Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Toquerville staff presents balanced administrative budget; council to review before tentative adoption
Summary
City staff presented a balanced administrative budget for fiscal year 2025–26, highlighted revenue assumptions tied to anticipated building permits and recommended conservative staffing and merit/COLA proposals; council will review before the tentative budget adoption process.
City staff presented Toquerville’s administrative budget overview for fiscal year 2025–26 and said the administration had balanced the draft budget without using general fund reserves.
City staff described the budget as an "admin" budget that staff prepared and the council will revise before the tentative budget is formally adopted. Staff said the packet contains the proposed budget with 420 line items across funds and that councilmembers should review it over the next month to provide feedback for the tentative budget process.
Key points in staff remarks included plans to close out two capital projects (the parkway and a water tank), a modeled ramp-up in building-permit revenue tied to a large development (staff said they used the developer’s projection then discounted it to 80 percent for conservatism), and a proposed pilot program for a low-cost “movies in the park” community event. Staff said the budget includes implementation of a stormwater fund and notes that the cemetery’s perpetual-care fund produces only modest interest and requires support from general operations.
Staff described the general fund balance history and said the fund had declined to about 19 percent of revenues; staff emphasized they were not budgeting to appropriate rainy-day funds this year and expressed a preference not to reduce the fund balance further. The draft budget shows 11.5 full-time-equivalent positions budgeted for FY26 (a net reduction from 13 FTEs budgeted in FY25) and includes a proposed cost-of-living adjustment (2.5 percent) and a merit pool (up to 4 percent, contingent on revenue availability), with any merit adjustments proposed for January 1 pending revenue confirmation.
Staff noted several revenue tools the council could consider in future, including a city-option local sales-and-use tax (the additional 0.3 percentage-point option) that could generate an estimated $50,000 annually after a proposed travel center opens, and a transportation utility fee (TUF) assessed via utility bills (commonly $10–$20 monthly) to fund road maintenance. Staff said both options have trade-offs and legal/policy considerations and would require council direction before pursuing further studies or implementation.
Councilmembers asked for a simpler roll-up sheet showing totals by fund; staff agreed to provide an aggregated summary and to track line-item change requests between the administrative budget and the council’s tentative budget. Councilmembers asked staff to monitor building-permit revenue monthly and notify the council if trends require midyear adjustments.
No final budget adoption occurred at the meeting; staff said the tentative budget will be prepared for the council on April 16 and that additional hearings and adjustments will follow the statutory process.
