Aztec workshop spotlights midyear budget adjustments, staffing shortfalls and rising parks costs

Aztec city staff on Wednesday reviewed a series of midyear budget adjustments that officials said are driven mostly by unplanned salary and benefits costs, employee payouts and staffing shortages.

Jenny, a city staff member, told commissioners that some raises granted after the council approved the fiscal budget were not reflected in the July budget and required retroactive payments. She said one example charged to department 1190 involved an employee identified in the discussion as Ed, who received a retroactive increase not captured in the adopted figures.

The police department’s budget lines were also adjusted to reflect a higher planned headcount: staff said the department is budgeting for 18 positions rather than the 16 included in the adopted budget, while noting the authorized complement is 20 and additional hires remain a goal.

Commissioners pressed staff on a cluster of service and staffing problems. Animal-control staff are “grossly understaffed,” the packet and staff comments said, citing a worksheet compiled by the division that benchmarks staffing to animal intake; that shortfall has led to frequent overtime. The senior center likewise relies on temporary hires when regular staff are not available, increasing operating costs. Staff said the senior center serves residents from Aztec and neighboring municipalities including Farmington and Bloomfield, and county and intergovernmental arrangements affect how meal and service costs are tracked.

One immediate operational impact discussed was a temporary service change at the Motor Vehicle Division. “We’re going to be shut down on Fridays,” Jenny said, describing a short staffing period tied to an extended FMLA leave; staff estimated the temporary reduction could last about a month while coverage is adjusted.

Commissioners also questioned a $65,000 increase for parks water and utilities. One commissioner noted the city previously invested about $100,000 in a water-monitoring system intended to reduce usage and asked staff to provide last-year spending figures to explain the variance; staff said they would review historical costs and return with data.

Other budget items raised included funding for an alternate judge (money moved into an alternate judge line after the adopted budget omitted it), facility-maintenance increases for water and wastewater plant upkeep, and equipment-maintenance lines that cover heavy equipment (street and sidewalk sweepers, dump trucks and vacuum trucks). A UV sterilizer for the wastewater plant — discussed in the meeting with an approximate price tag mentioned during Q&A of roughly $200,000 — is not included in the current midyear package; staff reported they have pursued grant opportunities and will report back on those applications.

Staff also confirmed two positions previously discussed by the commission are not reflected in the current budget file: the incoming city manager’s salary and a previously approved 'meter greeter' position. Commissioners were told both items would return for action if the city decides to hire and make those line items permanent.

Staff reminded the commission that unspent budgeted funds typically roll back to the general fund or relevant enterprise funds at year end, and that additional adjustments remain possible. Commissioners requested more detailed line-item comparisons and historical spending data to better understand the changes before formal adjustments are approved.

The workshop moved on to the Main Street presentation following the budget review; no formal votes on budget amendments were taken during this session.