever.
[1:29:07] » Well, I'm glad you didn't see my eyes
[1:29:09] closed.
[1:29:10] the actual president. They still be on.
[1:33:14] Okay. So, maybe I'll reach.
[1:33:17] >> You don't have until
[1:33:19] 5.
[1:33:24] » I hope I only have till like 4
[1:33:28] 10 or till five.
[1:33:30] >> What? Oh, Janica's still got a piece.
[1:33:35] >> Be really quick.
[1:33:37] >> Okay.
[1:33:39] >> We did cut 10 minutes from your time.
[1:33:41] >> A piece.
[1:33:44] » We have we have to have five between the
[1:33:46] three of us.
[1:33:50] » Okay.
[1:33:54] So we begin uh our first meeting among
[1:34:00] several that we'll be having in relation
[1:34:01] to our fiscal 27 26 27 uh budget. Uh we first start with um our the revenue
[1:34:12] expectations projections that currently
[1:34:16] um employing in our into our budget.
[1:34:19] Uh that's usually the place that we
[1:34:21] start from and then we try to mirror our
[1:34:24] expenses with those revenues obviously
[1:34:26] because we try to have a a balanced
[1:34:29] budget.
[1:34:30] Um I believe these next few slides I'm
[1:34:33] not going to necessarily go over them in
[1:34:35] depth but I believe um shared them with
[1:34:38] each of you in regarding to one of the
[1:34:41] big things that we are doing this year
[1:34:43] is um separating our public safety
[1:34:48] from our general fund and we are
[1:34:50] creating a what's what's called a
[1:34:52] special revenue fund and the the
[1:34:56] expectation would be that all revenues
[1:34:59] that are direct directly associated with
[1:35:02] public safety would also follow that and
[1:35:05] that we would then go through a process
[1:35:07] of dedicating our entire property
[1:35:09] currently our entire property tax
[1:35:13] through that fund as well. So that all
[1:35:15] property tax dollars are assigned and
[1:35:19] dedicated to the public sa this new
[1:35:21] public safety special revenue fund.
[1:35:26] That's what these discussions here are
[1:35:29] talking about as far as creating that
[1:35:31] special revenue fund. And then we would
[1:35:34] later come to you during that meeting in
[1:35:38] May when we would bring you the tenative
[1:35:40] budget. There would also be a resolution
[1:35:44] that you would then uh pass. I would
[1:35:48] then deliver that resolution to the
[1:35:50] county who would go through the process
[1:35:53] then of changing that property tax name.
[1:35:57] So it would no longer say city of ORM,
[1:35:59] it would say city of Oram public safety.
[1:36:03] Um and they would do that magic within
[1:36:07] their system as far as property tax
[1:36:09] goes. Um just mayor council I think I've
[1:36:13] shared this with most of you but I still
[1:36:15] have a couple left that I need to share
[1:36:17] the details on.
[1:36:19] >> Thank you for clarifying.
[1:36:21] Um
[1:36:23] you can see here the implementation
[1:36:25] timeline that I just mentioned in
[1:36:27] relation to the tenative budget and the
[1:36:29] resolution related to that. Um and then
[1:36:34] later on in the uh June meeting where we
[1:36:38] normally adopt the budget and we would
[1:36:41] adopt the um that property tax change as
[1:36:45] well as that change in the fund um that
[1:36:50] would now exist.
[1:36:53] So, and and here's a just a general look
[1:36:56] as to where that sits in relation to
[1:36:59] those revenue sources that would be
[1:37:01] applied um directly to that new special
[1:37:04] revenue fund.
[1:37:06] Um, I'm giving you an idea of what our
[1:37:09] 26 adopted budget, those ob those
[1:37:11] numbers obviously are currently in our
[1:37:13] general fund, but for comparison's sake,
[1:37:15] I wanted to make sure that you were
[1:37:17] aware of what they were within our
[1:37:18] general fund and what they would look
[1:37:20] like um inside that new special revenue
[1:37:23] fund.
[1:37:26] Um besides property taxes, we also have
[1:37:30] fire fire um sources from both Lyndon
[1:37:33] and um Lynon and Vineyard. Um we receive
[1:37:37] ambulance for any ambulance service that
[1:37:39] we've uh those customers who are using
[1:37:44] ambulance service. Um and then the
[1:37:46] various other um energy sources that I
[1:37:49] mentioned that are directly related to
[1:37:51] the work that they do.
[1:37:52] >> Liquor aotment. So we have liquor
[1:37:56] control officers. Okay.
[1:37:57] >> Um and they do work and then we're paid
[1:38:00] through
[1:38:04] » UHP.
[1:38:05] >> Yeah.
[1:38:07] >> Yes.
[1:38:07] >> PBS
[1:38:09] like
[1:38:10] they they do an a lotment every year
[1:38:12] based on
[1:38:14] >> Yeah.
[1:38:15] >> Okay.
[1:38:17] >> Um this is one of the the important
[1:38:20] screens that I want to focus on during
[1:38:21] the meetings. Um, as you see, uh, we
[1:38:25] talked about and Fred gave an idea of
[1:38:29] So, first, Bob, I want to make sure
[1:38:30] everybody understands the disconnection
[1:38:34] between the rate and the revenue.
[1:38:38] You'll notice over time the certified
[1:38:41] tax rate change. This column right here,
[1:38:46] you'll notice all of those changes are
[1:38:48] negative percentages.
[1:38:51] you go to the right as far as revenue
[1:38:54] goes, those are all positive
[1:38:56] percentages.
[1:38:58] So, one does not equate to the other in
[1:39:01] that regard. So, if you'll recall in
[1:39:04] both Lauria and Phil what they were
[1:39:06] Fred, what they were talking about,
[1:39:09] revenue
[1:39:12] stays the same. We are we're in essence
[1:39:14] guaranteed the same amount of revenue
[1:39:16] each year.
[1:39:18] What I have then done is said here's
[1:39:20] what our fiscal 26 was and that's actual
[1:39:23] and then I said well let's just make an
[1:39:25] assumption here in 27. Let's assume
[1:39:28] property tax values
[1:39:31] are stable or maybe even continue to
[1:39:34] increase a little bit. If they increase
[1:39:35] a little bit and our revenue stayed the
[1:39:39] same or in this case I increased it by a
[1:39:42] whopping 32 grand
[1:39:44] which is a half% increase. So that's
[1:39:46] even higher. That would be even a higher
[1:39:49] revenue number than the year before
[1:39:51] which was.3% increase.
[1:39:55] You would produce a another negative
[1:39:58] certified tax rate meaning it would go
[1:40:00] down again.
[1:40:03] We have talked about a property tax
[1:40:06] increase and and in this model I've put
[1:40:09] in just for an example I've added
[1:40:12] $450,000.
[1:40:14] See the difference between the 32,071
[1:40:18] and the 482071
[1:40:20] over here on the right. That equates to
[1:40:23] about a 7% increase. Right? We add the
[1:40:26] what was already there. So that's a 7%
[1:40:29] increase by adding that $450,000.
[1:40:32] And you can see what then that would
[1:40:34] mean over there on this side. What that
[1:40:37] would mean to our certified tax rate.
[1:40:41] To be honest, that's a total guess. All
[1:40:44] I did is say if it went up 7% over on
[1:40:47] the revenue side, I'm going to make an
[1:40:50] assumption that it the certified tax
[1:40:51] rate would go up 7%. That's not going to
[1:40:54] be true. But I just for so you can just
[1:40:57] see it should cause that certified tax
[1:41:01] rate to have a positive increase. It may
[1:41:03] or may not be 7%. because I have no idea
[1:41:08] at this point until June 8th
[1:41:11] what our certified tax rate is and will
[1:41:14] be. But hopefully this gives you some
[1:41:17] idea of how those two things interplay
[1:41:20] with each other.
[1:41:23] And then as uh both Laura and Fred
[1:41:26] mentioned, new tax law would require if
[1:41:30] we were to do a property tax increase
[1:41:32] requires us to provide a property tax uh
[1:41:36] impact statement. If we're going to
[1:41:38] increase, what would we be spending it
[1:41:40] on? And then that's what this bottom
[1:41:43] section down across the bottom is trying
[1:41:45] to relay. We would then in that impact
[1:41:47] statement, we would outline all the
[1:41:49] things that it requires as far as that
[1:41:51] goes and then say here is what we would
[1:41:54] be spending those additional tax dollars
[1:41:57] on.
[1:41:59] And you can see kind of that breakdown
[1:42:01] of h how those two additional officers
[1:42:04] that we would be adding how that would
[1:42:06] play.
[1:42:08] Now, I want to point out, you'll notice
[1:42:11] that the little asterisk down at the
[1:42:13] stars at the bottom on this slide, it
[1:42:16] does not include that 450,000
[1:42:22] because I don't want to make an
[1:42:23] assumption that that's going to happen.
[1:42:25] So, this slide is just trying to be
[1:42:28] representative of if that was to happen,
[1:42:30] what would that kind of look like?
[1:42:32] Brandon, would you would you educate the
[1:42:35] council on the difference between 6.9
[1:42:38] million versus 8.1 million in terms of
[1:42:40] the property tax total revenue?
[1:42:43] >> Okay. So, yeah. So, this so is you may
[1:42:46] or may not know our our certified tax
[1:42:48] rate consists of two elements. City
[1:42:50] operations and our debt general
[1:42:53] obligation debt.
[1:42:56] is always
[1:42:58] covered 100%.
[1:43:00] So no matter what it is, I provide that
[1:43:03] information to the county. The county
[1:43:05] then sets whatever the rate needs to be
[1:43:08] to produce that amount of income in
[1:43:10] order to cover the general obligation
[1:43:12] debt. They then do another calculation
[1:43:15] based on all of the assessments that
[1:43:18] they do in order to produce same
[1:43:21] property tax amount. Well, it's new
[1:43:24] growth, but for lack of a better uh
[1:43:26] we'll just take new growth out of the
[1:43:28] picture, but to produce the same amount,
[1:43:31] what does that new assessed value equate
[1:43:34] to as far as a certified tax rate? And
[1:43:37] in most cases, as you can see, that
[1:43:39] means it's going to go down. So, the
[1:43:41] 6.89
[1:43:43] million that I have there is not
[1:43:45] inclusive of all property tax we
[1:43:48] receive, but it is that city operational
[1:43:50] piece. I've excluded the geo bond debt
[1:43:53] because it's irrelevant to be honest to
[1:43:55] this situation and and that's in the
[1:43:57] case not only the revenue piece but also
[1:43:59] on those rates those certified tax rates
[1:44:02] they are only the city operational
[1:44:05] Brandon that's also what we would need
[1:44:07] to share and notice out to the public is
[1:44:11] the percent increase just the
[1:44:13] operational side not operational and
[1:44:19] >> and under even the new legislative law.
[1:44:23] Um, their focus, just so everybody's
[1:44:25] aware, their focus is no longer on the
[1:44:29] rate. Their focus is what dollars are
[1:44:33] you asking for and what are you going to
[1:44:35] spend them on? They also understand the
[1:44:39] rate is really somewhat irrelevant. It
[1:44:41] will just be what it is.
[1:44:44] They want you as a body and us as staff
[1:44:46] to focus on what is it that you have a
[1:44:49] need for additional property taxes. So
[1:44:53] that's what this kind of stresses.
[1:44:55] But before I move on, there any
[1:44:58] questions about this new fund andor
[1:45:02] property tax element?
[1:45:06] » Uh one question is is this a new fund a
[1:45:09] vehicle that is newly available to us or
[1:45:11] has it always been available to us?
[1:45:12] >> No. So the special revenue funds are we have several already that exist
[1:45:17] within the city. Um the the difference
[1:45:20] here is that dedication of the property
[1:45:23] tax to that specific fund. And so if you
[1:45:27] dedicate it to that specific fund,
[1:45:29] obviously we have to account for it as
[1:45:31] such. And so in order to account for it
[1:45:34] has to have its own fund so that it's
[1:45:36] transparent and readily visible that
[1:45:39] those all of those dollars are being
[1:45:41] spent on what you said you were
[1:45:42] dedicating those dollars for.
[1:45:46] Ren, isn't a dedicating property tax
[1:45:50] andor public safety dedicated fund isn't
[1:45:54] that relatively recent
[1:45:56] state legislation over the last handful
[1:45:58] [clears throat] of years or am I
[1:46:00] >> uh yeah, that that may that part the
[1:46:02] dedication of the property tax. I don't
[1:46:04] know that part as far as when that went
[1:46:06] into effect.
[1:46:09] cities I know of that have done it have
[1:46:10] been within the past couple years but
[1:46:14] >> so it at least in implementation
[1:46:18] uh cities have only been doing it within
[1:46:20] the last few years but Jica I'll have
[1:46:24] Jennica do some research on when this
[1:46:26] became a possibility
[1:46:32] just to give you a b hopefully a brief
[1:46:34] timeline idea there's two timelines one
[1:46:37] with a property tax increase and one
[1:46:38] without we'll just
[1:46:41] no property tax increase one slide
[1:46:45] meet on May 12th pass a tenative budget
[1:46:49] meet on June 9th pass an adopted budget
[1:46:53] it's all we do all the proper noticing
[1:46:55] that we're required to do I give some
[1:46:58] presentations you have in between those
[1:47:00] two dates you when I give you that
[1:47:03] tenative budget you have the opportunity
[1:47:05] to ask questions review whatever
[1:47:08] make whatever changes you want to see in
[1:47:10] it. Um, and we would then come forth
[1:47:13] with those changes in that June 9th
[1:47:15] meeting and you would pass um and adopt
[1:47:19] that budget at that time. Relatively
[1:47:21] straightforward.
[1:47:24] You want to do a property tax increase.
[1:47:26] However, um, under the new guidelines
[1:47:29] that May 12th meeting would have various
[1:47:32] conditions related to it. uh have to
[1:47:35] notice on the agenda for that meeting
[1:47:38] has to be a separate agenda item. I have
[1:47:40] to indicate that there's a property tax
[1:47:42] increase included in the tenative
[1:47:44] budget. I have to also state that there
[1:47:48] is a impact statement in that budget
[1:47:51] document as well. And then that's in the
[1:47:54] agenda. And then I actually when we're
[1:47:56] at the meeting, I actually have to say
[1:47:57] that again. Um and yeah,
[1:48:00] >> out loud.
[1:48:01] Uh and so Yeah. So then
[1:48:05] everybody's then put on notice that,
[1:48:07] hey, our budget includes a property, a
[1:48:09] potential proposed property tax
[1:48:11] increase. We then would go to June 9th
[1:48:16] and in that June 9th meeting, assuming
[1:48:18] we want to continue with that uh
[1:48:20] proposed property tax increase, then
[1:48:23] same thing, I have to include those same
[1:48:25] things on the agenda. We also have to
[1:48:28] produce um that that do that impact
[1:48:31] statement which has to stay there. And
[1:48:33] then we have to in that meeting have to
[1:48:34] indicate those four bullet point items
[1:48:36] that are there that we are intending to
[1:48:39] exceed the certified tax rate as given
[1:48:41] to us by the county. We intend to the
[1:48:45] those approximations of what the impact
[1:48:47] of that will be and when we would be
[1:48:49] holding uh the public hearing in
[1:48:53] relation to that property tax increase
[1:48:56] which would be sometime in August as
[1:48:59] determined between us negotiated if you
[1:49:01] will between us and the county.
[1:49:03] >> How does that work if your budget is
[1:49:05] when when do we pass the budget? June
[1:49:06] 9th. So, if we were going to do a
[1:49:09] property tax increase, what you would
[1:49:11] actually then be um
[1:49:15] what you would actually be passing is
[1:49:18] what they then call an interim budget.
[1:49:22] And in that interim budget, it would
[1:49:24] exclude you would pass everything
[1:49:25] potentially pass everything else
[1:49:27] >> except for the property tax component
[1:49:30] which has to be separated.
[1:49:33] >> That's what Laura was talking about.
[1:49:35] everything else and you then have to
[1:49:38] obviously not spend any of those dollars
[1:49:41] that that increase is linked to.
[1:49:43] >> So basically public safety would just be
[1:49:46] on hold in those
[1:49:47] >> those two officers or whatever I was
[1:49:49] talking.
[1:49:50] >> Okay.
[1:49:50] >> Correct.
[1:49:51] >> Thank you. And so the then you identify
[1:49:54] that then when you go to the property
[1:49:56] tax increase all you're then really if
[1:49:58] you were to pass go ahead and pass
[1:50:00] everything else then all you're doing at
[1:50:02] that that is passing it saying this is
[1:50:05] what we want to do going forward and
[1:50:07] then once it's passed it's then included
[1:50:09] within our adopted budget at that
[1:50:11] >> if it doesn't pass you have to amend
[1:50:12] your budget. If we if you don't pass it,
[1:50:15] then the interim budget in that meeting
[1:50:18] would then have an ordinance that would
[1:50:20] say the interim budget that we passed
[1:50:22] back in June is now our final budget.
[1:50:29] These are genuinely these are good
[1:50:32] questions and these really are part uh
[1:50:36] essentially not only truth in taxation
[1:50:38] historically but the additional
[1:50:40] constraints added in this last
[1:50:42] legislative session in action.
[1:50:44] >> I'll share from my experience being on
[1:50:47] the council when we did do we had a
[1:50:49] truth in taxation we we didn't have this
[1:50:53] where it gets pulled out. We had to
[1:50:55] approve a tenative budget and the
[1:50:56] tenative budget that we had included the
[1:50:59] tax increase.
[1:51:01] >> And so even though we and then we
[1:51:04] proceeded as though the tax increase
[1:51:06] were in the budget and then at the and
[1:51:10] in August when we had our truth and
[1:51:12] taxation hearing, we the council voted
[1:51:15] to change the percent budget. There was
[1:51:17] a property tax increase, but it wasn't
[1:51:19] as much as what was in the budget. And
[1:51:22] so you had to go back and and fix that.
[1:51:25] >> Correct. You would that in your document
[1:51:27] >> reflect that rather than say pull that
[1:51:29] out. So just it's
[1:51:33] yeah that was just our experience from
[1:51:36] before.
[1:51:36] >> One other fun little item is this
[1:51:39] special note down at the bottom in the
[1:51:41] state legislature. They also now would
[1:51:44] require us in that August public hearing
[1:51:46] to be able to allow people to
[1:51:49] participate in that meeting. while not
[1:51:51] being here. So they have to have either
[1:51:53] audio, video or both capabilities to
[1:51:57] participate in the meeting as well as be
[1:52:01] able to write written commentary
[1:52:04] um through whatever means we can provide
[1:52:07] before the meeting and during the
[1:52:09] meeting.
[1:52:11] So that's a Pete has assured me that he
[1:52:14] can make it happen, but it might be a
[1:52:17] little bit tough on certain elements of
[1:52:19] it. But if that we were going to go that
[1:52:21] route, we would certainly uh get on the
[1:52:23] horse to make sure that that was uh
[1:52:25] going to be meeting that requirement.
[1:52:28] >> Okay.
[1:52:30] Moving on. That then leaves uh the
[1:52:33] remainder of our major general fund
[1:52:35] revenues, which to be honest at this
[1:52:38] point, once you pull out all of that
[1:52:40] other stuff, basically is sales and
[1:52:42] franchise taxes in the general fund.
[1:52:45] Those are the two biggest elements um in
[1:52:47] there. You saw in Fred's um discussion,
[1:52:51] he he used 3%. I'll be honest, we did
[1:52:54] not correlate that. Um, I just put 3% in
[1:52:57] because I went down to our conference
[1:53:00] and the state economist said that what
[1:53:03] the state is using is 4.1 for the
[1:53:05] current year and 3.5
[1:53:08] for fiscal 27. And I said, well, we're
[1:53:11] not quite usually around what the state
[1:53:14] gets because they're much more
[1:53:15] diversified obviously. So I am using 3
[1:53:19] 12% for the current year for 26 within a
[1:53:23] 3% increase for 27. I will say I it's
[1:53:29] probably slightly more on the aggressive
[1:53:31] side than I might normally have done. Um
[1:53:34] but
[1:53:36] the set is where it is.
[1:53:37] >> But there's nothing that mandates what
[1:53:38] number you use. We can use whatever
[1:53:40] number we want. essentially
[1:53:41] >> you can't whatever we
[1:53:43] >> more aggressive than
[1:53:45] more conservative to match the last
[1:53:47] couple of years.
[1:53:48] >> Yes. You know he mentioned the last
[1:53:49] three years were a 1% growth a negative
[1:53:54] 1% growth and last year was a 3% growth.
[1:53:57] So
[1:53:58] >> take your pick which year is this going
[1:54:00] to be say what
[1:54:02] >> 3% would be on the aggressive sighting
[1:54:04] would be this. And
[1:54:05] >> what do you think a more middle of the
[1:54:07] road number would be? Two.
[1:54:10] Thank you.
[1:54:12] >> Um, and as you can see, most of the
[1:54:14] other revenues um are pretty and Fred
[1:54:18] even pointed out there's not a lot of
[1:54:19] growth in those. They're not very big
[1:54:21] dollars, even the ones that do have high
[1:54:23] percentages. Um, so those kind of things
[1:54:27] are and you might notice interest
[1:54:29] earnings are going down. We spent a lot
[1:54:31] of money on a particular building. I
[1:54:33] won't know which won't say which one but
[1:54:35] uh that re really reduces the amount of
[1:54:37] interest earnings that uh the general
[1:54:39] fund receives.
[1:54:42] >> Any questions before I move on?
[1:54:45] >> All right.
[1:54:47] >> Talked about utopia here. Just a slide
[1:54:50] to give you an idea of what the last uh
[1:54:52] five years have been and what we maybe
[1:54:54] we are expecting for fiscal 27. Um
[1:54:59] fiscal 23 was really the year where they
[1:55:02] really started to bump things up uh and
[1:55:05] start producing really a bigger um not
[1:55:09] just matching that 2% that Fred
[1:55:12] mentioned the 2% growth in our payment.
[1:55:15] That [snorts] was the year they really
[1:55:16] bumped it well beyond that that just
[1:55:19] covering that 2%.
[1:55:23] Uh cemetery fees are also general fund
[1:55:27] related. Um and so and people have a
[1:55:30] general interest in cemetery fees. So
[1:55:32] this gives you an idea of what we're
[1:55:34] looking for in relation to uh an
[1:55:37] increase in those fees.
[1:55:42] » When did we look at those last couple
[1:55:44] years?
[1:55:44] >> We look at Yeah, we adjust them every
[1:55:46] year. And
[1:55:50] um so now I'm going to talk about all of
[1:55:53] the other fund, not all of them, but all
[1:55:55] of the other major funds. And before we
[1:55:57] get there, I wanted to before we start
[1:55:59] talking about rates and different things
[1:56:00] in relation to those funds, I just want
[1:56:03] to kind of get and I realize, okay,
[1:56:05] that's pretty tall. It's much smaller on
[1:56:06] here.
[1:56:07] >> I'm good.
[1:56:08] >> So I wanted to give you an idea.
[1:56:12] what is being included in these rates
[1:56:16] that you're going to see for each fund
[1:56:18] and what they look like in total.
[1:56:23] You'll see that all of our rates, which
[1:56:26] we didn't I didn't put it on there, but
[1:56:28] those are all the fiscal 27 proposed
[1:56:31] rates. what that would mean
[1:56:35] comparatively to all the other cities
[1:56:40] current rates for fiscal 26.
[1:56:44] And then out here on this far right
[1:56:46] side, we make an estimate
[1:56:50] of based on some historical past what
[1:56:53] those rates that they might Ours you'll
[1:56:56] notice is the same 140 either way
[1:56:58] because those are our fiscal 27 proposed
[1:57:00] rates. But what would those other cities
[1:57:02] rates look like if they do that normal
[1:57:05] historical average kind of increase to
[1:57:07] their rates? So that we're in essence
[1:57:09] kind of comparing apples to apples as
[1:57:11] best we can.
[1:57:14] That's just related to utilities.
[1:57:17] Um then I just want this includes the
[1:57:20] property tax and this number right here
[1:57:23] does include a property tax increase. It
[1:57:27] would be about a dollar and a4 dollar30
[1:57:30] less
[1:57:32] if you were to not do a property tax
[1:57:35] increase.
[1:57:36] >> Still just above Springville.
[1:57:40] >> Correct. So you would be just right
[1:57:43] around where they're at. Yeah. Just
[1:57:44] barely above normal.
[1:57:46] >> The proposed number is where is compared
[1:57:48] against their existing number.
[1:57:50] >> Okay.
[1:57:50] >> So that's proposed.
[1:57:51] >> A little better.
[1:57:52] >> Yeah. These numbers are all where they
[1:57:55] currently exist. There is no estimation
[1:57:58] included in here if they were to do any
[1:58:00] kind of property tax increase.
[1:58:03] That one we definitely don't know at
[1:58:05] this point which one of those are doing
[1:58:07] anything. But Brandon, I'd like to
[1:58:09] highlight something you said. Uh the
[1:58:12] proposed if we were to do what you're
[1:58:14] proposing, so a $450,000 a year increase
[1:58:18] in total property tax revenue. The
[1:58:22] average impact for sort of an average
[1:58:24] home, we guesstimate about a dollar and
[1:58:28] a quarter per month.
[1:58:33] » That's really close to what what we
[1:58:35] experienced back um what was it 2012
[1:58:39] the $3 million?
[1:58:41] >> Yeah, it was 2012. It was about I
[1:58:43] remember people saying it was like
[1:58:44] getting a a hamburger, a combo.
[1:58:46] >> Yeah. A happy meal. So it was like five
[1:58:48] bucks for for three million. So $1 is
[1:58:52] going to be around 600,000 or so,
[1:58:54] 500,000. So it's very similar to what we
[1:58:57] experienced back then.
[1:58:59] >> So about $15 a year.
[1:59:01] >> Yeah. We have to see that's
[1:59:03] >> So But what
[1:59:04] >> average? So
[1:59:05] >> yeah, what average house prices have
[1:59:06] been using?
[1:59:08] >> What what's the house average?
[1:59:11] >> 513. 513.
[1:59:13] >> That has been there for years, right?
[1:59:15] Well, we actually well we increased that
[1:59:17] based on what the county tells us the
[1:59:19] average rate is.
[1:59:20] >> So the county tells us what our average
[1:59:23] >> 7800 we're going to be paying more than
[1:59:24] a happy meal.
[1:59:26] >> Yeah.
[1:59:26] >> Just full disclosure. I just don't want
[1:59:28] to tell
[1:59:29] >> per year. Not that it's going to be bad.
[1:59:31] It's probably
[1:59:32] >> super sized happy.
[1:59:33] >> Super
[1:59:38] stuck on that one. Right. And that's
[1:59:40] interesting to know that it came from
[1:59:41] the county.
[1:59:43] It's never been changed.
[1:59:44] >> Yeah. It will not do you remember?
[1:59:46] >> Yeah. So I get I get those updated
[1:59:48] values from them every year. So that's
[1:59:49] from June 2025. So we would have updated
[1:59:52] >> so countywide average.
[1:59:54] >> This is for ORUM. That's the average
[1:59:55] ORUM um home value.
[1:59:58] >> Yeah.
[1:59:59] >> Tax at the 15.
[2:00:01] >> That's their home value. So you should
[2:00:03] keep that in mind. As we all know the
[2:00:05] county value is significantly lower than
[2:00:08] what your probably real value is, right?
[2:00:12] county assessed values.
[2:00:15] >> What's that?
[2:00:16] >> Average.
[2:00:16] >> Okay. Average.
[2:00:18] >> So, with that setting in mind, as far as
[2:00:21] the rates go,
[2:00:23] >> so here's a breakdown just of revenue
[2:00:25] comparative for each of our major other
[2:00:28] uh funds that we have um for both what
[2:00:32] we put for our 26 budget as compared to
[2:00:35] what our proposed 27 budget um looks
[2:00:38] like currently. Uh these are subject to
[2:00:41] change. I will tell you that. But this
[2:00:43] is where they're at currently. Um we as
[2:00:47] you saw with uh various care taxs, I'm
[2:00:50] slightly being even slightly more
[2:00:52] aggressive um in relation to how much uh
[2:00:55] we get and and I should say that 4.8
[2:00:57] that's a little misleading because the
[2:00:59] 3.2 is going to be low.
[2:01:02] >> So same concept. I'm taking that 3.2 and
[2:01:06] I'm saying well it's really not going to
[2:01:08] end up at 3.2. two, it's going to be 3.3
[2:01:11] or 3.25.
[2:01:14] So the 4.8 is slightly misleading in
[2:01:17] that regard because we're comparing
[2:01:19] budget to budget and not what my
[2:01:21] estimated actual is going to be.
[2:01:24] Um
[2:01:26] so you can see most of those have um
[2:01:29] relatively healthy increases and then
[2:01:31] we'll touch on each one of these as we
[2:01:33] go. here. Well, we don't What's the
[2:01:35] yellow point? Pull water. We have a
[2:01:38] proposed You can see the tier rates and
[2:01:39] the associated percentages related to
[2:01:42] each of those tiers and the increases.
[2:01:44] Um the bigger bigger change is down in
[2:01:46] the bottom section under the proposed
[2:01:48] base rate changes. Um as those are
[2:01:51] proposed to be 5 a.5%.
[2:01:55] Um you if you touch back there, you can
[2:01:58] see that total revenue-wise has about a
[2:02:01] 5.8% an 8% total increase when uh
[2:02:04] compared to the prior year budget.
[2:02:09] Um also within that water fund, we have
[2:02:12] last year we had a new water source fee
[2:02:15] related to Jordan and Deer Creek. And
[2:02:18] that fee would then be also raised from
[2:02:21] 377 to 406. And this year we have a a
[2:02:25] new regulatory fee that we're that we're
[2:02:28] being required to and we are recovering.
[2:02:32] Um and that's at 802 per thousand
[2:02:34] gallons. And you can see the proposed
[2:02:36] revenue that would be associated with
[2:02:37] that regulatory fee
[2:02:42] for sewer. The water reclamation fund.
[2:02:45] uh the current proposal for the base
[2:02:47] rate see while still while a healthy
[2:02:50] increase certainly not to the same level
[2:02:52] as the prior two years um trying to
[2:02:55] again follow along with our current
[2:02:57] master plan
[2:02:59] um and then a volume charge change um
[2:03:03] also I believe associated with that
[2:03:05] master plan
[2:03:09] the master plan includes
[2:03:12] phases of debt to then do projects
[2:03:15] associated with the master plan. So, it
[2:03:18] is it helps us qualify for the debt
[2:03:21] needed to make the improvements
[2:03:23] uh primarily at our wastewater treatment
[2:03:26] plan.
[2:03:27] >> That was $260 million that was adopted
[2:03:29] by the council a couple of years ago in
[2:03:32] 2023. So, everything's going to increase
[2:03:35] as you all know. Um so, we are just
[2:03:37] going to be anticipating those
[2:03:39] increases, but we're funding it right
[2:03:40] now. We've coordinated with Lewis
[2:03:42] Roberts and Birmingham, Fred Philpot
[2:03:43] directly to incorporate uh the debt
[2:03:46] portion of that payment for that. That's
[2:03:48] why these increases are in place to pay
[2:03:50] for the debt. We anticip anticipate
[2:03:53] bonding probably the end of this year
[2:03:55] for about $65 million for the water
[2:03:59] reclamation facility
[2:04:03] storm water. Uh you can see the in
[2:04:06] proposed increase there. You can see
[2:04:07] that change is pretty big. But you'll
[2:04:09] recall hopefully you recall we are in
[2:04:11] the midst of trying to deal with
[2:04:13] abandonment of the certain of existing
[2:04:15] canals. Um trying to get this fund to a
[2:04:19] point where we can uh deal with those uh
[2:04:22] conditions as well.
[2:04:24] solid waste. Uh we are basically had
[2:04:29] went through a lot of negotiations with
[2:04:30] waste management and we increase here is
[2:04:34] basically in response to what we've been
[2:04:36] able to negotiate uh with waste
[2:04:38] management and recovering those
[2:04:40] additional costs that that we worked out
[2:04:43] with them.
[2:04:45] street lighting fund. Again, another um
[2:04:49] increase in relation to the street
[2:04:51] lighting uh system and the maintenance
[2:04:53] thereof.
[2:04:57] Um on the recreation side, uh you'll
[2:05:00] notice there were over the last three
[2:05:02] fiscal years, there were zero changes to
[2:05:04] any of the funds shown here. And uh to
[2:05:08] be honest, it's just come time to be
[2:05:10] able to to start uh
[2:05:14] increasing those fees um as necessary.
[2:05:16] You'll notice we still didn't uh
[2:05:18] increase the general annual admissions.
[2:05:21] So kind of potentially trying to get
[2:05:23] those get get people paid by those
[2:05:25] passes uh better deal for you.
[2:05:30] And finally, in in our budget, and soon
[2:05:34] as we're set, we will be delivering to
[2:05:36] you the remaining the a fees and charges
[2:05:39] schedule, which is one of the exhibits
[2:05:40] within our tenative budget, but we will
[2:05:43] hopefully be getting that to you prior
[2:05:45] to um that date. Um I think we're we're
[2:05:49] so we'll work on trying to be able to
[2:05:51] get that to you as soon as possible that
[2:05:52] has a listing of the 20 pages of fees
[2:05:56] and charges that we have within our
[2:05:58] budget. So,
[2:06:00] are there any question? I know we kind
[2:06:03] of rushed, kind of pushed through, but
[2:06:04] that's to give you just kind of a heads
[2:06:06] up as to what you know where we're
[2:06:09] headed and what you're we're intending
[2:06:11] to kind of show you uh come to tenative
[2:06:14] budget.
[2:06:15] >> Will we get these slides also?
[2:06:17] >> Yes. And I Teresa has this this
[2:06:20] presentation.
[2:06:26] » Thanks for the detail you provided.
[2:06:28] appreciate that.
[2:06:30] Given that you presented right after
[2:06:32] Phil [clears throat]
[2:06:34] and Phil showed us some scary charts,
[2:06:36] >> he did.
[2:06:38] >> Uh to what extent does this proposal
[2:06:42] help put us on a more sustainable fiscal
[2:06:45] pathway? I can't quite tell from the
[2:06:47] numbers you presented how much of Phil's
[2:06:50] concerns this resolves and how much of
[2:06:52] it remains unresolved.
[2:06:54] uh it really probably does not resolve
[2:06:57] very many if any ongoing issues. It is
[2:07:03] um our best attempt and to be honest as
[2:07:07] I mentioned with sales taxes being
[2:07:09] significantly more aggressive with
[2:07:12] various elements particularly within
[2:07:14] that general fund elements to try to
[2:07:17] make that come as balanced of a budget
[2:07:19] as we possibly can. You'll recall that
[2:07:23] pink line that he had. It would be
[2:07:26] potentially extending that pink line
[2:07:29] further out than he showed it. So that
[2:07:33] would be what the this budget would in
[2:07:36] reality end up doing.
[2:07:37] >> Doesn't solve anything. It just uh
[2:07:39] buffers a little bit.
[2:07:40] >> Correct.
[2:07:41] >> And I say more specifically for the
[2:07:43] general fund though.
[2:07:44] >> Yeah, that's enterprise funds. We are
[2:07:46] progressively moving forward.
[2:07:47] >> Yes. And I just want to clarify, our
[2:07:49] budget has to be balanced every year,
[2:07:54] >> which is why we're talking about
[2:07:55] potentially modifying the property taxes
[2:07:57] for this year. But you're saying that
[2:07:59] whatever we modify this year, according
[2:08:00] to your proposal, won't necessarily
[2:08:02] solve our long-term issues.
[2:08:04] >> Correct.
[2:08:11] » And Jennica's up next. Other questions?
[2:08:15] >> Chris or Jennica?
[2:08:19] might as well
[2:08:27] is being up there. I also just want to
[2:08:30] say I really appreciate the council's
[2:08:34] willingness and encouragement to engage
[2:08:37] in that long-term general fund
[2:08:40] sustainment
[2:08:43] shows that you do care about um state of
[2:08:48] the city's finances not just in the
[2:08:51] short term but over the long term. Um,
[2:08:54] and like with everything, I think, you
[2:08:58] know, it's another tool we have to use
[2:09:00] to make sure that we're still leading
[2:09:02] with being efficient and effective. Um,
[2:09:06] and and also going after all different
[2:09:09] kinds of revenues. So, we'll we'll still
[2:09:13] do the same things that we've done in
[2:09:14] the past, too, to to cover the gap in
[2:09:17] terms of going after grants and making
[2:09:20] sure that we're uh provide services to
[2:09:23] our neighboring cities that residents on
[2:09:27] subsidizing those that service delivery.
[2:09:31] Um, so anyway, just
[2:09:34] want to make want to make sure that
[2:09:38] know that we as staff appreciate your
[2:09:41] willingness to to look at difficult
[2:09:44] things and and uh I appreciate
[2:09:48] the encouragement to do. You
[2:09:56] » want to talk about getting some tough
[2:09:57] toughness? It's not tough. There's there
[2:10:01] were concerns when this when the when
[2:10:03] Provo City adopted the TU fee
[2:10:06] >> back in 2013 and they they thought about
[2:10:09] changing it to UTF. That'd be utility
[2:10:12] transportation fee because they thought
[2:10:14] tough sounded maybe aggressive or
[2:10:16] something.
[2:10:18] >> In any case,
[2:10:19] >> here's what it is.
[2:10:20] >> So, the transportation utility fee, I'm
[2:10:23] going to give you some historical
[2:10:24] background a little bit. How much time
[2:10:26] do I have? Is it about 10 minutes? You
[2:10:28] think? You have a half hour
[2:10:32] you do
[2:10:37] like 10 minutes you said right?
[2:10:38] >> You all's got to be done at 5.
[2:10:41] >> You want Carrie.
[2:10:42] >> We we only need a few minutes but we
[2:10:44] still have the care tax to talk from 5
[2:10:46] to 5:30.
[2:10:48] >> I think you stop at 5
[2:10:49] >> to 10 minutes.
[2:10:52] >> I did but I got it fixed or changed. So
[2:10:55] >> stop at 5:30. 5:30.
[2:10:59] >> Yeah. So, this this item agenda item has
[2:11:01] till five.
[2:11:02] >> Okay. Well, I'm excited to present to
[2:11:04] you on the tough. So, transportation
[2:11:06] utility fee. Basically, this is a
[2:11:08] funding mechanism that creates so
[2:11:10] long-term sustainability. We're talking
[2:11:13] a lot about sustainability for general
[2:11:14] fund. Historically, uh the streets have
[2:11:18] been maintained through excise tax
[2:11:20] revenues and sales tax revenues. most
[2:11:21] recently Utah Utah County uh sales tax
[2:11:25] transportation portion of that. Um so
[2:11:28] it's it's creating another lever to fall
[2:11:31] if if need be and we feel like we do
[2:11:33] have a need we have a gap funding gap to provide quality roads and surfaces
[2:11:38] for drivers in
[2:11:41] the revenue generated proportionately
[2:11:43] amongst all users of the road. That was
[2:11:45] one of the concerns that was expressed
[2:11:48] uh years ago when
[2:11:51] Libertas um objected to Pleasant Groves
[2:11:55] utility fee. So some history here.
[2:11:57] Probably implemented the the first uh
[2:11:59] TUF in 2013 in the state of Utah. Other
[2:12:02] cities followed a few followed over time
[2:12:05] including Island um and others I'll show
[2:12:08] you on here. Island now Vineyard most
[2:12:11] recently we're proposing it now this
[2:12:12] year. Pleasant Grove American Forks
[2:12:15] considering it this year and so forth.
[2:12:17] In 2020, uh there was an objection to
[2:12:20] Pleasant Grove's tough analysis and fee
[2:12:23] that was implemented and that was
[2:12:26] objected by Libertas. They suspended
[2:12:28] their uh um applying their fees in 2020.
[2:12:32] It went to the Utah Supreme Court and
[2:12:34] then Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor
[2:12:36] of Pleasant Grove in 203 and deemed that
[2:12:39] this is a legal fee to charge. Libertas'
[2:12:42] perspective was that this is a an
[2:12:45] unfounded uh tax of sorts. So and indeed
[2:12:48] they they they
[2:12:50] determined that there was a nexus
[2:12:52] between the fee and the services
[2:12:53] provided. And so that's uh that's since
[2:12:56] been covered by the Utah Supreme Court.
[2:13:00] Since then, the Utah legislature has
[2:13:02] sought to formalize an acceptable plan
[2:13:05] for transportation utility fee
[2:13:07] guidelines. Um in 2024, 25 and 26, they
[2:13:11] went before the legislature. 24 and 25,
[2:13:14] House Bill 367, and then in 25, House
[2:13:17] Bill 34, Senate Bill 310, they all got
[2:13:22] um tabled and they didn't uh get
[2:13:24] accepted in large part because of some
[2:13:26] opposition by the church to uh oppose
[2:13:31] that because primarily for BYU impacts
[2:13:34] and so forth. The impact to them was
[2:13:36] going to be a very large impact like
[2:13:38] this was a tax on them. Um, however,
[2:13:41] there need to be a fee. In 2026, uh, the
[2:13:44] legislation went through and it was very
[2:13:46] successful. And this gives you kind of
[2:13:48] an update of what that is. So, House
[2:13:50] Bill 425, the tough authorization
[2:13:53] authorized a municipality or county to
[2:13:56] impose a transportation utility fee.
[2:13:59] Similar framework uh to 2024 and 2025.
[2:14:03] Um, and some of those concerns back then
[2:14:05] that I I shared with you were regarding
[2:14:07] taxing, not taxing, but applying a fee
[2:14:10] on um, ecclesia or church properties.
[2:14:16] Um, the bill defines a tough as a fee
[2:14:18] imposed to generate revenue to pay for
[2:14:20] costs associated with developing,
[2:14:23] constructing, maintaining, operating,
[2:14:25] repairing, upgrading, or replacing a
[2:14:27] transportation facility.
[2:14:29] It's extremely broad.
[2:14:32] what what Provo uh adopted in 2013 was
[2:14:36] just to address the needs to uh maintain
[2:14:39] what is existing, not to actually build
[2:14:41] something new. And so this is a a
[2:14:44] broadening of what we we're expecting it
[2:14:47] to be. Um there's no language explicitly
[2:14:51] related to exemption of religious or tax
[2:14:53] exempt facilities. However, how they got
[2:14:56] around that they said that um you would
[2:14:59] exclude uh the the least busy
[2:15:03] transportation day of the week. Not for
[2:15:06] a facility, but citywide. So citywide,
[2:15:10] what would you say is the least amount
[2:15:12] of traffic that you would experience?
[2:15:14] >> Sunday. Sunday.
[2:15:14] >> On a Sunday. Therefore, [clears throat]
[2:15:16] any data collected regarding a Sunday is
[2:15:19] eliminated from the study.
[2:15:21] Church like that. So that's how it went
[2:15:24] forth.
[2:15:26] That's how
[2:15:27] >> Chris, if you could just go back real
[2:15:28] quick.
[2:15:28] >> Sure.
[2:15:29] >> In this in my state of the city address,
[2:15:31] you heard me talk about wrestling and
[2:15:33] wrestling even friends and neighbors. I
[2:15:36] may or may not have had to wrestle with
[2:15:39] Senator Brady Grammar over
[2:15:41] transportation utility fund. [laughter]
[2:15:44] >> I'm sure you ribs
[2:15:48] broken.
[2:15:49] No ribs were broken, but some of us were
[2:15:52] humbled.
[2:15:54] >> Some of us,
[2:15:56] >> one of them at least.
[2:16:00] >> Um, the key highlights from this bill,
[2:16:01] I'm going to go ahead and read these
[2:16:02] through. Um, it requires a reasonable
[2:16:04] relationship or an access between the
[2:16:06] fee and the service being provided. So,
[2:16:10] the benefit are created by those who pay
[2:16:11] the fee. Um, it requires a study to show
[2:16:14] that there is a maintenance need and a
[2:16:16] funding gap. Currently, in developing
[2:16:18] the fee, it needs to use methodologies
[2:16:20] based on trip generations, vehicle
[2:16:22] types, traffic counts, and it could
[2:16:24] exclude the day of the week which has
[2:16:26] the lowest traffic count is what I just
[2:16:28] mentioned. It also imposes different
[2:16:31] tough rates, shall impose different
[2:16:34] tough rates for different
[2:16:35] classifications of users, including
[2:16:38] commercial and residential. Right. Um,
[2:16:40] it requires a public hearing before
[2:16:42] imposing the TU. City shall establish a
[2:16:45] transportation fund for all TUF revenue.
[2:16:48] Tough may be imposed only by ordinance
[2:16:50] and it must have an appeals process. Um,
[2:16:54] so the city shall conduct an annual
[2:16:55] review and then TUS expire automatically
[2:16:58] after 10 years. That could be updated
[2:17:00] every year if you choose to. It's just
[2:17:02] uh you have to spend some extra money to
[2:17:04] do something like that. So you might
[2:17:06] ask, well, where are we in this process?
[2:17:09] Everything in yellow shows what we've
[2:17:10] done to date. Everything in green is
[2:17:12] showing um things that are coming
[2:17:14] forward, coming soon based on your input
[2:17:17] and feedback. So there's an industry
[2:17:20] standard for trip generation rates that
[2:17:22] are applied to um to all all of the
[2:17:25] trips that are generating throughout the
[2:17:27] city. That's using what's a document
[2:17:29] that's called the IT trip generation
[2:17:31] manual. Institute of Transportation
[2:17:33] Engineers has developed a trip
[2:17:34] generation
[2:17:36] nationwide uh um um product that's out
[2:17:40] there that helps us as as communities as
[2:17:44] traffic engineers, as civil engineers
[2:17:46] and so forth in determining how much
[2:17:48] traffic is actually being generated
[2:17:50] typically on average over the course of
[2:17:53] a day and then you can apply that
[2:17:55] throughout the course of the year. We
[2:17:57] needed to also uh perform a study and
[2:17:59] show that there's a maintenance need and
[2:18:00] a funding gap. We have and I'll get into
[2:18:03] details on this uh in just a m moment,
[2:18:05] but we have a funding gap we feel as as
[2:18:08] about $4 million for our streets. Um we
[2:18:12] have the excise tax funds that are
[2:18:15] coming in through gas tax, gas sales,
[2:18:19] and then we also have a sales tax for
[2:18:21] Utah County. Those both generate around
[2:18:24] $4 million each. And so we feel like we
[2:18:27] need to be putting or investing about 12
[2:18:29] million in today to be able to uh
[2:18:33] maintain our roads in a in an acceptable
[2:18:36] um surface manner. So
[2:18:40] again I'll get into the details on that.
[2:18:42] You I'm sure you'll question all that.
[2:18:44] >> Is this just for local roads not do
[2:18:46] owned roads? We're talking like state
[2:18:48] street right?
[2:18:48] >> No no not state just you uh warm city
[2:18:51] roads. So Geneva Road, State Street,
[2:18:53] University Parkway and 8th North and
[2:18:56] west of State Street on 16th North are
[2:18:59] all owned, operated, maintained,
[2:19:01] referred, replaced by UD do.
[2:19:04] >> Thank you.
[2:19:05] >> Um, in developing these methodologies,
[2:19:09] we we we already commented on that. So
[2:19:11] we use weekday it trip generation rates.
[2:19:14] Um, and we we hired a metrics. They were
[2:19:17] the first firm to perform a
[2:19:19] transportation utility fee study back in
[2:19:22] 2013.
[2:19:23] And so, uh, what they've adopted in
[2:19:26] Provo City has been kind of the model, I
[2:19:28] say, for the entire state. And the
[2:19:31] legislators that were involved in in
[2:19:33] creating this legislation,
[2:19:35] uh, specifically have referred to that,
[2:19:37] referenced that because they feel it is
[2:19:39] very solid. Um, so imposing tough rates,
[2:19:42] we have two residential rates that we'll
[2:19:44] be imposing. That's what we're
[2:19:46] suggesting now. And four non-residential
[2:19:48] rates. That's what Parametric has
[2:19:50] recommended. Um, and then it says to
[2:19:52] require a public hearing. That would be
[2:19:54] coming soon. Pending your approval and
[2:19:56] recommendation to move forward with
[2:19:58] this. We need to create a transportation
[2:20:00] fund. We haven't created that yet.
[2:20:01] That'll come soon. Then we need to uh
[2:20:03] bring forward an ordinance that will
[2:20:05] adopt this. That's coming soon. If you
[2:20:07] choose to move forward and then
[2:20:09] conducting an annual review. So, at the
[2:20:11] end of each year, we need to look at um
[2:20:13] what were we able to do? we have to look
[2:20:15] back a year in review and see were we
[2:20:17] able to um have enough money to to meet
[2:20:20] the needs of the study that we've
[2:20:22] performed and that shows that and
[2:20:24] identified the funding gaps.
[2:20:26] Um we have a document called the state
[2:20:28] of the streets document. It's it's uh
[2:20:30] prepared and modified and updated by our
[2:20:32] streets division um in part in
[2:20:34] conjunction with the engineering uh
[2:20:36] division. Uh the last time we've updated
[2:20:39] this is 2021 and we do this about every
[2:20:41] 5 years. So we're we're due for another
[2:20:43] one right now. This street is an ideal
[2:20:45] looking street. It looks pretty brand
[2:20:46] new. It's black. I mean, cracking and so
[2:20:48] forth. It has vibrant uh disparity color
[2:20:52] for the lines and so forth. It looks
[2:20:53] really good. We want to try to maintain
[2:20:55] our streets to that level as best as we
[2:20:58] can. What this graphic shows is if we uh
[2:21:02] don't perform any maintenance on our
[2:21:03] streets, how a local street would
[2:21:06] decline. So what you see in red is a
[2:21:08] local street in green is a collector
[2:21:10] street. Purple here is an arterial
[2:21:13] street. You might ask, well why would a
[2:21:15] local street last longer? Well, you
[2:21:16] don't have um you know WB63
[2:21:19] uh trucks going down that street with heavy loads whereas you have a lot
[2:21:24] of freight and other um goods and
[2:21:26] products that are being transported on
[2:21:28] our arterials. So um the actual amount
[2:21:31] of damage uh that'll occur over the same
[2:21:35] uh it's accelerated about six or seven
[2:21:37] years here from from uh the local to the
[2:21:40] arterial. So they get damaged a lot more
[2:21:42] frequently require more repair and
[2:21:44] replacement and and attention over time.
[2:21:47] So this is what it looks like. Critical
[2:21:49] zone one, we have what's called a
[2:21:51] pavement condition index on the on the
[2:21:53] left. Goes from 0 to 100. 100 means it's
[2:21:55] brand new. It's freshly laid. Um and
[2:21:58] then you come out over here in this line
[2:22:00] for a critical uh right here. Then
[2:22:02] critical zone one. You get to fair poor
[2:22:04] and then failing in this zone right
[2:22:07] here. Um we're looking at perhaps having
[2:22:10] to do an overlay. And then down here
[2:22:13] you've lost your road alto together. You have to do a reconstruct of that
[2:22:16] road. So many you've probably seen a
[2:22:19] road that looks like it's been cracked
[2:22:21] severely that and you have you can
[2:22:23] almost pick a piece of asphalt off the
[2:22:25] road. That's called alligator
[2:22:27] in a stat to that status. So right now
[2:22:30] linen city is working on a road uh 20 or
[2:22:33] 2000 north that we have a shared
[2:22:34] agreement on west of state to 1000 west
[2:22:37] when they're traveling. You can go out
[2:22:38] there and you can physically pick out
[2:22:40] chunks of asphalt. The road has failed.
[2:22:42] Can't overlay it. You can't put any more
[2:22:44] lipstick on that. It's not going to make
[2:22:45] it look nice. Might make it look a
[2:22:47] little nice but not not very good. It's
[2:22:49] not going to last. So what we need to do
[2:22:52] is we need to aggressively look at
[2:22:54] having a uh a pavement life cycle
[2:22:57] maintenance plan. And so what we do is
[2:22:59] we do crack sealing, we do slurry seals,
[2:23:02] overlays, and so forth over an extended
[2:23:04] period of time. Every about 7 years or
[2:23:07] so when we do that, it rebounds a little
[2:23:09] bit. We might do some surface treatment
[2:23:11] on it. So we can extend the life out
[2:23:13] farther. This is all referencing a local
[2:23:15] street. This is failure if you don't do
[2:23:19] uh do any of that. But purple represents
[2:23:21] consistent for consistent regular life
[2:23:24] cycle maintenance and in green it
[2:23:26] represents something maybe less
[2:23:28] consistent maybe a little more periodic.
[2:23:31] So our local streets what we've
[2:23:32] determined are most of the our local
[2:23:35] streets are probably 25 to 30 years old
[2:23:38] right now. We have tried to do what you
[2:23:41] show in purple but some of the roads are
[2:23:43] in green. So 25 years you're we're
[2:23:46] starting to approach this area right
[2:23:48] here. We want to keep it up in this zone
[2:23:52] and prevent it from coming down here
[2:23:53] because the the cost to repair or to
[2:23:55] replace a road and reconstruct it is
[2:23:58] five to six, seven, eight times as as
[2:24:00] much as it would be to do your
[2:24:02] preventative maintenance over that same
[2:24:03] period of time. So like with most
[2:24:06] things, you have to spend money perhaps
[2:24:08] or to make money or you have to spend
[2:24:10] money to delay the cost into the future
[2:24:13] as well. And that's what we're
[2:24:15] proposing. In our analysis, we're
[2:24:17] looking at about a $4 million gap. Our
[2:24:19] roads right now are at about age 25 to
[2:24:22] 30 in that range. Once you get out from
[2:24:25] 25 to 30, we're looking at potentially
[2:24:28] falling below that line. We don't want
[2:24:30] to do that.
[2:24:32] >> Chris, yeah. Would you argue that other
[2:24:35] consideration might be
[2:24:38] that that road being out of commission
[2:24:41] that falls a year significantly longer than just having to
[2:24:47] do that those maintenance elements to
[2:24:49] it? So, so that inconvenience to the
[2:24:53] >> Sure. Absolutely. Reconstructing, you're
[2:24:56] going to take you're going to take the
[2:24:57] road down for an more of an extended
[2:24:58] period of time whereas regular
[2:25:01] maintenance that occurs periodically.
[2:25:04] >> Your's not going to be done. I'm sure
[2:25:06] there's convenience factor in there as
[2:25:08] well.
[2:25:08] >> There's a social cost or a soft cost, a
[2:25:10] quality of life cost,
[2:25:12] >> quality of life cost, so forth.
[2:25:14] Um, so we were asked by this legislation
[2:25:19] to look at different land use
[2:25:20] classifications. Well, you can just
[2:25:22] break it out into two right away. You
[2:25:23] can residential, you got your
[2:25:25] non-residential.
[2:25:26] And we've done an analysis in our city.
[2:25:29] Um, all of our principles generate over
[2:25:31] a million trips a day.
[2:25:34] 35% of those trips are associated with
[2:25:36] residential and 65% are associated with
[2:25:39] non-residential.
[2:25:41] If you carve that out a little bit more
[2:25:43] for residential
[2:25:45] of the residential%
[2:25:47] is single family 30 multi-standing
[2:25:51] and as you carve out the non
[2:25:53] non-residential
[2:25:54] by ADT that means annual daily trips
[2:25:57] average daily trips I I should say not
[2:25:59] annual average daily trips you're
[2:26:02] looking at 660,000 total but 74% of
[2:26:06] those are produced by those um
[2:26:09] businesses and so forth that have over
[2:26:11] 600 trips a day. Um, and then a much
[2:26:14] smaller percentage by those that maybe
[2:26:16] have 100 ADT or 200 ADT or three or 400
[2:26:20] ADT. You might ask, well, what are those
[2:26:22] facilities? What do they look like?
[2:26:24] Those that are under 180 or small
[2:26:26] office, maybe an insurance agency,
[2:26:28] dental office, small re retail, hair
[2:26:31] salon, and so forth. And then they
[2:26:33] gradually escalate um based on this
[2:26:36] criteria here for trips generated. So
[2:26:38] churches might have something around 1
[2:26:40] to 200, a tire store, a self-s served
[2:26:43] car wash.
[2:26:45] 2 to 600, you're looking at a small
[2:26:46] restaurant, maybe assisted living, a
[2:26:49] drive-through car wash, and then over
[2:26:52] 600, you're looking at hospitals,
[2:26:54] schools, big box retail, grocery stores,
[2:26:56] gas stations, convenience, convenience
[2:26:58] stores, um large restaurants, and so
[2:27:00] forth. Again, looking back on this, 74%
[2:27:04] falls into this category right here.
[2:27:07] That's where the majority of our damage
[2:27:08] on our streets is coming from from that
[2:27:11] right there. The the axle loads um are they escalate as Tyler knows we've
[2:27:19] done this recently. Um when you have a
[2:27:21] semi, it's one vehicle, but it might
[2:27:24] have the same impact as maybe 500 cars
[2:27:28] would. So it's an equivalent load of
[2:27:29] about 500 cars traveling over that same stretch.
[2:27:35] So what is fair? What's the right thing
[2:27:37] to do? And we break these out. This is a
[2:27:40] total summary of everything al together
[2:27:42] for residential non-residential trips
[2:27:44] generated. They add up to just over 1
[2:27:46] million.
[2:27:48] What we're proposing or suggesting is
[2:27:51] this graphic right here is for $1
[2:27:53] million of revenue. The impact for a
[2:27:56] resident would be about 90 cents a
[2:27:58] month. 31 cents on average for
[2:28:02] non-residential.
[2:28:03] As you break those down out further,
[2:28:06] look at a single family versus
[2:28:07] multifamily, you're looking at a$18 to
[2:28:10] 68 for a multifamily unit. And then
[2:28:14] those down here for non-residential,
[2:28:17] they would range anywhere from $2 to
[2:28:20] $142 a month. Again, the $142 a month
[2:28:24] would be for a Walmart or a Costco or uh
[2:28:30] >> Maverick. Large facilities that have a
[2:28:32] lot of traffic generate the most
[2:28:35] negative impact and our roads more
[2:28:38] dramatically than residentials.
[2:28:41] So, this is this is a good reference for
[2:28:43] us to consider moving forward. We're not
[2:28:46] entirely dialed in on our recommendation
[2:28:48] yet. We are in the process of evaluating
[2:28:52] uh Utah Valley University in great
[2:28:53] detail. We're spending some some
[2:28:56] resources there and spending a lot of
[2:28:58] time and money on dialing in what what
[2:29:01] is going on at UVU more dramatically,
[2:29:03] more more specifically, I would say I
[2:29:05] should say. We've hired a firm, I think
[2:29:07] it's Forox that is doing that study
[2:29:09] right now. They're looking at every
[2:29:11] single exit entrance coming in and out
[2:29:14] of campus and they're going to be
[2:29:15] collecting data. So, it's an extensive
[2:29:17] data collection effort that's going to
[2:29:19] take place there to more specifically
[2:29:21] identify what is their impact on the
[2:29:23] city as well. We knew that that was
[2:29:25] going to be uh challenging of sorts
[2:29:29] because BYU campus was also very
[2:29:31] challenging for Provo. We're sensitive
[2:29:32] to that. We're taking some extra time
[2:29:34] and energy and resources to do that. So,
[2:29:37] in a nutshell, $1 million of revenue on
[2:29:40] average for residential um property is
[2:29:43] about 90 cents a month. For
[2:29:46] non-residential is around 31.
[2:29:49] You might ask then I'm going to conclude
[2:29:50] with the next slide. What are other
[2:29:52] cities doing? What have they done?
[2:29:55] Orange proposing if we were to do 4
[2:29:57] million for example, that's just
[2:29:59] something I'm going to throw it out
[2:30:00] there. The 4 million would be 432 a
[2:30:02] month for a single family dwelling in
[2:30:05] Provo. They're going to go from 420 to
[2:30:07] 479. Highlands at 1850 and has been for
[2:30:10] years and it's independent. In fact,
[2:30:12] their study, well, they didn't do a
[2:30:15] study. What they did is they applied
[2:30:18] uh the number of parcels that they had
[2:30:20] in their city and they bonded. So, they
[2:30:23] divided that bond amount of x million
[2:30:25] divided by the number of parcels and
[2:30:27] came up with $1,850.
[2:30:29] That is totally um unacceptable in terms
[2:30:32] of how this legislation was adopted. So,
[2:30:34] they're going to have to kick that away
[2:30:36] and then start over with a new official
[2:30:38] study that really looks at more of the
[2:30:40] science of the trips that are being
[2:30:42] generated to make it more equitable and
[2:30:44] fair for everybody in that community.
[2:30:46] Pleasant Grove is at 676 right now.
[2:30:48] They're going to go to 1386. That's what
[2:30:51] they're proposing tonight in their
[2:30:52] council meeting. Mapleton 8, Vineyard
[2:30:55] 475 and so forth down.
[2:30:58] >> Ours is the second lowest on this
[2:31:00] compared to Farmington which may be
[2:31:02] going up. We don't know. And that's if
[2:31:05] we were to propose a $4 million um
[2:31:08] increase to our revenues. If we do 2
[2:31:10] million, then it's going to be half
[2:31:11] that. It would be 216. 3 million is
[2:31:14] going to be, you know, 25% of that. So
[2:31:16] for
[2:31:18] you any questions, comments, thoughts? I
[2:31:22] >> have a question. So we don't currently
[2:31:23] have any road bonds, right? But those
[2:31:25] are
[2:31:27] >> No. So, is this in is this something we
[2:31:31] that we would do instead of road bonding
[2:31:33] or
[2:31:36] >> generate revenue? I know in the past
[2:31:37] when we've had robots, we generate
[2:31:38] revenue to do some of these same things.
[2:31:40] >> Not contemplated road bonding,
[2:31:42] >> but no, what I'm saying is is this
[2:31:43] something that's done instead of
[2:31:45] bonding,
[2:31:46] >> right?
[2:31:50] » And it's just an ongoing do we do you
[2:31:53] just approve it once? When do you when
[2:31:56] you want to increase it? You can you can um you can approve it for one
[2:32:00] year, you can approve it for up to 10.
[2:32:02] The study is good for up to 10 years
[2:32:05] >> and you can change it, modify it any
[2:32:07] time in between. And after 10 years, you
[2:32:09] could say we're not doing it anymore.
[2:32:11] After four years, you could say that or
[2:32:12] whatever you wanted to do. It's very
[2:32:14] flexible.
[2:32:17] to go back to something that Chris said
[2:32:20] early on, you have to spend money to
[2:32:22] save money.
[2:32:23] Or in other words, in order to keep up
[2:32:25] with preventative maintenance and
[2:32:27] extending the life of the road and
[2:32:30] prevent five to six times more cost in
[2:32:33] complete reconstruction,
[2:32:36] >> uh our our I guess special opinion that
[2:32:40] we're trying to share with you based off
[2:32:42] of this study with parametrics is that
[2:32:44] it's good to uh uh take a long-term
[2:32:48] approach and and spend, you know, a
[2:32:51] little bit each year And and our our
[2:32:55] thought would be to treat this like we
[2:32:57] do other revenue sources and other
[2:32:59] master plans and studies and update it
[2:33:02] regularly and bring it back to you and
[2:33:05] essentially return and report not only
[2:33:07] on the revenue side but on the expense
[2:33:09] side and show you and the public that
[2:33:11] we're doing what we've promised
[2:33:14] said we're [snorts] going to do. And
[2:33:16] annually we do have to review that and
[2:33:18] ensure that we are we are spending the
[2:33:21] money for those things that are it's
[2:33:22] been designated to spend it on and our
[2:33:24] focus will be local streets. John the
[2:33:27] Provo example of a 14% every three years
[2:33:31] we'll talk about that.
[2:33:32] >> Sure.
[2:33:33] >> Me or you?
[2:33:34] >> No you you talked to Ver he told you
[2:33:36] exactly I didn't just recently
[2:33:40] had council approve a 14% increase every
[2:33:44] year for three years. So you your
[2:33:47] question about is it annual is it you
[2:33:49] can write in how you want it right now
[2:33:52] say we're going to do this for five
[2:33:53] years or three years and have a set rate
[2:33:55] increase with a an annual review.
[2:34:00] » Yeah. So in August they they're going to jump to 479 and then
[2:34:05] another 14% next August and then the
[2:34:07] next one is their plan as well. So
[2:34:09] they'll probably be around 550 in in
[2:34:12] three years.
[2:34:12] >> So was the three-year based on their
[2:34:15] financial.
[2:34:21] » So, is this going to be part of the
[2:34:23] budget like any of the other fee
[2:34:25] schedules? I mean, maybe not this
[2:34:26] initially. It has to be adopted by
[2:34:28] ordinance, it sounds like, but going
[2:34:30] forward, is it just is it part of the
[2:34:32] fee schedules and budgets?
[2:34:34] >> It would end up being
[2:34:37] >> whether or not we can get it in before
[2:34:38] July 1st uh to meet that. It's
[2:34:42] questionable, but we may be able to.
[2:34:45] Yeah. So, if if we're not able to put it
[2:34:46] in the fiscal 27 budget as part of the
[2:34:48] actual budget, we would just come forth
[2:34:51] with a a budget amendment with an
[2:34:54] ordinance and had it at whatever time
[2:34:58] was felt that it was ready
[2:35:01] >> and then in the following depending on
[2:35:04] the timing then it would be included as
[2:35:08] part of the 28.
[2:35:10] But but the process for this is
[2:35:12] different than the truth and taxation
[2:35:13] that we're talking about.
[2:35:14] >> That's right. It's entirely different.
[2:35:15] >> Yes.
[2:35:16] >> Really simpler. It sounds
[2:35:17] >> says that we need to have a public
[2:35:18] hearing.
[2:35:21] >> Um yeah. So with with for example impact
[2:35:24] fees, you need to have a 90-day period.
[2:35:27] This doesn't say that you have to have a
[2:35:29] 90-day period, but you do have a a
[2:35:31] public hearing and adoption.
[2:35:34] and we will do some positive outreach to
[2:35:37] the community and and uh making them a
[2:35:40] aware and involved in in that process
[2:35:42] throughout. In Fred's presentation, he
[2:35:44] suggested that there was going to be a
[2:35:47] tough u revenue source. Well, I think
[2:35:52] generally it's around let's say it's 10%
[2:35:54] of this would go to the general fund.
[2:35:56] So, if it were $4 million
[2:36:00] that would be uh carved away and put
[2:36:03] into the general fund, well, be used for
[2:36:06] general fund purposes potentially
[2:36:12] and that could do some offsetting of
[2:36:16] your adjustments on a time.
[2:36:22] Um maybe just an additional highlight
[2:36:25] here with with this comparison, right?
[2:36:29] It's obviously never fun to propose new
[2:36:32] fees or increasing fees. That being
[2:36:35] said, um you know, it's it's not like we
[2:36:39] have doctorred these numbers. This this
[2:36:43] really is has turned out to be you know
[2:36:47] an interesting comparison that the city
[2:36:49] really has done a really good job of you
[2:36:53] know upkeeping and doing as much upkeep
[2:36:56] as much maintenance much preventative uh
[2:36:58] maintenance efforts on our roads as
[2:37:00] possible. Um and and you know in order
[2:37:04] to keep that up um we've got to charge
[2:37:07] something but we're still doing better
[2:37:10] than pretty much everyone else
[2:37:12] especially compared to the total volume
[2:37:15] of local streets that we have within the
[2:37:18] city.
[2:37:19] Please
[2:37:21] uh is it a fair assumption to to say
[2:37:23] that the non-residential
[2:37:26] rates uh are
[2:37:29] similar ratios there with other cities?
[2:37:32] Have you looked into that?
[2:37:34] >> So we have looked into this. Not
[2:37:36] everyone has adopted the same uh
[2:37:38] schedule, you could say. In fact, we
[2:37:41] were having a discussion regarding this
[2:37:42] earlier. It seems too finite. It seems
[2:37:44] too tight. we feel like maybe maybe
[2:37:47] those could be, you know, farther apart.
[2:37:50] Other communities, uh, they don't some
[2:37:53] of them don't do this at all. They have
[2:37:54] a range and an application based on, for
[2:37:57] example, in vineyard, they have a cost
[2:37:59] per square foot. And as we looked at our
[2:38:01] cost comparisons to theirs, something
[2:38:03] that might cost us or a property owner
[2:38:06] about five $500 for $4 million note,
[2:38:10] theirs would be like $7,800 a month,
[2:38:13] something like that. So they've been in
[2:38:16] the newspaper most recently regarding
[2:38:18] how they did theirs or uh and approached
[2:38:20] theirs. Some some have done it more
[2:38:23] finite like this with ADTS, but I'd say
[2:38:26] there's a good portion that have not
[2:38:27] done that and they're going to be
[2:38:29] required to create that nexus for ADTS
[2:38:32] and what the services that's being
[2:38:34] offered. Um not everyone does it like
[2:38:37] this. So this is just Provo actually
[2:38:39] which is a tried and trueue I would say
[2:38:41] methodology that the state legislators
[2:38:44] have looked at specifically in creating
[2:38:46] this legislation. So we kind of modeled
[2:38:49] ours and hired that same uh team team
[2:38:51] that did theirs back 10 13 years ago.
[2:38:56] They're they're similar but they're not
[2:38:58] exactly the same. What I think I'm
[2:39:00] hearing is that some other
[2:39:01] municipalities don't do this at all.
[2:39:03] Some of them used a very different
[2:39:04] methodology and have wildly diverse
[2:39:06] numbers compared to what you presented.
[2:39:07] >> Correct. So if I could I I'll just
[2:39:10] mention Highland. They have no they have no they've disregarded the the
[2:39:14] amount of trips that are going to be
[2:39:15] generated by the individual properties
[2:39:18] altogether. They took a number divided
[2:39:20] it by the number of parcels and said
[2:39:21] everyone's in for the same thing
[2:39:23] regardless. That's not going to pass the
[2:39:25] muster with the state legislature. There
[2:39:27] have to we'll have to redo that. I think
[2:39:30] uh American Fork's doing it. Pleasant
[2:39:32] Grove is going to re there's there are
[2:39:34] several that are out there that have
[2:39:36] something in place that doesn't follow
[2:39:38] the requirements of this bill.
[2:39:40] >> It sounds like the methodology used here
[2:39:42] was um to most closely uh reflect what
[2:39:46] the legislators and what the legislature
[2:39:48] was intending
[2:39:50] >> 100% this bill.
[2:39:51] >> It's true. This is not related to your
[2:39:54] purpose today, but at some point in the
[2:39:56] future,
[2:39:57] uh uh I would love to see
[2:40:01] the age of all of our roads.
[2:40:03] >> Yeah.
[2:40:04] >> Because what I inferred from your
[2:40:06] previous comment is that we have a lot
[2:40:07] of roads that are pretty old and pretty
[2:40:09] old at the same age.
[2:40:12] >> Uh and we want to try to avoid mass
[2:40:16] failures. Right.
[2:40:17] >> Right. I mean, I think mayor asked if we
[2:40:20] were considered bonding. If you had if
[2:40:23] 80 if 70% of our street surfaces were
[2:40:25] failing all at once, we'd have to really
[2:40:28] seriously look at doing a bond
[2:40:30] and then probably multiple bonds. But
[2:40:33] that's where
[2:40:34] >> replace bonds. That was my question was
[2:40:36] to replace
[2:40:37] >> bonding. This may help us avoid that
[2:40:40] situation.
[2:40:40] >> Yes. I would say this would hopefully
[2:40:44] prevent the need for a vote.
[2:40:47] >> That that's Yeah.
[2:40:47] >> Yes.
[2:40:48] >> That's that's a better that's better to
[2:40:50] describe. So I think
[2:40:51] >> so we're kind of at a point right now
[2:40:53] tipping point I would say is most of our
[2:40:55] locals are over 25 20 25 years old.
[2:40:57] That's 75% of our asphalt surface in the
[2:41:00] city. And the life there's only a finite
[2:41:02] life on a road surface. We can extend it
[2:41:04] as long as we can with with some tack
[2:41:06] oil and some surface treatments and a
[2:41:08] slurry seal and so forth, but eventually
[2:41:10] we're going to spend more money to do an
[2:41:11] overlay or eventually a reconstruct both
[2:41:14] to prevent it from getting to that
[2:41:16] point. But it is the nature of
[2:41:19] degrading infrastructure.
[2:41:24] Chris, also in terms of council me
[2:41:27] member Mikum's request, I think we I
[2:41:30] think we can readily provide the grades
[2:41:32] that we we go through quite regularly
[2:41:36] and grade all of our streets throughout
[2:41:38] the city. Right. So, and based off of
[2:41:41] that, we can estimate what its life is.
[2:41:44] >> Yes.
[2:41:44] >> Or when it'll need to be
[2:41:47] >> or in the next uh level of maintenance.
[2:41:50] We're updating our state of the streets
[2:41:51] document right now and then that'll have
[2:41:53] the most current information in there
[2:41:55] that I share that with you that's
[2:41:57] available. The 2021 is online right now
[2:41:59] too. If you go to orgov go to public
[2:42:02] works state of the streets that's out
[2:42:03] there as well and I'll share that link
[2:42:05] with you.
[2:42:06] >> Thank you Chris.
[2:42:09] >> Anything else?
[2:42:12] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:42:18] eggs crisp.
[2:42:28] I'm just going to zoom from here.
[2:42:31] So, while Jennica's setting up, we're
[2:42:33] going to talk about employee
[2:42:35] compensation. And as you heard from
[2:42:37] Fred's presentation, about 65 to 75% of
[2:42:41] the budget issues in personnel cost. And
[2:42:44] so we're going to talk about our
[2:42:46] compensation
[2:42:47] plan for the what we've done in the past
[2:42:49] and what we're planning on doing in the
[2:42:50] future and some of the metrics that
[2:42:52] we've found from sister cities. Um but
[2:42:56] one thing I wanted to mention to you all
[2:42:58] is how much we appreciate as employees
[2:43:00] as a whole of how much you uh appreciate
[2:43:06] the staff and what we do for the city
[2:43:08] and and helping us to pay a fair fair
[2:43:12] wage. so that um we can provide the best
[2:43:14] services that we can to the community.
[2:43:16] So we appreciate you making that one of
[2:43:18] your areas of focus is a skilled and
[2:43:20] talented workforce. Um and as always we
[2:43:24] try and make our current and existing
[2:43:26] employees our number one priority when
[2:43:29] we're compensation before we look at any
[2:43:31] expenditure like that. Some of the
[2:43:34] drivers in the increase to compensation
[2:43:37] uhly has been driven by police and fire
[2:43:40] wages. Um nationwide those wages have
[2:43:43] been increasing skyrocketing paces
[2:43:48] seeing it temper just a little bit but
[2:43:49] they are still outpacing all other
[2:43:52] employee.
[2:43:54] And then also medical insurance. We've
[2:43:56] seen double digit increases insurance
[2:43:59] last few years which most entities and
[2:44:03] public sectors have seen the same. So
[2:44:05] with that I just want you guys to know
[2:44:08] how much time Janica puts into these
[2:44:10] compensation researches. she um does
[2:44:14] such a thorough job in looking at this
[2:44:16] uh at least twice a year and um was very
[2:44:20] thoughtful in uh being fiscally
[2:44:22] responsible in the recommendations that
[2:44:24] we get. So with that, Jim Kev,
[2:44:27] >> thank you. So I'm just going to explain
[2:44:29] a little bit of our process and how we
[2:44:31] determine compensation increases for our
[2:44:33] employees. So, um, like Krie mentioned,
[2:44:36] for the past few years, we've really
[2:44:37] tried to make it a focus that we're
[2:44:38] doing these regular market surveys that
[2:44:40] we're not just waiting for every 5 years
[2:44:42] to see how are we doing compared to
[2:44:43] cities. We're looking at it twice a
[2:44:44] year, every position in the city. So, we
[2:44:47] look at every single position in the
[2:44:49] city and then look at a core group of
[2:44:52] comparable cities and it's really the 10
[2:44:53] largest cities in Utah plus uh Salt Lake
[2:44:56] Utah County, the state, and then for
[2:44:58] public safety, we also have a few
[2:44:59] additional entities we look at. And then
[2:45:01] for positions that may be more unique,
[2:45:03] we can look outside of this group as
[2:45:05] well. But we kind of focus it on this
[2:45:07] because that's really the market that we
[2:45:08] compete in within the state and locally.
[2:45:11] So um we utilize what's called Techna
[2:45:14] and it's a database where all entities
[2:45:16] input their positions as job
[2:45:19] descriptions, uh salary ranges, actual
[2:45:22] pay information. We verify that with
[2:45:24] their budget documents, with their human
[2:45:26] resources departments. Um, make sure
[2:45:28] that they're comparable positions, look
[2:45:30] at their benefits as well. That's part
[2:45:32] of the database. Uh, and then we want to
[2:45:36] make sure each of our positions is
[2:45:37] within market. So, we're really looking
[2:45:40] at it individually. Kind of in the past,
[2:45:42] what was done is kind of just across the
[2:45:44] board. Everyone's getting a certain
[2:45:45] percentage market or a lot of entities
[2:45:47] would be considered a cola increase. Um,
[2:45:50] and then there's a set merit, but we
[2:45:52] really look at individual positions
[2:45:54] because we want to allocate those budget
[2:45:55] dollars to the positions that need them
[2:45:57] most. For example, recent years it's
[2:46:00] been police and fire have had those
[2:46:01] really competitive within the cities and
[2:46:04] statewide, nationwide. So, um, we look
[2:46:07] at that to make sure we're within the
[2:46:08] market and then when there's a position
[2:46:10] that's lagging or we're seeing trends
[2:46:12] that that's increasing, we will
[2:46:15] recommend or consider budget market
[2:46:17] adjustments for that position.
[2:46:19] Um, so this is probably small for you,
[2:46:23] but this is kind of an overview of what
[2:46:25] other cities do. And some of them are
[2:46:27] kind of that traditional. They just give
[2:46:28] everyone kind of the same set increase.
[2:46:31] Some are very variable. I would say most
[2:46:33] of them, even in these percentage
[2:46:36] numbers that may not reflect what they
[2:46:38] did. They may have given more to public
[2:46:40] safety, but this is kind of generally
[2:46:42] what they did this last fiscal year for
[2:46:44] employees. So, we're kind of seeing
[2:46:45] anywhere from 1 to 11% total increases
[2:46:48] among cities. Obviously, that doesn't
[2:46:51] reflect everything because we don't know
[2:46:53] exactly where they were to start with,
[2:46:55] what their strategy is, where they want
[2:46:56] to be in the market, but we're kind of
[2:46:58] seeing that. I mean, wages continue to
[2:47:01] increase significantly. And as we do
[2:47:03] those market studies, we're really able
[2:47:04] to see where that is. So, um, for us,
[2:47:08] again, we kind of were across the board
[2:47:10] based on the market study. So, every
[2:47:13] position in the city is eligible for a
[2:47:15] 3% typically uh merit or step increase
[2:47:19] depending on if they're in the STEP
[2:47:20] program or just a regular merit
[2:47:22] employee. And then in addition to that,
[2:47:25] targeted market adjustments were given
[2:47:27] to certain positions. So, for kind of
[2:47:30] our traditional employees, uh certain
[2:47:32] positions had an increase at one point
[2:47:35] or another during the year, other
[2:47:36] positions have not. Uh but in last July
[2:47:40] there was a average for those positions
[2:47:43] outside of sworn police and fire. Um and
[2:47:46] then in March we also made an additional
[2:47:48] adjustment based on an additional market
[2:47:50] study for certain positions. And then
[2:47:52] our sworn police uh we looked at that uh
[2:47:57] kind of after last fiscal year started
[2:47:59] just to see where we're at. And based on
[2:48:01] that there was a larger increase for our
[2:48:03] the majority of our police officers last
[2:48:06] um October. And again, all these
[2:48:08] positions are also eligible for their 3%
[2:48:11] annual merit or step increase. So that's
[2:48:14] where the 10% comes from. And then for
[2:48:16] our fire, there was certain positions
[2:48:18] that received adjustments last July. And
[2:48:22] then again in March, there was an
[2:48:24] additional kind of across the board, but
[2:48:26] targeted by position increase for our
[2:48:28] sworn fire. So ours is kind of
[2:48:31] convoluted as you'll see, but yeah. So,
[2:48:33] this is going to just sound probably not
[2:48:35] too intelligent, but so I'm just looking
[2:48:37] at this and I'm just breaking it down
[2:48:39] super easy, simple, probably shouldn't
[2:48:41] be, but so I'm looking at market.
[2:48:45] Several are
[2:48:46] >> cola
[2:48:47] >> and and then there's a few that are
[2:48:49] market. So, if we're always going out to
[2:48:51] market, are we just making adjustments
[2:48:54] based on other cities cola adjustments?
[2:48:59] Do you see what I'm saying? We're taking
[2:49:00] into they're they're they're doing cola,
[2:49:03] >> right?
[2:49:03] >> And then we're using their merit cola
[2:49:06] combo for our market and then we're
[2:49:10] doing merit on top of that
[2:49:12] >> in addition to that.
[2:49:14] >> Correct. But it's really just ranges
[2:49:16] we're looking at and and they also do
[2:49:20] merit increases on top of their market
[2:49:22] increases.
[2:49:23] >> And then do they decide their cola every
[2:49:25] year or is it based on CPI? How do they
[2:49:27] do their cola? Um I don't think any city
[2:49:30] does actually CPI because I don't think
[2:49:32] any city would actually afford that.
[2:49:34] Okay.
[2:49:35] >> Um they they call it cost of living
[2:49:38] >> whatever they decide. So these are not
[2:49:40] based on any metric or index.
[2:49:42] >> I mean they consider that a lot of them
[2:49:44] say yeah we're we're looking at CPI but
[2:49:46] a lot of times it's just what budget
[2:49:48] availability and some of them are just
[2:49:49] like this is traditionally what we do.
[2:49:51] So
[2:49:51] >> thanks. I would also say another nuance
[2:49:55] that is included though by going and
[2:49:57] looking at market is every city has
[2:50:00] turnover andor promotions too. And so
[2:50:04] when when someone's promoted or when
[2:50:06] someone's hired uh they may negotiate a
[2:50:10] different salary than the person that
[2:50:11] was in their spot beforehand. So so
[2:50:14] looking at uh targeted market increases
[2:50:18] takes that into account as well.
[2:50:21] >> Okay. Plus, we're not playing the game
[2:50:22] we were playing with police back in 2020
[2:50:24] where it was just everybody just trying
[2:50:26] to top everybody else. It just got out
[2:50:28] of control.
[2:50:29] >> I do think there's some of that still,
[2:50:31] but I and Chief, you could probably
[2:50:34] speak to that. I do feel like it's
[2:50:36] plateauing a little bit. It's still
[2:50:37] increasing, but I still kind of plateau.
[2:50:40] >> I think that both cities are filling
[2:50:42] that pinch that we are now. I do think
[2:50:45] we're stabilizing. I think the issue
[2:50:47] that we have more than that is the pool
[2:50:50] of applicants that are interested in
[2:50:51] going into police work that that's
[2:50:54] really limiting the the pool.
[2:50:57] >> Yeah.
[2:50:59] >> And I would say that's also put
[2:51:00] pressures on the wages too to attract
[2:51:02] >> not just the competition with other
[2:51:03] cities but the pool size of the pool of
[2:51:06] applicants in your specific fields.
[2:51:08] >> It's not a there's not one single
[2:51:11] solution. Um I would say pay is part of
[2:51:14] it. I'd say the job is part of it. Um,
[2:51:18] [clears throat]
[2:51:18] so there's a lot of factors that are can
[2:51:21] get difficult and
[2:51:22] >> that was part of what we had tried to
[2:51:24] fight that in 2021 or to push against
[2:51:26] that was our culture, our department
[2:51:28] culture.
[2:51:30] >> Want to come
[2:51:31] >> through
[2:51:33] outstanding that it's still a challenge.
[2:51:35] >> Still very challenging. Okay, good to
[2:51:36] know. I would say one advantage that we
[2:51:39] do have too is our hybrid step program
[2:51:42] where um every three years they have an
[2:51:45] opportunity to get a super bump but we
[2:51:48] also get a higher skilled workforce too
[2:51:50] with that super bump. So we benefit from
[2:51:53] pushing people through the range a
[2:51:54] little bit quicker but we also have
[2:51:56] higher higher trained higher certified
[2:51:59] uh police and fire personnel in the
[2:52:02] which is the ideology we decided.
[2:52:08] All right. And then for this upcoming
[2:52:10] fiscal year, what what we're budgeting
[2:52:12] and planning for um is to conduct an
[2:52:15] additional market study this fall. So
[2:52:18] with just wrapping up recent
[2:52:19] adjustments, we feel that that will be a
[2:52:21] good time that we're going to be able to
[2:52:22] know exactly what other cities do
[2:52:24] because right now as we talk to other
[2:52:25] cities, it's still a guessing game.
[2:52:26] They're like, "Oh, this is what we're
[2:52:28] hoping for, but we don't know what we're
[2:52:30] going to have." So that's going to
[2:52:31] enable us to be able to know exactly
[2:52:33] what they do and allocate those funds
[2:52:35] where they need to be spent uh for those
[2:52:38] positions that need it most. And so we
[2:52:39] plan to kind of do this a similar thing
[2:52:41] where we're implementing targeted market
[2:52:43] adjustments later this calendar year or
[2:52:46] early next calendar year. Uh this will
[2:52:48] also align market increases to positions
[2:52:51] with our health insurance premium
[2:52:53] increases. So if employees are
[2:52:55] experiencing an increase as Krie talked
[2:52:57] about we've seen really large increases
[2:52:59] to our health and dental and some of
[2:53:00] that is shouldered by employees that
[2:53:03] this will align making sure that that's
[2:53:05] part of you know if they have a market
[2:53:06] adjustment that helps soften the blow.
[2:53:08] Um and then funding merit and step
[2:53:11] increases we are able to work within our
[2:53:15] budget to fund those and our career
[2:53:16] ladder increases uh to make sure that
[2:53:18] employees can progress quickly
[2:53:20] throughout their career. So, um, it's,
[2:53:24] yeah, really kind of a similar process
[2:53:26] and it's I think it's a lot more
[2:53:28] responsive than we've been in the past
[2:53:29] and aggressive to make sure that we're
[2:53:31] able to recruit and retain employees.
[2:53:34] So, I just wanted to really quickly
[2:53:35] touch on a few other things that we do
[2:53:37] that we consider as part of compensation
[2:53:38] or the employee experience. So, one big
[2:53:41] thing we've tried to emphasize with this
[2:53:43] focus on doing market studies is being
[2:53:45] really transparent with employees and
[2:53:46] departments. So going around to
[2:53:48] departments, sharing with them, you
[2:53:49] know, this is exactly why we're making
[2:53:51] the changes we're making. They can see
[2:53:54] exactly the cities that we're comparing
[2:53:55] to, what their pay ranges are, what ours
[2:53:57] are, so they know that, you know, we're
[2:53:59] being fair and transparent and can
[2:54:01] understand why we make the changes we
[2:54:03] do. Uh we've really also tried to focus
[2:54:05] on career development for employees. So
[2:54:07] this includes uh trainings for our
[2:54:09] employees and supervisors, the crew
[2:54:11] ladders again, certifications and
[2:54:13] opportunities offered through that and
[2:54:15] then providing tuition reimbursement and
[2:54:16] babble scholarships. Uh making a greater
[2:54:19] effort to solicit and address employee
[2:54:21] feedback through our anonymous Babel box
[2:54:23] and employee surveys. Uh enhancing our
[2:54:27] benefits where we can. So this last year
[2:54:28] there we made improvements to our hybrid
[2:54:30] PTO program and also paid leave benefits
[2:54:33] that were really well received by
[2:54:34] employees. And then one thing we're
[2:54:36] really excited about this upcoming few
[2:54:38] months is the employee health center for
[2:54:40] our employees and their families. So
[2:54:41] that will huge for employees and it's
[2:54:44] not part of you know their take-home pay
[2:54:46] but it's a really significant aspect of
[2:54:49] compensation on well-being as well. So
[2:54:52] um I know that was kind of rapid fire
[2:54:54] and it's a lot of information there is
[2:54:55] it is a very big expense. So any
[2:54:57] questions about the process or what
[2:55:00] we're planning to do?
[2:55:03] You are taking care of our people so
[2:55:05] well.
[2:55:05] >> Yeah,
[2:55:05] >> I'm excited about the well.
[2:55:08] >> Yeah,
[2:55:10] it's great. A great awesome
[2:55:17] job.
[2:55:19] >> Right.
[2:55:21] Is that everybody on this on the next?
[2:55:25] Did we cover? Let's see.
[2:55:28] Brand in chat. Carrie J. Okay.
[2:55:33] anything else, right? On 1.2
[2:55:36] probably just need to say real quick
[2:55:38] concerning Carrie and Jennica as you can
[2:55:41] as you've been able to experience even
[2:55:43] today, it it's hard to take a lot of
[2:55:47] financial data and detail and articulate
[2:55:51] it and share it and um and do it in a
[2:55:54] transparent way where everyone can kind
[2:55:56] of understand and digest it. um how
[2:56:01] Carrie and Jennica uh relay our
[2:56:04] compensation to our employees is second
[2:56:07] to none. And so just want to highlight
[2:56:10] that that really has been a big deal in
[2:56:13] helping us
[2:56:16] improve our employees confidence that you council
[2:56:21] do make us
[2:56:24] critical to what we eat.
[2:56:28] in you. Yes, that's
[2:56:31] sometimes all of that can get mysterious
[2:56:33] when you're a new employee. You have all
[2:56:35] this the steps and the this and the that
[2:56:38] and
[2:56:40] made that very clear. Thank you.
[2:56:43] All right.
[2:56:45] Holy arts and here.
[2:56:48] >> Wow. All right.
[2:56:50] >> Have to go big.
[2:56:53] So
[2:56:53] >> what you gave us?
[2:56:55] >> We h we have this
[2:56:57] >> and we will touch on that in a minute.
[2:56:58] >> Oh, is that different?
[2:56:59] >> So this part if you look at the front
[2:57:03] page
[2:57:05] >> yes
[2:57:06] >> document
[2:57:07] >> yes
[2:57:07] >> front page
[2:57:08] >> front document that will be this.
[2:57:11] They're different. I will explain why.
[2:57:14] So what you see here are our many and
[2:57:18] mid- major grants along with our major
[2:57:21] grants.
[2:57:22] So it's the art side,
[2:57:25] not all of the art side, but the part
[2:57:27] where we um ask for applications from
[2:57:31] our different uh organizations
[2:57:33] throughout uh in county.
[2:57:37] What we use this for is when we have our
[2:57:40] meetings with uh each of the applicants
[2:57:43] uh all of the mid and mid- major
[2:57:45] applicants then we we use this as a
[2:57:48] barometer for helping us determine um
[2:57:52] what they've received in the past who
[2:57:55] has applied in the past and what they
[2:57:57] have been awarded in the past.
[2:58:01] This year we also developed uh with the
[2:58:04] help of our council members here that
[2:58:07] are on leaison to the commission uh a
[2:58:10] matrix which we a were able to use in
[2:58:13] helping us determine um based on the
[2:58:16] commission members where they felt like those dollars should go.
[2:58:23] Um you'll notice down at the bottom
[2:58:26] there on the far right side under the
[2:58:28] proposed award that 143,000 right here
[2:58:33] and comparing that to where we had we
[2:58:36] went I went back over the past five
[2:58:40] years
[2:58:42] and identify you'll find this hard to
[2:58:44] believe I'm sure sometimes we award
[2:58:46] people money and they don't actually
[2:58:49] submit to use it. So we had an
[2:58:52] accumulation of unawward or awarded
[2:58:55] money that was never used. So we decided
[2:58:58] that this would be a great year to use
[2:59:00] those funds because they are still
[2:59:03] related to our uh arts side component.
[2:59:08] So we've so that's why you see an
[2:59:10] increase in that particular element.
[2:59:14] Um, also to note on this particular, uh,
[2:59:19] for uh, summary,
[2:59:21] um, the commission, uh, and I just want
[2:59:23] to point it out because, uh, this
[2:59:26] thousand better together item
[2:59:30] that was not part of the commission's
[2:59:33] original
[2:59:35] uh, proposal sub submission. Um, council
[2:59:39] member Mikum here received some
[2:59:41] additional information. So, I'll I'll
[2:59:43] let him maybe talk about that particular
[2:59:45] element as and as to why we included it
[2:59:48] on this spreadsheet.
[2:59:50] >> So, in other words, they didn't fill out
[2:59:51] an application, but
[2:59:52] >> No, they did. They applied. They were
[2:59:54] not able to come to and do a
[2:59:57] presentation during our meetings for
[2:59:59] presentations.
[3:00:00] >> They provided their information offline.
[3:00:02] >> Okay.
[3:00:04] So, our we had a full proposal, but our
[3:00:06] commission wasn't able to hear them real
[3:00:09] fun. I I we just reached out to the
[3:00:12] commission.
[3:00:13] Uh
[3:00:15] >> I just want to acknowledge Dawson
[3:00:16] Richmond who's here. He's one of the
[3:00:18] members of our care advisory commission
[3:00:22] >> who who helped us with this list.
[3:00:27] » Yeah. Come on up. Thank you.
[3:00:29] >> Back to Dawson. It would be great if if
[3:00:31] maybe Brandon if this is a good time for
[3:00:34] him to just talk a little bit about the
[3:00:35] process of how the commission works to
[3:00:38] come up with these numbers under
[3:00:40] address.
[3:00:42] Uh the commission what we did is we uh
[3:00:45] thanks to Trevor Bell um and his uh
[3:00:48] Excel skills we came up with this matrix
[3:00:51] that helped us with um with the
[3:00:54] decisions. What we did is we all had our
[3:00:55] own spreadsheet. Um, everybody had the
[3:00:58] same had the same copy. Um, we all but
[3:01:01] our copies were all our own individual
[3:01:03] copies. What we would do as we were
[3:01:05] listening to the presentations is we
[3:01:07] would go in and we would uh input the
[3:01:09] amount that we thought that they
[3:01:11] deserved and then um all of our
[3:01:14] spreadsheets at the end collected into
[3:01:16] one spreadsheet that showed all the
[3:01:17] averages um what we had all submitted.
[3:01:20] Um, and with that, then we were able to
[3:01:24] kind of get a gauge for how everybody
[3:01:25] else was feeling. And then we would
[3:01:27] discuss if there was if there was a big
[3:01:29] variance, we could see that somebody had
[3:01:30] submitted maybe 1,000, someone had
[3:01:32] submitted 8,000 for one grant, for
[3:01:34] example. Uh, then we would discuss why
[3:01:36] as why we felt that way, and then we
[3:01:38] would come to a decision as a as a as a
[3:01:40] commission. So, I thought the process
[3:01:42] went pretty well, and it was was good.
[3:01:44] We all we all felt good about all the numbers
[3:01:49] » and so it it keep in mind is not a
[3:01:53] requirement to present at to the
[3:01:57] commission.
[3:01:59] Obviously we highly suggest it. Uh it
[3:02:02] helps the commission members uh
[3:02:04] determine those things when they're like
[3:02:07] especially this year with a matrix. Um
[3:02:10] and so um one of the um ways that
[3:02:15] they're able to then make those judgment
[3:02:17] calls is by having that ability with
[3:02:20] presenter there to be able to ask
[3:02:22] questions or get clarity on on that
[3:02:24] organization. So, um I think that
[3:02:28] particular process was was went really
[3:02:31] well and we really appreciated the
[3:02:34] commentary that um everybody had with
[3:02:36] each other while we were in in those ne
[3:02:39] if we'll call negotiations, those
[3:02:41] discussions. Um because you can see, you
[3:02:43] know, we had $333,000
[3:02:46] in ask and and we were only able to
[3:02:50] award aboutund well award $143,000
[3:02:54] based on the amount of money available.
[3:02:57] Um I mentioned better together. They
[3:03:00] were one of the groups that were not
[3:03:02] able to be at to come present. Um the
[3:03:05] individual who is in does that runs the
[3:03:09] honeybaked ham store.
[3:03:12] and he was preparing for their new grand
[3:03:14] reopening.
[3:03:15] >> That's right. So, he was not able to
[3:03:18] come and uh he then um I don't remember
[3:03:23] if he said did he send the stuff to you,
[3:03:26] council member?
[3:03:28] >> So, he sent some information to show
[3:03:31] when they put it on that you see the
[3:03:33] thousands in the prior year. Um he sent
[3:03:36] some information around that. And so
[3:03:38] then um it was we had a discussion and
[3:03:41] then you know council member Gail and council member Mikum have said you
[3:03:49] know I think I think for $1,000
[3:03:52] we can we can go ahead and add them. Um
[3:03:55] and then I don't know were you able to
[3:03:57] get a hold of any of the council members
[3:03:58] besides
[3:04:00] >> Dawson
[3:04:01] responded.
[3:04:04] >> Yeah. So, so that's why you see them on.
[3:04:07] I just wanted to make sure you knew that was the one uh if you will
[3:04:12] exception to the proposal that came out
[3:04:15] of the the advisory commission.
[3:04:18] Um after those we don't and and we've
[3:04:23] had some discussions about some changes
[3:04:24] that we will look at in next year. Um
[3:04:27] but then we also uh have our major award
[3:04:31] group uh entities that are down there at
[3:04:33] the at the bottom. Um the application
[3:04:36] for SIRA that million71 is based on
[3:04:41] their application and based on a maximum
[3:04:44] of 35%
[3:04:46] in relation to their operational um
[3:04:49] expenditures
[3:04:51] um and the Utah Metropolan Ballet and uh
[3:04:55] to be honest they received $25,000 for a
[3:04:58] long period of time. I haven't had a
[3:04:59] chance to go back and verify how long
[3:05:01] but it's been a long time.
[3:05:04] I mean, I was one of the first um
[3:05:06] citizens on the care commission and
[3:05:09] that's about where it was.
[3:05:12] I was on the Yeah, they did get a
[3:05:14] >> How did we determine as 143 for the
[3:05:18] small I'm sorry. Did you want I I
[3:05:20] interrupted. Okay. On the mini and mid-
[3:05:23] major grants, how did we come up with a
[3:05:25] maximum um 443?
[3:05:30] So, um, we usually try to target in the
[3:05:36] 120ish neighborhood in the past. And so,
[3:05:41] based on just the volume that we've been
[3:05:43] re particularly, you can see the last
[3:05:45] couple years in particular,
[3:05:47] >> we felt like what can we do to to push
[3:05:51] that dollar a little bit higher? Um, is
[3:05:54] there a way that we can potentially do
[3:05:56] that? Um, it's usually almost reverse
[3:05:59] engineering. So, if we um kind of go to
[3:06:02] that spreadsheet that was handed out to
[3:06:04] you, you can see all of the um awards
[3:06:07] that were on there.
[3:06:10] Then you come down and then I have to
[3:06:13] back into
[3:06:16] what do I think is my estimate of the
[3:06:19] care dollars that we are going to
[3:06:21] receive.
[3:06:23] >> Then we kind of do a reverse
[3:06:25] engineering. we kind of go, okay, we we
[3:06:28] have SIRA and we've generally always
[3:06:31] awarded them the amount that they have
[3:06:34] applied for. I'm back out the
[3:06:37] Metropolitan Ballet and then these other
[3:06:41] items that come from various requests
[3:06:44] from uh our
[3:06:48] recreation andor uh in this case, you
[3:06:51] know, Bryce and his team. Um and then
[3:06:54] that kind of gives us an idea of how
[3:06:58] much if you will is available,
[3:07:00] >> okay,
[3:07:02] >> for those if we were to adjust that
[3:07:06] we would that heart of downtown item.
[3:07:08] You're going gosh 463 437 that's a
[3:07:11] pretty weird number. It's a plug. So
[3:07:15] basically we've said here's where we
[3:07:17] feel comfortable. What do we have left?
[3:07:20] We'll put that towards heart of
[3:07:21] downtown.
[3:07:23] >> I'm offended at plug. I just wouldn't
[3:07:27] [laughter]
[3:07:28] >> that's his plug. But yeah, that's
[3:07:31] >> the goal is to try to get in around
[3:07:33] 500,000 as close, you know, best as we
[3:07:35] can. But that's um you will notice,
[3:07:39] so you might ask, so you'll notice, and
[3:07:42] yes, I I do know how to do math and and
[3:07:44] arts and wreck are supposed to be 50/50.
[3:07:48] You'll notice the 1802
[3:07:51] and wreck is not 1802. So you'll recall
[3:07:56] when I mentioned we had those surplus
[3:07:58] unused funds.
[3:08:00] So that's where that difference comes in
[3:08:03] is we are you those funds uh you will
[3:08:07] surplus and re in our reserves. So
[3:08:09] that's why
[3:08:11] our site is receiving if you will an
[3:08:13] additional 50 is because it never got
[3:08:15] used in the first place. Okay.
[3:08:17] >> So, that's why the
[3:08:19] >> on the co-sponsored groups, what's that
[3:08:21] money for? $2,000. What's that going to
[3:08:24] be used for?
[3:08:25] >> Tyler, do you want to talk about the
[3:08:26] co-sponsor?
[3:08:26] >> So, our co-sponsored sports groups,
[3:08:29] we've got like ORM Youth Baseball and
[3:08:31] soccer and and we invest in capital
[3:08:34] improvements to help improve those
[3:08:35] playing surfaces and increase the
[3:08:38] betterments that they play on. So, in
[3:08:41] the past, we've used some of that money
[3:08:42] to buy like the robot turf painter to
[3:08:45] help give them the crisp perfect lines
[3:08:47] on the fields and things like that. So,
[3:08:49] there's a little bit of money that we
[3:08:50] invest into that program every year. Um,
[3:08:53] and that's
[3:08:55] >> pink.
[3:08:56] >> So, what's our percentage art to wreck?
[3:09:00] >> It's technically 50/50.
[3:09:02] >> 5050.
[3:09:03] >> Okay. This year we're good at 50. It was
[3:09:05] on some years we kind of did
[3:09:07] >> we're going to do 64 million but next
[3:09:09] year we're going to do
[3:09:11] >> to your point. Yeah. So that was where
[3:09:13] we got out maybe you got out of balance
[3:09:15] a little bit and so we had to do that a
[3:09:18] little there is that 50,000 is kind of
[3:09:21] that same concept. It's kind of riding
[3:09:23] that ship a little bit.
[3:09:24] >> Okay. Um so and you can see here are the items that we discussed with um our parks and wreck folks um in relation
[3:09:33] to the rec side of the house. Um you
[3:09:37] know uh Lakeside Park the the program
[3:09:40] down there is pretty small for such a a
[3:09:43] facility that gets used pretty heavily.
[3:09:46] So they want to do some pretty serious
[3:09:48] stuff down in that area. Um we haven't
[3:09:51] determined an exact park. That's why it
[3:09:53] just says park, but you know, we're
[3:09:55] looking at a pup track um in relation to
[3:09:59] one of the our parks in the in the city.
[3:10:02] Um also doing I have no idea what an RC
[3:10:06] crawler and pasture course is other than
[3:10:07] it sounds cool. Uh [laughter] down at
[3:10:10] Springwater Park, that's the one down
[3:10:12] across from the water treatment uh
[3:10:14] plant. Um library gardens, that would be
[3:10:18] the park over here in the middle uh
[3:10:20] between them. and then the Bonavville
[3:10:22] sports court. Um, and a couple of other
[3:10:25] the dog park and rainbow bridge which up
[3:10:27] the canyon as well as um doing some
[3:10:30] stuff to the ORM elementary softball uh
[3:10:33] dugouts
[3:10:34] and that's where care currently is. I
[3:10:38] don't know if either of you have any
[3:10:39] comments you want to make. Um, mayor uh,
[3:10:44] one of I mean our by far our most
[3:10:47] consistent bar is Sarah.
[3:10:49] >> Mhm.
[3:10:49] >> And Adam's here.
[3:10:51] >> Oh,
[3:10:52] >> hi Adam. I am so sorry I didn't see you
[3:10:54] there. [laughter] Welcome.
[3:10:56] >> Hi.
[3:10:58] >> As you know, Sarah has been on a tear a
[3:11:00] lot of great things. Uh, the the
[3:11:03] proposed award for Sarah this year was
[3:11:05] about $120,000 more than last year.
[3:11:07] >> Uhhuh. And so I had reached out to Adam
[3:11:10] just to if he wanted to share um some of
[3:11:14] the
[3:11:16] juices for that increase uh with the
[3:11:19] council while we're
[3:11:21] >> if we have time and if you're
[3:11:22] interested.
[3:11:22] >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We've got what is that
[3:11:25] by 13 minutes?
[3:11:29] >> You want to take a few minutes?
[3:11:30] >> Well, what you're Yeah. Thank you. Well,
[3:11:32] what you're really seeing there, as you
[3:11:34] know, we you take the full expenses of of Sierra, for example, you take away
[3:11:40] the non-qualifying expenses and you have
[3:11:43] left qualifying expenses and you can ask
[3:11:46] for 35% of that. So, what that increase
[3:11:48] really is showing you is not necessarily
[3:11:50] going forward, but a true picture of
[3:11:52] expenses from last year. And uh and so,
[3:11:56] and as you look at that year over year, you you see that continually
[3:12:00] that continued growth. And I think many
[3:12:02] of you longtime attendees can can can uh
[3:12:07] talk speak to the the quality how it's
[3:12:10] continued to go up and up and up. The
[3:12:12] number of programs continue to go up and up. Our attendance is growing growing. So you know what that
[3:12:19] really is showing you is is an actual
[3:12:21] expense
[3:12:23] uh that that is in a in a qualifying
[3:12:26] area. um when there has been less money,
[3:12:30] you know, historically, um Sarah has to
[3:12:33] not improve in in facilities and rock
[3:12:36] bricks and mortar as much and put that
[3:12:38] towards programming. When there's been
[3:12:40] more money for programming, we we've
[3:12:42] been able to, you know, at the same rate
[3:12:44] of of increasing and accelerating
[3:12:46] programs and offerings and and quality,
[3:12:50] uh we've been able to make many
[3:12:52] improvements to facility as well. So,
[3:12:55] you know, you're you're look you kind of
[3:12:56] have to look at the whole picture of of
[3:12:58] this airplane taking off. And as as we
[3:13:01] continue to do more, we're going to
[3:13:03] continue to qualify for more and and
[3:13:05] you're going to continue to see the
[3:13:06] programs and you know uh attendance, the
[3:13:10] quality of the programs, the quantity of
[3:13:12] the programs and and so forth. So, I
[3:13:14] think that's what you're really looking
[3:13:16] at in that in that number. uh not
[3:13:18] necessarily a dollar for-doll return
[3:13:20] investment going forward um in that
[3:13:23] difference but in what actually happened
[3:13:25] last year is what is the diff difference
[3:13:28] in that number.
[3:13:30] >> Thank you. I apologize. I didn't even
[3:13:31] see you back there.
[3:13:32] >> Oh, I snuck you in.
[3:13:33] >> You were sneaky.
[3:13:34] >> Can I tell you the questions? Oh,
[3:13:36] >> I just want to make a comment about Adam
[3:13:38] if I could. Something that I just
[3:13:40] learned this year. Um, so Adam does an
[3:13:44] amazing job as we all know at the Sarah,
[3:13:46] but I've also learned that he is very
[3:13:49] kind and helpful in offering his
[3:13:51] experience and resources to a lot of the
[3:13:55] other people that are on
[3:13:56] >> there's a list
[3:13:57] >> and uh for instance our friend at
[3:13:59] Honeybaked Ham, you know, Adam has been
[3:14:02] very helpful in helping him get going.
[3:14:05] And so I I just want to say thanks to
[3:14:08] Adam for not only the great work that
[3:14:10] you do as Sira, but the great work that
[3:14:13] you do in the community at large. Lift
[3:14:15] all of us.
[3:14:17] >> Well, I I've talked to Bren about this.
[3:14:19] I I know I'm not technically a city
[3:14:22] person, but I feel like I wake up every
[3:14:24] day with the same goal and aspirations
[3:14:26] that you all have, and that is make him
[3:14:28] better. And and uh and so, you know,
[3:14:31] [clears throat] that's that's what we
[3:14:32] aim to do. And um you know I I I think
[3:14:36] again those of you that attend regularly
[3:14:38] can can say and and maybe speak to the the number of improvements you've
[3:14:45] seen both in facility and in programs
[3:14:47] and and everything and that's directly
[3:14:49] related to the support you give to
[3:14:51] Sarah. So thank you very much and and we greatly appreciate it.
[3:14:57] >> Well we appreciate what you give to our
[3:14:59] community.
[3:15:01] It's amazing.
[3:15:04] All right. Anything else?
[3:15:06] >> I would be remiss if uh as Dawson
[3:15:08] mentioned, if I didn't uh at least show
[3:15:10] my appreciation for Mr. Bell in the back
[3:15:12] here, uh I I would probably have had
[3:15:15] stones thrown at me or people
[3:15:18] significantly rolling their eyes or
[3:15:20] shaking their head was not for Mr. Bell.
[3:15:23] Uh in especially in our in our meetings
[3:15:25] and all of these, you know, getting
[3:15:28] everything, setting everything up.
[3:15:31] Dawson mentioned the SAP spreadsheets
[3:15:33] and those C matrix and everything like
[3:15:35] that. Um, so I just wanted to publicly
[3:15:37] express my appreciation for everything
[3:15:39] he did in this regard as well.
[3:15:42] >> Can I ask
[3:15:43] >> is ourse applications for these groups
[3:15:46] on our transparency portal?
[3:15:49] >> I don't
[3:15:52] do applicants. So So people can learn
[3:15:54] about I think some of these I'd like to
[3:15:56] find out what they're doing and go to
[3:15:58] their events.
[3:15:59] So do they have websites or
[3:16:01] >> I don't even I don't know what the
[3:16:02] transparenc
[3:16:04] I don't know what that means.
[3:16:05] >> We can't talk about the transparency
[3:16:15] » maybe after telling you about that. You
[3:16:17] have to wrestle.
[3:16:20] » Do you think Pete we could advertise
[3:16:22] some of these on social media? Yeah. So
[3:16:24] the arts council uh
[3:16:29] So, if everybody if all of you are okay
[3:16:32] with the um this proposal, then what
[3:16:35] would happen is in our April 28th
[3:16:37] council meeting, we would be then coming
[3:16:39] forth uh basically somewhat reiterate
[3:16:42] showing this exhibit that you just
[3:16:44] received. Um and then you would pass an
[3:16:46] ordinance that makes that makes it part
[3:16:49] of that ordinance uh approval.
[3:16:51] >> Council, if you have any questions or
[3:16:53] anything on that, I contact you.
[3:16:55] >> Yeah, Trevor or myself. either one.
[3:16:58] >> And thank you.
[3:17:01] >> Well, especially thanks to our advisory
[3:17:03] commission. I thought they knocked out.
[3:17:04] >> Thank you. Yes. And your commission.
[3:17:06] It's It's not easy allocating money when
[3:17:10] there's so many more. There's so much
[3:17:11] more need than money available.
[3:17:14] >> For sure. We we wish we could have g
[3:17:16] everybody 100%, but fortunately, it just
[3:17:18] wasn't realistic. But it was it was a
[3:17:20] lot of experience for sure.
[3:17:22] >> Let me just say one more thing before I
[3:17:23] get in my car and take myself for not
[3:17:25] saying it. And I'm sure you've heard
[3:17:27] this with all the many and mid- majors
[3:17:28] as well. I mean, if we do nothing
[3:17:31] different and add one more program, just
[3:17:34] like you've heard for the last how many
[3:17:36] hours, costs are going up dramatically
[3:17:39] and and and it and we've definitely seen
[3:17:42] that in our and it's [clears throat]
[3:17:44] hard to even get an entry- level person
[3:17:45] when In and Out's paying $17 an hour to
[3:17:48] flip the burgers,
[3:17:49] >> you know. So, I mean it anyway, it's
[3:17:51] just it's it's a really tough climate to keep things going at the at the same
[3:17:57] rate. So, anyway, I I think you you
[3:17:58] probably have heard that on many
[3:18:00] occasions, but
[3:18:02] >> I think every agenda item had some some
[3:18:04] iteration of that today. Yes. No, it's
[3:18:07] good to note that in the arts
[3:18:09] >> and and I we don't have any salaries or
[3:18:12] anything in in care. We do have
[3:18:14] independent contractor fees which is
[3:18:15] like concerts and and those kind of fees
[3:18:18] but but I mean even those rates are
[3:18:20] nothing like they were 10 years ago for
[3:18:22] example.
[3:18:24] So
[3:18:24] >> all right is there anything else is that
[3:18:27] I
[3:18:28] >> All right. So I guess do we need a
[3:18:31] motion to adjourn our work session or
[3:18:32] can we just go?
[3:18:34] >> Yeah, you can need a motion.
[3:18:36] >> Normally we just leave. [laughter]
[3:18:41] Okay. seconds.
[3:18:44] >> I was just gonna leave to bug Steve, but
[3:18:46] [laughter]
[3:18:48] » yes, we are ajourned.
[3:18:54] » Okay. Give a stink eye to whoever says
[3:18:57] no. [laughter]
[3:18:59] I vote. All those in favor?