Council, mPDO ordinance, budget, etc.

by brian mcNary

Kolob Terrace by Lori Cole

Wednesday’s council meeting was a short one. No hot topics or long discussions. There were only 4 items and the agenda lasted little more than an hour. The content matter was excruciating however, and I was thankful that I have never taken leave of my senses long enough to run for a council seat.

Nightly Rental

The first business item (F1) was a nightly rental application in the Cholla subdivision. The rental home is not part of the Cholla HOA and either pre-existed the HOA or was excluded somehow. The application was in order, it met the qualifications, and it was approved.

MPDO ordinance

The second item (F2) was some fine tuning regarding the Firelight MPDO or Master Planned Development Overlay ordinance. This was the excruciating part of the meeting wherein setbacks and lot sizes were discussed for the Firelight development. I noted nothing earth shattering here. Lot sizes are pretty small. The amendments to the ordinance passed.

Letter of Support for SB67 Special Session

The third item (F3) was a discussion and letter of support for SB 67, a bill that would change the classification of Washington County. After looking this up online, sans any cogent definition of SB 67- I found this. SB67 | Utah 2025 | Local Option Sales Tax Amendments | TrackBill

I suppose this has to do with local governments and their ability to impose taxes for emergency services.

2025–2026 Tentative Budget

The last item (F4) was a brief rundown on the remaining fund balances of the city and preparation for the new budget year. I did note that the cemetery budget was about to go in the hole, so to speak. My wife and I have discussed buying a plot, mostly because of the view and the fact that burial plots in Toquerville might be the last, reasonably priced, real estate left in Washington County. We had even thought of buying a few extra plots and speculating on them back before they raised the price.

thoughts on city cars

Councilman Sands brought up and pointed out some budgetary nonsense. Apparently we leased two city vehicles and perhaps another that the Mayor is driving.These cars sit around and collect dust because nobody uses them. They can’t be turned back until the lease term expires. So we simply waste money on them. Now this would be bad enough but the council is also paying a stipend of 1300 dollars a month to two city employees in lieu of them using their own vehicles.

So the taxpayers are paying for two or three cars that nobody uses and also paying a couple of employees significant money to use their own cars I suppose. City Manager Billingsley said the situation could not be rectified since the contract between the employees and the city had been signed.

If all of this seems a bit murky, it is. I must offer up my opinion based on a 1.2 million dollar plus budget that I was once in charge of.

Leasing cars is a terrible financial decision. It also ties up future budgets and councilmembers. In most states, auto manufacturers have set up government bid prices. Once you attach to a state bid, you get vehicles for the price that say, UHP pays, which is significantly less. You buy a car, wait a year and then buy a second car if you need it. A little town like Toquerville probably doesn’t need a motor pool beyond two cars for classes and meetings. If we are financing three cars via glorified rental agreements- that is probably too much and a waste of money. Pay cash for cars instead of interest. Employees should submit mileage and gas receipts if they want to use their own cars. Or drive the motor pool cars.

Thanks for bringing this up, Councilman Sands. This is familiar ground for me. I will be in attendance for the May 21 budget meeting.

Events

Arbor Day, plant a tree and pick up the park. Friday, April 25, 12 PM, Center Street Park

Summer community clean up. Saturday and Sunday, May 31 and June 1, dumpsters at Center St Park, Trail Ridge Park, and Westfield Park.