Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opens three budget‑related public hearings; staff explains Light & Power fund transfer and proposed FY26 transfer
Summary
Bountiful staff presented an amendment to the current fiscal year transfer from the Light & Power Fund to the general fund, the proposed FY26 transfer, and the overall proposed FY 2025–26 budget in three linked public hearings on June 10; the council continued final action to June 24.
City finance staff and department leads presented three connected public hearings during the June 10 Bountiful City Council meeting: (1) an amendment to the current fiscal year administrative transfer from the Light & Power Fund to the general fund, (2) the proposed administrative transfer for FY 2026, and (3) a public hearing on the proposed FY 2025–26 budget that includes proposed water and power rate adjustments. The council did not take final action on any of the three matters and moved final adoption to June 24.
Galen Rasmussen (finance) explained the purpose of the administrative transfer: reimbursement from enterprise funds to the general fund for services such as payroll allocation, accounting, information technology, legal, insurance, engineering and planning. The amended transfer for the current fiscal year was described as $3,000,222.06 (about 8.1% of Light & Power Fund expenses after adjustment); the proposed FY26 transfer was listed as $3,000,001.64 (about 7.2% of forecasted power‑fund expenses). Rasmussen said the transfer mechanism reduces property‑tax pressure by allocating a portion of enterprise fund revenues to the general fund to pay for services those operations receive.
During the hearing resident Ronald Mortensen (PhD) asked a series of questions about the transfer and power rates. He requested the city provide the total payments made to the power utility by non‑property‑tax‑paying entities (for example, nonprofits and churches), whether non‑property taxpayers pay a special rate that contributes to the transfer, and whether customers as a whole effectively subsidize the reimbursement. Mortensen also raised a separate comparison question: why Bountiful Power and Light’s rates (seasonally higher) and customer charge appear higher than Rocky Mountain Power’s, and why Rocky Mountain can offer energy‑efficiency rebates that Bountiful does not.
Council members and staff noted the council would receive more complete materials and invited residents to return for the June 24 meeting, when the mayor will be present and the council will consider final adoption. Rasmussen and other staff indicated that more detailed figures (for example, billing details for tax‑exempt entities and rate comparisons) could be provided in follow‑up materials and posted to the city website.
Discussion vs. decision: The hearing stage is informational; staff presented the transfer history and the proposed numbers and the public asked questions. No ordinance, rate schedule or transfer was adopted on June 10; the council scheduled final adoption for June 24.
