Orangeville finance staff flags midyear shortfall; council considers fees, contracts and transfers

Orangeville finance staff told the City Council during a public hearing that a midyear review of the amended 2025–2026 budget shows a shortfall of roughly $36,000 and outlined several accounting changes and revenue ideas to address the gap.

Gary, the city finance staff member who presented the midyear figures, said he used December numbers to compare estimates with actual receipts and expenditures and recommended segregating several large projects and restricted revenues from the general fund. “What I’ve done with the accounting on this number 1 here is about the pickleball courts…we put that in a separate owned fund, which is called the capital projects fund,” Gary said, explaining the move will keep multi‑year grant receipts and project expenses from skewing the general fund balance.

Gary detailed several adjustments to the general fund: a $13,000 downward correction to expected franchise tax revenue, two newly identified inflows (about $5,200 from a UDOT street‑lighting grant and roughly $5,600 in fire‑equipment reimbursement), a $20,000 reduction in forecasted interest earnings, and an unplanned $16,000 boiler replacement. He said the utility fund shows a planned transfer of $54,100 to the general fund. Taken together, those items leave a roughly $36,000 gap; Gary estimated the city could cover most of the shortfall this year by drawing on savings but cautioned against using reserves routinely. “We’re going to be using about $30,000 of our savings to just balance this the general fund,” he said.

Council members asked where meaningful cost savings might be found. Gary said small cuts (paper, minor supplies) would not be sufficient and recommended examining administrative costs, fire protection spending and road‑related expenses. He also called attention to cemetery maintenance, which he said had unusually large expenditures this year (about $61,000). “If we’re going to look at cost savings, we’ve got to look at where it makes a difference,” he said.

On potential revenue measures, a council member said the city is pursuing a county animal‑control contract that could bring an estimated $50,000–$80,000 annually; Gary said proceeds of such a contract would be unrestricted and could be used where needed. The council also discussed steps already underway to increase revenues, including revising the fee schedule, pursuing transient room tax (TRT) collection on short‑term rentals and considering annexation of county property near a research center if that would lead to future tax revenue.

Council members agreed to begin budget planning for the next fiscal year next month and to return with more detailed options for cuts and revenue changes. The public hearing was closed and the council moved to the regular session.

What happens next: council members will review department budgets, revisit the fee schedule and investigate potential contracts and TRT collection; no new tax increase was proposed during the hearing.