Council discusses FY2026 tentative budget, proposed utility rate changes and staffing proposals

City Administrator Steve led the budget portion of the work session and said the council's intent is to adopt a tentative budget on May 6 and a final budget in the second meeting in June. He cautioned the session was a work session and that no final decisions would be made at this meeting.

Staff presented the budget one‑pager showing revenues and expenditures. Steve said revenues had been adjusted upward in the sales tax and property tax estimates; staff estimated new growth property tax in the range of “$100 and maybe $200,000 a year” based on recent building activity. The packet included recommendations to shift cultural arts funding entirely to the city's CARE tax and to fund a health center/theater contract for $300,000 from the CARE tax rather than splitting it with the general fund as in the prior year.

On personnel, staff recommended a 5.05% increase to full‑time and part‑time wages and proposed converting a current part‑time social media/special events role to a full‑time position with benefits at an estimated cost of about $60,000 per year. The administrator said the proposal could alternatively be contracted out and that the candidate the administrator had in mind would still need to apply if the council funded the position. He acknowledged the full‑time option is more expensive but argued the candidate already has demonstrated capability.

Council members pressed for clearer written job descriptions and a matrix that would list current duties (for Lisa Flinders and Kyler, identified in the discussion as current contributors), hours currently worked, pay and the additional tasks the proposed full‑time position would add. Council members also asked whether the proposed 10 additional hours would be focused fully on promotion and requested a comparison of contracting costs versus hiring. Steve agreed to produce a PR/promotion matrix and job‑duty comparisons for the next meeting.

On custodial services, staff said they would obtain an informal estimate (“a flyover”) from the contractor that cleans the municipal building and evaluate whether to proceed to a formal RFP if the estimate suggested potential savings. Council members requested multiple informal estimates so they could reasonably compare options before deciding whether to go to a full RFP.

Staff proposed implementing a 2% 401(k) match for the first time, noting the city was modeling matches used by neighboring jurisdictions. Council members emphasized the need for vesting/gating criteria so the match encourages employee retention and asked staff to produce criteria for council review.

Utility rate proposals were discussed on the next page. Staff recapped a prior proposed monthly utility increase of $9.28 (presented three weeks earlier) and said changes since then reduced the sewer portion by 56 cents after removing an $80,000 city allocation for relining from the proposed increase. Staff reported the city's sewer monthly charge at approximately $42.59 and said the city’s sewer fund is a dedicated enterprise fund. On solid waste, staff said Republic Services proposed lower increases than previously expected; the new proposed increases were 2.4% for garbage (about 33¢) and 4.7% for recycling (about 36¢) compared with larger increases previously shown.

Staff shared results of a survey of other cities' hauler contract prices and resident billing. Pleasant Grove's contract price per can was reported as $7.08 to Republic Services, while the average among surveyed cities was about $8.82, leading staff to recommend staying with Republic Services rather than bidding the service at this time. Staff also noted the city charges residents $14.08 for the first can (slightly below the peer mean) and uses margins on second cans and recycling to cover tipping fees, the city cleanup program and other costs.

No budget adoption occurred; staff said the council would consider the tentative adoption on May 6. The meeting closed with staff agreeing to provide: (1) a PR/promotion matrix and written job descriptions and hours for current employees involved in promotion, (2) multiple informal custodial cost estimates and, if warranted, an RFP process later, and (3) proposed vesting/eligibility criteria for a 401(k) match. Council members and staff noted the budget is still subject to revision and that a budget amendment could be used later if contracting decisions were made after the initial adoption.

At the end of the work session a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.