Eureka council reviews municipal budget comparisons; presenter urges annual truth-in-taxation and better cash investing

A presenter at Eureka City's Feb. work meeting walked council members through a side-by-side comparison of the city's 2024 budget and those of similar Utah towns, urging the city to consider an annual truth-in-taxation process and to review where the city keeps its reserves.

The presenter said the analysis, drawn in part from work by Carrie Nakamura of the Utah League of Cities and Towns and municipal auditor data, showed Eureka's property-tax revenue was lower than peers and that the city's single-largest expenditure category, "general government," appeared much higher than comparable municipalities. "You should, in my opinion, do truth in taxation every single year," the presenter said during the meeting.

The presenter told the council that Eureka's sales tax and property tax together should be the city's two largest revenue sources and that Eureka's property tax collection is not keeping pace with inflation after decades without a truth-in-taxation review. The presenter also flagged two unusual line items in the city's budget: an intergovernmental revenue figure (noted in the materials as about $205,000) and a highways expenditure listed around $232,000. Both numbers were called "very high" for a city Eureka's size and recommended for closer review.

Why it matters: City officials said the large, unexplained concentrations in intergovernmental and highway lines, and the comparatively small interest income, reduce the funds available for operations and capital projects. The presenter said moving idle funds into higher-yield instruments such as the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund (PTIF) or other suitable state/local accounts could increase revenue without raising tax rates.

Key details from the presentation included: - A recommendation to consider annual truth-in-taxation to account for inflation and restore purchasing power that the presenter said the city lost over 30 years without the process; the presenter noted Goshen previously tripled its rate after long delays, as an example of how the process affects revenues. - Interest earnings on city funds were cited as unusually low (the presenter referenced a $5.25 figure in the slide set), and the presenter suggested moving cash into accounts with higher yields such as PTIF. - The presenter said some account categories are likely being recorded differently across municipalities and recommended a dedicated budget work session and a review with the auditor and staff to break out the city's "general government" and highways spending.

Council members and staff asked clarifying questions about where some revenues originate and how sales and transportation taxes were being coded. The presenter said some distributions (for example, municipal transportation or highway tax) may be entering the city's accounts without a clear code and recommended staff identify the source codes and the auditor help reconcile the line items.

The presenter offered continuing assistance, including running revenue projections and explaining the truth-in-taxation process and suggested the city present clear diagrams at public hearings to help residents understand how the process affects individual property owners.

The meeting included no formal budget vote; council members said they expected to review the details in upcoming budget work sessions and to coordinate with staff and the city auditor to resolve the large line-item questions.

Ending: Council members thanked the presenter and indicated support for follow-up work sessions before the city's preliminary budget process in May.