Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations committee approves prior minutes, reviews 2025 budget amendment and dozens of midyear requests
Summary
The Cache County Appropriations Committee approved last meeting’s minutes and spent most of the session reviewing a proposed 2025 budget amendment that moves funds for capital purchases, addresses unspent RAPS awards, proposes a new restricted transportation fund, and flags several large project requests for further department review.
The Cache County Appropriations Committee met to consider a 2025 budget amendment that includes dozens of midyear transfers, capital requests and carryovers, and approved the minutes from its previous meeting. The committee did not finalize the amendment but directed staff to clarify several items and to remove a $1.6 million projected transportation allocation for later consideration.
The committee voted to approve the previous meeting minutes after a short discussion about adding more detail to future minutes regarding end‑of‑year purchase orders (POs). "If you want me to amend to change the next ones then…because we don't want to change them after you've already approved them," said Unidentified Speaker 2. Unidentified Speaker 4 moved to approve the minutes; Unidentified Speaker 1 seconded and the motion passed.
Staff presenter Unidentified Speaker 7 walked members through the budget amendment line by line. Item 1 would allow the sheriff to replace a motorcycle by showing an interfund transfer: reducing a departmental operating line and increasing the capital fund. Members asked whether departments should remit sale proceeds to the general fund or allow trade‑ins to remain in department budgets; Unidentified Speaker 8 urged a consistent policy so departments do not treat trade‑ins as new discretionary funds.
The committee discussed a series of wrap/restaurant (RAPS) and grant awards that did not get fully spent inside the two‑year window. Unidentified Speaker 7 said, "If it doesn't get used up in that 2 year period, they have to reapply," and proposed possibly extending that window to three years or improving recipient guidance. Members agreed unused award amounts should generally return to the RAPS fund rather than to the general fund and asked that staff provide a list of awards that remain open.
Several large capital items were highlighted for future explanation to the committee or for department heads to present directly. Those include engineering fees for a Powder Mountain review (staff advised increasing a request to about $35,000 after confirming other revenues), a $42,000 price increase on a plow/dump truck, and multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar transportation projects including the South Valley Connector and a $464,700 request for 1200 East. Committee members requested project memos and department representatives before any council vote.
On item 40, staff proposed a budgeting and transparency software package that presenter Unidentified Speaker 7 described as a six‑figure, long‑term budgeting tool separate from the county’s general ledger. Unidentified Speaker 6 said the package was a lower‑cost alternative to a seven‑figure Oracle replacement and added that the tool would help public budget creation and online transparency.
A key fiscal debate centered on item 41, a proposal to set up a restricted transportation fund to capture 25% of a projected sales‑tax revenue stream. Unidentified Speaker 7 explained the goal as better tracking of restricted sales‑tax receipts. Several members urged waiting for first‑quarter actual receipts before committing projected balances to projects; Unidentified Speaker 1 asked staff to begin recording actual monthly receipts into the new fund but to remove the $1.6 million projection from the amendment until revenues are confirmed.
Staff summarized the amendment’s net use of fund balance (about $2.13 million before subtracting the transportation projection). Unidentified Speaker 7 agreed to remove the $1.6 million projection and to circulate a finalized amendment and memos (including the transportation and RAPS details) for committee review ahead of the council packet deadline.
The committee did not take additional formal votes on the amendment during the meeting; rather, members asked for further documentation and asked staff to bring a revised amendment back for approval at the next packet deadline.
Ending: Staff will circulate memos and a revised amendment before the council packet is finalized so committee members can review updates and have department heads available to answer questions.
