Brigham City staff outline $405,000 fleet‑fund shortfall and options including a targeted 5% property‑tax proposal

City staff told Brigham City Council members that the mayor’s budget includes an added 2% inflation adjustment to the city’s fleet‑leasing program that produces a roughly $405,000 increase the general fund must support if no other offsets are used.

Tom Cotter (presenting staff member) explained scenarios for covering the $405,000, including using new growth in taxable value (staff used a $75,000 historical average for new growth), raising property taxes, increasing forecasted sales‑tax revenue, applying anticipated ambulance revenue gains under new state law, or modestly increasing the utility‑fund transfer to the general fund.

Using staff’s example, applying the full $330,000 shortfall to property taxes (after counting $75,000 new growth) would equate to a uniform 10.3% property‑tax increase across the city under the simplified model Cotter showed. Because council members expressed concern about a double‑digit tax hike, staff presented partial alternatives: cutting the property‑tax increase in half to roughly 5.15% (yielding about $165,000) and making up remaining revenue with a combination of sales‑tax forecast increases and ambulance revenue; or increasing the utility‑transfer rate from 12% to 12.5%, which staff estimated would add about $158,000 and reduce the property‑tax need to roughly $172,000 (about a 5.3% tax increase under the model).

Staff emphasized the distinction between changing a revenue forecast and changing tax or fee rates: council members would not be increasing the sales‑tax rate at the register by adopting a higher sales‑tax revenue forecast; similarly, changes to ambulance billing rates would be governed by state law and billing policy. The presenters also noted the mayor preferred no property‑tax increase but recognized not raising revenue now could require deeper cuts to projects or services later.

Council members discussed tradeoffs: some said they preferred relying partly on sales‑tax forecasts and ambulance revenue rather than a large property‑tax increase; others objected to increasing the utility transfer because it would force cuts to utility capital projects. Several council members said they were comfortable bringing a roughly 5% property‑tax proposal into the tentative budget to be noticed publicly and then revisiting the final number at the truth‑in‑taxation and final budget hearings in August when county new‑growth numbers and more sales‑tax data will be available.

Staff also reviewed the fleet priority and replacement list the fleet committee recommended, including replacement of dump/plow/salter trucks, ambulance purchases already in process, and a multi‑year police fleet rotation that moves to F‑150 trucks for higher resale value and lower net lifecycle cost. Staff explained the fleet fund operates by departments paying lease amounts to the fleet fund; available lease revenue set the committee’s cutoff for what could be purchased this year.

No formal vote was taken; staff said they would use the council’s direction to prepare the tentative budget and public notice for the council meeting next week. The council and staff repeatedly noted that the tentative number may be lowered, but not increased, after the public notice and that the final budget decision will occur in August following the public hearings and receipt of county certified values.