Levan leaders amend 2025 budget, flag gas fund shortfall and small staff cost increases

Levan town staff presented and discussed an amended 2025 budget at a June work session, saying the municipality must reconcile the official budget to actual revenues and expenses before the state reporting deadline.

The discussion focused on several bookkeeping changes and a few substantive items: removing two grants that did not materialize, reversing a placeholder $225,000 capital outlay for a garbage truck that was not purchased, and amending the gas enterprise fund after depreciation and actual operating costs exceeded figures previously submitted to the state.

Christine, a town staff member who led the presentation, said the town could not show more than 100% revenue in the budget and that the office had moved some amounts “from the general fund into the capital fund” to keep totals balanced. She told council members the budget document highlighted proposed changes in yellow so members could see what had been removed or reallocated.

Christine said the town had expected a $100,000 park grant and a $50,000 water (aquifer recharge) grant in the fiscal year but did not receive either award, and she removed those anticipated revenues from the amended budget. She also said she removed a $225,000 capital outlay the town had originally set aside in case a new garbage truck was required, because the truck was not purchased in 2025; she said the amount was planned to be reintroduced in the 2026 budget.

On the gas enterprise fund, Christine said, “our actual numbers on operating expenses for gas are 318,437,” and that figure will rise slightly after another month of depreciation is posted. She said the town had previously estimated $316,000 to the state; because actuals went higher the budget must be amended. To provide a cushion she said the presented amendment sets the gas fund budget at about $326,000.

Council members and staff discussed options to cover the higher gas costs. Christine said the town may transfer excess funds from the general fund to support gas in 2026 or consider a small rate increase for customers; she asked staff to analyze gas consumption (gigatherms) over the past three years before proposing any change. Mayor (unnamed) noted the council has tried to avoid raising utilities but acknowledged inflation pressures and that the town has raised some fees in recent years for water and meter charges.

The amended budget presentation also included personnel-cost adjustments. Staff said benefits for two named employees—Traves and Jason—had increased (one example given was a 14.4% rise for those positions). Christine said she applied a minimum 13.5% wage increase across positions in the draft, and estimated total additional personnel costs in the mid‑teens of thousands of dollars (she later summarized the bottom line impact as roughly $16,000–$17,000 across categories). Council members discussed the town’s past practice and expressed support for maintaining benefits, with the mayor saying, “Insurance comes with the job.” Council asked staff to seek rate/price comparisons for benefits and explore cost‑control options without cutting employee insurance.

Councilors also discussed cemetery lot pricing (no change was adopted). Christine said she had not changed cemetery revenue or expenses in the amended budget because the council had not decided on new prices; she warned that if the town raises prices it might sell fewer plots. A councilor asked for a comparison to neighboring municipalities (Nephi and Mona) and asked staff to add cemetery-pricing to an upcoming agenda for decision.

Other capital and operating notes in the presentation: the 2024 spike in streets capital outlay reflected heavy equipment purchases (a dump truck and other items) and one-time chip‑seal projects supported by state road funds, staff said. Christine explained the town is letting some grant and road funds build over multiple years so it can undertake several street projects at once. Staff also said they maintain modest cushions in capital lines so invoices can be paid without procedural delay.

Staff described new bookkeeping distinctions for Fourth of July ("20 fourth") receipts: donations will be tracked separately from ticket sales and event revenue so the office can report and thank donors and reconcile event budgets. The council discussed event costs—Christine said the town’s baseline line item for the event is $10,000 but the office is still reconciling which activities and donated goods should be counted against that amount. Staff and youth‑council members expressed reservations about one activity (a “fish grab”) because of rising per‑fish costs compared with prior years.

No final policy votes on the budget were taken at the session. At the end of the work session a procedural motion to close the meeting was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The town’s finance staff said she will submit the amended figures to the state auditor as part of the state budget report and will implement any auditor guidance. Council members asked staff for follow‑up analyses on gas consumption and insurance cost options, a cemetery‑price comparison with nearby towns, and a clearer breakdown of the Fourth of July event budget and donated items.