Willard council accepts tentative 2025–26 budget; holds emergency-service funding decisions for later

The Willard City Council voted to accept a tentative city budget for 2025–26 at its meeting on Thursday, May 8, approving the plan presented by city staff while leaving key emergency-service funding decisions to come.

The council’s action, made by a motion from Councilmember Mike Schultz and seconded by Councilmember Jake Sawyer, passed unanimously. Ryan Wilcox, presenting the tentative budget, told the council the state requires presentation of a tentative budget at the first meeting in May.

Council members said they still need to decide how to fund a planned city ambulance and whether to hire an additional full-time officer. The meeting’s discussion centered on three near-term topics: vehicle and fleet choices in the police department, how to account for equipment vs. supplies across departments, and revenue options to support emergency services.

Council context and why it matters

The vote advances the budget through the statutory process but does not finalize spending. Under state rules the tentative budget must be presented in May; the council scheduled a required public hearing at the next council meeting and a final-budget hearing for the first meeting in June. Council members and staff said they will hold additional workshops to refine the ambulance and policing numbers that could require new revenue measures.

Key facts and decisions

- Budget acceptance: Councilmember Mike Schultz moved to accept the tentative budget as presented; Jake Sawyer seconded. The motion carried with all members voting aye. (Motion: accept tentative budget presented by Ryan Wilcox; mover: Mike Schultz; second: Jake Sawyer; outcome: approved.)

- Fleet and vehicle decisions: Council discussion focused on whether to keep a recently purchased city Ford F-150 (the planning truck often referred to as “Maddie’s truck”), to reassign vehicles between planning and police, and to sell several older units. Council members said they expect to sell two Ford Explorers and a Toyota Tundra and to keep the low‑mileage F-150 for dual use rather than immediately buying another marked truck.

- A council member noted there is $50,000 currently budgeted under equipment/planning tied to the truck and proposed removing that line from the planning budget if the truck is kept for police use.

- Council members discussed rotating vehicles so higher‑mileage units become backups and lower‑mileage units serve active patrol duties; one suggestion was to sell the 2016 Explorer (high miles) and retain a lower‑mileage unmarked vehicle as the part‑time/shared unit.

- Equipment accounting and subcategories: Council members asked that capital outlay and equipment lines be clarified across departments so department heads understand which purchases are capitalized (typically items above a $2,500 threshold) and which sit in “equipment, supplies and maintenance.” The mayor asked staff to break larger equipment items out by department (for example, fire and streets) to make subcategory spending clearer to department heads and the council.

- Health insurance and personnel: Staff told the council that city insurance premiums used in the draft budget were increased by about 13 percent to reflect current quotes; council members discussed whether the city or employees would absorb increases and noted the city’s standard split is 75 percent employer / 25 percent employee for premiums.

Emergency services and ambulance funding: options and timing

Council members discussed three principal revenue options to support a city ambulance and expanded emergency staffing: a property-tax increase (truth-in-taxation), a dedicated monthly ‘‘public safety’’ fee billed with utility/water service (sometimes called a rooftop fee), and a sales-tax increase. The council also considered per-call ambulance fees and whether to charge for non‑transports.

- Rooftop/public‑safety fee: Councilmembers cited Highland (Utah) as an example of a city that places a small monthly line item on utility bills restricted to emergency services. The idea discussed was a modest monthly fee (examples mentioned ranged from $10 to $25 in rough council discussion) with a different higher rate for commercial accounts.

- Sales tax and other options: Staff agreed to contact the state tax authority for estimates of likely revenue from any contemplated sales-tax increase. Council discussion noted sales tax does not apply to all items (for example, many groceries) and that sales-tax revenue could help shift some cost burden to visitors and transient sales activity.

- Per‑call fees and non‑transport charge: Councilmembers discussed charging for ambulance responses or non‑transports (an example in discussion: Brigham City’s reported non‑transport fee of roughly $112, cited from media reporting). Staff noted the state imposes caps and regulations on ambulance billing; the council said it needed better modeling of how often the city would bill and what the net revenue would be.

Staff and next steps

City staff told the council they will separate ambulance and emergency‑service line items from the general budget to allow clearer tradeoff analysis. Staff also agreed to provide the council with: (1) projected revenue required to staff an ambulance and hire an additional officer; (2) an estimate of revenue that a rooftop fee or sales‑tax increment would produce; and (3) a clearer breakdown of equipment and capital outlay lines by department. Council members asked staff to present those figures at a follow‑up workshop before the final budget vote.

Ending

The council approved the tentative budget and instructed staff to refine the ambulance and police staffing costs and revenue options for further council review. Councilmembers said they preferred targeted public‑process steps (workshops and hearings) rather than finalizing revenue measures at the May meeting.