WHAT IS KAYSVILLE CITY PROP 5?

Kaysville City Ordinance Proposition Number 5

Restricted Use of All of Kaysville Power Department Revenues
All revenues of the Kaysville Power Department and/or the Power Fund shall properly be restricted solely to the direct operations of the Kaysville Power Department and not used for any other purpose. The Kaysville Power Department shall maintain an emergency fund as established by the governing body. All revenues above operation expenditures and the emergency fund shall be redistributed on an annual basis to the customers of the Kaysville Power Department based on their proportionate use per annum.

The proposition will appear on the Nov. 5 municipal election ballot.


GET INFORMED

If you want to understand what prop 5 is, we invite you to attend a live presentation or view a recorded online presentation (webinar).

The presentations are not to persuade you to vote for or against the proposition, but to help you make an informed decision. The presentations will present facts and not opinion or speculation.

The presentations are presented by David Bybee, Certified Public Accountant, a former Kaysville City council and planning commission member and governmental auditor.

George Washington said: "An uninformed populace is a populace in slavery."


Live Presentation at Station Park

Monday, November 4 at 7:00 pm

ATTC (Accounting Training and Testing Center)
Station Park
140 N Union Avenue, Suite 240
Farmington, UT 84025

Phone: 801-451-5668

Directions at Station Park
Standing in front of the theater doors, facing the water fountain to the North with the theater behind you, enter the South West entrance of the three story building directly to the West of the fountain.

You can park in the parking lot west of the theater and the building.


Recorded Online Presentation


Press Release and Response

Dear Kaysville City Resident,

The following is my reply to an email press release sent to KSL News from Kaysville Mayor Steve Hiatt on Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. I became aware of the email and the subsequent KSL.com article, when contacted by KSL News.

The matter revolves around my presenting a presentation to inform Kaysville City residents about Kaysville City Ordinance Proposition Number 5 (Prop 5), Restricted Use of All of Kaysville Power Department Revenues and Mr. Hiatt's desperate attempt to suppress my voice.

For those of you who follow politics, note the standard protocol in his email to:

  1. Discredit me,
  2. Distract the reader from the real issue (Proposition 5), and
  3. Threaten to silence me.

These are the standard tactics some politicians use to suppress an individual or issue.

I hope this information will bring to light the type of leadership we now have in Kaysville City.

FIRST PARAGRAPH
Kaysville City has received several comments from residents questioning a recent robo call and announcement. The question is rather the call and meeting are sponsored by Kaysville City because the caller identified himself as a former city councilman, planning commissioner and governmental auditor, and then directs people to a website which adorns the Official Kaysville City Logo. The website is www.kaysvilleprop5.com

REPLY
The robo call stated: "My name is David Bybee, Certified Public Accountant. I am a former Kaysville City Council and Planning Commission member and governmental auditor." which is true.

The Kaysville City logo was on the website because it is a Kaysville City issue. The truth is that it never crossed my mind that anyone would think the website was sponsored by Kaysville City. However, Mr. Hiatt wants you to think I did.

SECOND PARAGRAPH
A quick visit to the website shows the official Kaysville City Logo atop of the page, giving the impression the site is provided or sponsored by Kaysville City. It isn't.

REPLY
Addressed above.

THIRD PARAGRAPH
Kaysville City has not authorized use of its official city logo in any capacity. Furthermore, the city has not endorsed either side of the issue (for or against prop 5). The owner is [of] this website is improperly using the city logo in what appears to be an attempt to mislead voters.

REPLY
When you state: "...the city has not endorsed either side of the issue..."; is this the equivalent of "...it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."? What do you mean when you use the words "the city"? You, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Taylor are all on record as "known outspoken" opponents of Proposition 5. Is "the city" the municipal's land, buildings, and infrastructure or is it the elected officials who represent the city?

Your statement: "...what appears to be an attempt to mislead voters." is your deceptive attempt to guide the reader of the email to where you want the reader to go or think. As stated, there was no attempt to mislead voters, only to inform.

FOURTH PARAGRAPH
The website fails to identify who is behind it, although a quick whois records search shows the domain owner as David Bybee, who has been very out spoken about his support for proposition 5. He is also the individual making the presentation at the webinar today.

REPLY
You state: "The website fails to identify who is behind it..." Once again this is your deceptive attempt to guide the email reader to where you want the reader to go or think. You want the reader to think the website was cloaked to hide the identity of website creator as it is a devious and deceptive undertaking.

The website did and does include the following information:

The presentations are presented by David Bybee, Certified Public Accountant, a former Kaysville City council and planning commission member and governmental auditor.

ATTC (Accounting Training and Testing Center)
Station Park
140 N Union Avenue, Suite 240
Farmington, UT 84025
Phone: 801-451-5668

With that information provided on the website, you couldn't figure out who was "behind it"?

FIFTH PARAGRAPH
One thing is clear - the current wording and use of the Kaysville City logo misleads readers into believing the website and the message are sponsored by the city of Kaysville.

REPLY
What is quite clear is your email's desperate attempt to suppress my voice.

SIXTH PARAGRAPH
Kaysville City plans to take swift legal action to protect itself against misrepresentation. Unfortunately our legal channels are limited until Monday Morning, leaving the website active for more than two days.

REPLY
So, let me get this right. You're going to spend Kaysville City taxpayer money to take "swift legal action" or are you just threatening me with legal action to suppress my voice? Yep, I'm sure that's exactly how the citizens of Kaysville want their hard earned money spent.

SEVENTH PARAGRAPH
In the meantime, we would appreciate any help that the Media's can provide in brining [bringing] attention to this misrepresentation, ensuring our residents are aware this information is not being provided by the city of Kaysville.

REPLY
If the real purpose of Mr. Hiatt's email was "ensuring our residents are aware this information is not being provided by the city of Kaysville." why didn't Mr. Hiatt call me and communicate that to me and ask me to remove the logo?

Why did Mr. Hiatt feel it was necessary to issue a press release to the media and "take swift legal action"?

I believe the answer is pretty obvious.


Utah State Auditor Kaysville City Findings and Recommendations Report

To view the official PDF document, click the link below.

http://financialreports.utah.gov/saoreports/2013/12-KAYS-8LKaysvilleCity.pdfKaysvilleCity.pdf


September 25, 2013

Mayor Steve Hiatt and Kaysville City Council
23 East Center
Kaysville, UT 84037

Dear Mayor Hiatt and City Council:

The Office of the Utah State Auditor has investigated multiple allegations related to Kaysville City (the City). We performed this investigation as a result of concerns reported to us through our Hotline. A number of the allegations were unsubstantiated; however, some resulted in identified areas which require correction or improvement, and are included in our findings and recommendations below:

  1. ELECTRICAL FUNDS USED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The City used money from their electrical enterprise fund to purchase property for economic development purposes. Electrical enterprise fund revenues are generated from fees charged to rate payers for electrical service, while economic development is an activity unrelated to the purpose for which the fees were assessed. Fees charged for a specific purpose represent an implied agreement with the rate payers and should be used only for activities related to the specific purpose. If an activity does not directly relate to the business of the underlying enterprise fund, then it should be considered a de facto transfer. It does not appear it was the City's intent to mislead citizens; however, best practices dictate that rate payers should be notified prior to the disbursement of any funds for an unrelated activity.

Recommendation:

We recommend that fees charged by the electrical enterprise fund be used only for that purpose unless rate payers are properly notified prior to the commencement of any unrelated activity.

City's Response:

The City used money from the Electric Utility Enterprise Fund to purchase property for the orderly development of commercial properties in the City. Utah Code 10-8-1 and 10- 8-2 grants us considerable control over property in our City.

We recognize the position of the State Auditor's Office recommendation of "best practice" calls for additional disclosure where fees charged for a specific purpose may be used for a perceived unrelated purpose. We agree that a "best practice" calls for notification to ratepayers prior to the disbursement of any funds. In fact, we agree to work with the Legislature to codify the "best practice" recommendation for all cities.

The economic benefit associated with the property transactions has allowed the City to balance costs and benefits and manage the City well. The position of the City has been that there was not a transfer to another fund. All property purchased remained on the financial statement as an asset of the Electric Utility Enterprise Fund. When the property was sold, the proceeds stayed inside the Fund and there was no transfer of land or sale proceeds out of the Fund or to any other fund.

  1. CITY DEPARTMENTS NOT CHARGED FOR UTILITY SERVICES

The City does not charge City departments for electricity and other utility services used. Not charging a City department for utilities used is in substance a non-cash transfer to another fund without following the notice and hearing requirements found in Utah Code 10-6-135. Utah Code sections 10-6-107 and 10-6-156 direct the Office of the Utah State Auditor to analyze and evaluate accounting, budgeting, and reporting practices and experiences of cities and prescribe a uniform system of accounting that conforms to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). To comply with the direction noted in these statutes, the Office of the Utah State Auditor has prepared the Uniform Accounting Manual (UAM). UAM, 2012 revision, Section A.03.01 states that "City departments should pay for utility services at the same rate charged to other customers of the utility." This guidance in the UAM is designed to conform with GAAP and assist cities in complying with Utah Code 10-6-135.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the City meter and bill City departments for utility services at the same rate charged other customers of the utility. We also recommend that the City review previous years' City department utility usage and reimburse the utility funds for services used.

City's Response:

City utility enterprise funds have provided utility services to City buildings and facilities as part of the overall operations of the City. Your letter indicates that not charging a City department for utilities used is in substance a non-cash transfer. Furthermore, your letter recommends that the City meter and bill City departments for utility services and review the previous year's utility usage and reimburse the utility funds for services used.

During the current budget year we agree to establish a practical method to record all inter-fund transactions and agree to follow the recommendation to charge City departments for utility services or follow the notice and hearing requirements found in Utah Code 10-6-135. It is not feasible to go back and calculate the usage for previous years and reimburse the enterprise funds.

  1. CITY DEPARTMENTS EXCEEDED BUDGET

Certain City departments have exceeded their budget for seven of the last eight years. We noted that actual expenditures were in excess of the total appropriation within departments and not for the General Fund in total. Utah Code 10-6-123 requires that expenditures not exceed total appropriations for any department in the budget as adopted or as subsequently amended.

Recommendation:

We recommend the City take additional steps, as necessary, to ensure compliance with Utah Code 10-6-123.

City's Response:

It was noted in your letter that certain City Department expenditures were in excess of the appropriation for that department in various years. While the City has always operated within the total General Fund budget, we accept the recommendation and will take necessary steps to ensure department expenses do not exceed their annual allocation.

  1. INCONSISTENT BID SOLICITATION

The City did not use uniform and consistent information when soliciting bids for the purchase of computer equipment. Uniform and consistent purchase solicitations give all potential bidders an equal opportunity to respond and give the City a basis to fairly and accurately evaluate the bids.

Recommendation:

We recommend the City ensure all purchase solicitations are uniform and consistent.

City's Response:

Your letter indicates that the City did not use uniform and consistent information when soliciting bids for the purchase of computer equipment. While the City believes this was an isolated occurrence, we accept the recommendation to ensure that all potential bidders are given fair and equal opportunity to respond and give the City a basis to fairly and accurately evaluate bids as prescribed in City Purchasing Procedures.

  1. UNCLEAR PURCHASING POLICY

The City's written purchasing policies and procedures are unclear and contradictory in some places. We noted, however, that the City's "purchasing flowchart" is clear and concise.

Recommendation:

We recommend the City clarify its written policies and procedures to mirror the information included in the City's "purchasing flowchart."

City's Response:

While the City "purchasing flowchart" is clear and concise, your letter stated that the City's written purchasing policies and procedures may be unclear and contradictory in some cases. The City accepts your recommendation and will take appropriate action to have the written policies and procedures correspond with the "purchasing flowchart".

Our procedures were more limited than would be necessary to express an opinion on any of the items referred to above or to express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or any part thereof. Accordingly, we do not express such opinions. Had we performed additional procedures or had we made an audit of the effectiveness of the City's internal control, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

By its nature, this letter focuses on exceptions, weaknesses, and problems. This focus should not be understood to mean there are not also various strengths and accomplishments. We appreciate the courtesy and assistance extended to us by the personnel of the City, and we look forward to a continuing professional relationship. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John Dougall
Utah State Auditor