Mike, a city finance staff member, told the council the cityxpects to use about $197,000 of fund balance in the proposed 2025 budget and reviewed why officials focus on tax rate comparisons rather than levy dollars when measuring competitiveness.
"We are intending to use about $197,000 of fund balance," Mike said during the presentation, describing multi-year capital planning and the city
pproach to avoid levy debt.
Two residents spoke during public comment. Jeff Duncan urged council to consider both tax rate and the change in tax base, saying that a flat or zero percent levy increase can still mean higher tax payments when property values rise: "That 0% increase can still mean an actual tax dollar increase on all citizens," he said. Kim Martin said her home
ssessment rose roughly 50% and asked who determines values; council and staff directed her to the county assessor and the board of equalization for appeals.
Council members debated using fund balance and liquor store reserves to reduce the levy. Some favored leaving reserves intact for large capital years projected in 2028, while others pressed for immediate taxpayer relief. After discussion, council asked staff to prepare revised resolutions reflecting a 2% levy increase instead of the previously proposed 3.88% and postponed final action on K-1 until the next council meeting on Dec. 17 so that documents could be corrected and the statutory notices completed.
The council framed the change as a compromise between reducing immediate taxpayer burden and preserving reserves for planned capital needs. Mike said staff will recalculate the levy numbers and return with updated paperwork at the Dec. 17 meeting.
Next steps: staff will update the K-1 resolutions and budget documents to reflect the agreed 2% levy increase and publish the revised materials ahead of the Dec. 17 meeting for final approval.