Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orangeville staff present amended FY24-25 figures, propose FY25-26 general fund adjustments
Summary
During a June 10 public hearing in Orangeville, staff reviewed amended fiscal year 2024–25 budgets to align department spending with actuals and outlined proposed FY2025–26 general fund allocations, including carryovers, capital items and a utility-to-general-fund transfer.
On June 10 at a public hearing in Orangeville, staff presented amended fiscal year 2024–25 budgets and a proposed FY2025–26 general fund budget that would align department budgets with year-to-date spending and carry over several project funds.
Finance staff said the state of Utah requires the city not to overspend budgets by department or by utility fund. “What is required by the state of Utah is that we we are not allowed to overspend, our budgets by departments and by by our utility fund,” the presenter said while describing adjustments to revenue estimates and departmental lines to reflect actual activity during the year.
The presentation showed several items the city plans to fund or carry over if revenues permit: a carryover connected to BNC loan funds (figures discussed as “242,000” in available funding), purchases for public works (a small truck for about 70,000, a plow for about 15,000 and a sander for about 15,000 were discussed), $50,000 proposed for asphalt maintenance, and $15,000 for shop roof repairs funded from class C road funds. The presenter noted that cemetery maintenance cannot be paid from class C road funds and therefore would need to come from the city’s general funds.
The presenter also described personnel and payroll items, saying the budget includes full‑time employee counts discussed as “243” and “2 or 4” percent merit increases for some employees (amounts and exact percentages were discussed but not finalized in the transcript). The utility fund transfer to the general fund was discussed as $4,400 in the presentation materials.
Staff flagged a county EMS assessment line that was initially rounded to $6,000 during discussion; the presenter agreed to adjust that figure to the assessment amount of $6,310 before finalizing documents.
Those present described the amended budget as a reflection of spending already incurred during the fiscal year rather than new appropriations. Staff said the adjustments are intended to make the budget “more reflective of what they did spend” and to avoid overspending issues during the upcoming audit.
No formal vote to adopt the amended FY24–25 figures or the FY25–26 general fund proposal was recorded in the transcript. Staff indicated they would make final numeric adjustments and bring the finalized document forward for adoption at a subsequent meeting if required.
The hearing concluded after additional routine items; public comment was not recorded. The city indicated some grant revenues remain conditional: if specific grant receipts do not arrive, those projects or purchases would not proceed.
