Logan officials propose 3% property tax increase, flag large utility transfers and $10 million notice for Public Works building

Logan City staff presented a draft budget at a May 2025 workshop proposing a roughly 3% increase in the city's property tax levy, continued transfers from utility funds into the general fund, and a formal notice that a transfer of about $10 million could be required if the city proceeds with a new Public Works building.

The city's budget overview, led by Rich (staff member), framed the property-tax change as a modest, year-over-year step to support library and general-fund services: "We are proposing a 3% property tax increase," Rich said, adding that the portion that relates to Logan City is approximately 16% of a full property tax bill and that the net effect to many taxpayers would be about 1% of their total tax bill. He said final figures will be available after June 8.

Why it matters: the levy proposal is part of a broader effort to keep revenue growth steady and avoid large, one-time hikes. Rich told council members that the city aims for small annual increases rather than larger adjustments: "The idea again is small increases year over year, avoid large large increases like 20%." He also warned that reassessment handled at the county and state level affects what individual property owners will pay, even when the city holds its levy steady.

Staff also reviewed longstanding interfund transfers that move utility revenues into the general fund. The draft notice lists transfers including "a million from water and sewer, 3.9 from the electric fund," and explains that these amounts are set by council ordinance or resolution and are part of the city's financing plan. Rich said these transfers are common for Utah cities with utilities and argued they help spread the municipal tax burden when up to 50%–60% of property in Logan is nontaxable (for example, university, churches and government property).

Separately, staff flagged a potential and substantial interfund transfer tied to a facilities plan. The budget materials include a notice for a possible transfer related to a multi-step plan to replace and reassign municipal buildings: if the city builds a new, larger Public Works building, the existing electric building would be reallocated (to parks and recreation), the electric department would acquire the existing Public Works building, and the city would construct a larger facility. Rich said the fiscal notice covers an estimated difference of about $10 million between the existing electric building and the larger Public Works facility and that "if we're able to build that building, we'll be coming back to council to appropriate funds, including this transfer for 10,000,000 or whatever the number is that we determined." He emphasized that bonding or other financing would trigger a separate approval process.

Council members asked where to focus reserves and funds; Rich responded that the electric fund, sewer-treatment and environmental funds were the primary concerns because of project needs and prior capital spending. He noted the council has adopted target fund balances for most funds and that the city is meeting those targets in most cases, though some funds have planned drawdowns tied to capital projects.

Ending: Rich said the city will refine the levy and transfer numbers as state and county valuation work completes and the council moves through the truth-in-taxation process. He urged the council to prioritize sustainable, incremental increases and to watch capital reserves as project timelines and grant opportunities evolve.