Politics & Government
Council budget decision delayed over 3 versus 4% city employee wage increase
Nichole Coombs | Lehi Free Press
After hours of discussion and debate over a reworked interim budget, the city council tabled the vote and asked for another work session before finalizing the Lehi City budget.
In April, Mayor Paul Binns proposed a budget with a 3% tax increase for residents. Binns’ budget included a 4% overall wage increase for city employees. It also included funding several needed staff positions. The council rejected the budget with the tax increase, then met with each city department head to review needs and wants. After those meetings, the council asked Dean Lundell, the city finance director, and his staff to take the council’s suggestions and propose an interim budget that accounted for council feedback and remove the tax increase.
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the council discussed the revised interim budget, specifically focusing on a 3% increase, rather than a 4% increase, for city employees.
“I want to be perfectly clear because words matter,” said council member Rachel Freeman. “We are looking at a one percent decrease in a proposed increase. Six weeks from now, every employee will receive an increase. What we are talking about is whether it’s a three or four percent increase.”
Traditionally, Lehi City employees have received a 4% increase, except in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cutting the wage increase by 1% saves the city $355,000. By making this cut, the city can add needed staff positions without raising taxes.
Council member Heather Newall was very specific regarding her decision to vote against the interim budget.
“I will not support a budget that reduces city wages,” said Newall. “The [4 %] wage increase was never part of the tax increase portion [of the budget]. We can’t take part of that to pay for new positions. I’m really concerned that we are affecting our employees’ output and their morale.”
David Kitchen, the city’s human resources manager, spoke to the council about employee feedback.
“Overall, employees supported the mayor’s budget because there was overall more money [despite] the tax increase. It was their understanding that the budget would make more money available for police and fire.” Kitchen went on to say that given the choice, city employees would do without additional hires and take the 4% wage increase.
Council member Michelle Stallings asked why the city didn’t take a tiered approach to raises, giving lower-paid employees a larger wage increase while higher-paid employees received less.
City administrator Jason Walker responded by saying the city has never given increases, which are typical cost of living (COLA) increases, in that manner.
“What we have done is looked at the market,” said Walker. “We look at different positions on a case-by-case basis and see which positions are falling the most behind [in pay] in their market. We take money and try to catch up on those positions. It’s kind of like playing ‘whack-a-mole’ because we catch one area up and then another falls behind.”
Walker went on to say that he was worried that anything less than the 4% raise would make highly experienced employees with marketable skills vulnerable to being lured away by other cities.
During the debate, council member Stallings stated that she believes the past conversations about the wage increase were always justified to offset inflation.
“It’s our spin [and] it’s our cascading spending habits that have created the [wage] problem,” said Stallings.
Walker disagreed.
“When you say that inflation is not a factor, I respectfully have to disagree,” said Walker. “If there was zero growth, then yes, property taxes would not need to increase. That [growth] necessitates more police officers, more fire, and more streets. When you talk about saving money on ice skating rinks and capital things, that’s one thing. But now, when we talk about saving money by not having our wages keep up with the market, that’s another thing.”
Stallings quickly responded, “That’s not what I was saying.”
Council member Stallings also stated that past councils are responsible for creating the debts this council is charged with paying. Stallings mentioned green space and the Legacy Center as reasons this council is facing a difficult budget cycle.
Council member Emily Lockhart disagreed with putting the blame on past councils.
“I’m glad the council obligated us to fire station 83. If you are a resident of Traverse Mountain, I bet you are glad, too. How about our police station and the resources that it provides our community?” said Lockhart. “I’m glad prior councils have provided investments in water, power, and the fiber project.”
Lockhart went on to say that those investments weren’t just financial obligations for the council but investments in our residents, and complaining about the debt left behind isn’t helpful.
Stallings interrupted Lockhart and said she wasn’t talking about those items.
“Council member Stallings, I apologize if you are offended by my comments, but I’m trying to have an honest and transparent conversation about our long-term debt obligations,” said Lockhart.
At this point, Mayor Binns interrupted the discussion and asked that, moving forward, everyone would need to ask to speak to maintain meeting decorum.
Two Lehi residents who attended the meeting but asked to remain anonymous called the interaction between the two council members “ridiculous.”
“It’s like [Stallings] can’t let anyone else talk,” said one resident.
“I walked away feeling sick for the lack of kindness,” said another resident. “The disrespect she [Stallings] had for other city council members and the fact that it was even allowed to happen made me sick.”
Just before 10 p.m., a motion to delay a vote on the budget until June 8, 2026, was passed.
After the meeting, the Lehi Free Press contacted all council members, giving them the opportunity to clarify their positions on the budget. Council member Stallings did not reply. However, the other four council members did.
Council member Freeman said she was disappointed that the council couldn’t reach consensus. “I felt that the proposed 3% raise for full-time city employees was very reasonable, especially after meeting with some of the executive staff, department heads, and looking at raises among state and federal employees,” said Freeman.
“Council member Stallings proposed funding only half of the requested increase in fire wages this year. I disagreed with that and said we should fund at least 75% of the fire department’s request. If the council agrees, I will support putting the leftover money back into the senior center budget, hiring two part-time mechanics and an office assistant for our fleet department,” added Freeman.
Council member Heather Newall explained why she was opposed to approving the budget without the 4% wage increase.
“I supported tabling the budget because I was not willing to support reducing employee compensation below a 4% adjustment to fund other priorities,” said Newall. “The interim budget reduced that adjustment to 3% and used those dollars to fund items that had originally been proposed through a tax increase. If the council believes a service or program is important enough to fund, we should be honest about how we pay for it rather than balancing the budget on the backs of employees.”
Council member James Harrison explained his position.
“The interim budget presented was something I could have supported. It wasn’t perfect, but it hit the right balance in shaving minor savings across the board in order to provide increased funding for public safety and infrastructure,” said Harrison. “This still included a 3% raise for all city employees. The next version of the budget moves that annual increase back up to 4%, but at the cost of a needed court clerk and full-time police records clerk. This is less ideal for me.”
Council member Lockhart said, “All five of us agree that raising taxes isn’t an option. So, a natural consequence of not raising taxes to increase services is that we will grow them more slowly. There is new money with growth, and it’s coming; it’s just not keeping up with the demands on our budget. I recognize that my residents are uncertain about the [economic] future. My perspective is that we will grow services more slowly and not raise taxes.”
The council is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, June 8 at 4 p.m. for a work session to review the latest budget version. The work session is open to the public, but public comment is not allowed. The revised budget is scheduled to be voted on during the city council meeting the following day (June 9). The public may participate during the public comment section of the council meeting.
