Fountain Green holds public hearing on proposed property tax increase to shore up roads and sewer reserves

Fountain Green city officials on Wednesday presented a proposed property tax increase that would raise the city’s property tax revenue by about $15,779 annually and increase the city’s property tax budget revenue by 15.07% above last year, city officials said during a public hearing.

The proposal would raise the city portion of taxes on a $415,000 residence from $248.34 to $286.68 — an increase of $34.34 per year — and would raise the city portion on a $415,000 business from $451.52 to $521.24, a $69.72 annual increase, officials said. The mayor described the measure as “the second half of the overall tax proposal that we proposed last year.”

Why it matters: City leaders said the revenue would help pay for road maintenance and create reserves in the water and sewer funds so those utilities do not have to transfer money to cover general-fund expenses. Officials and residents also discussed sewer capacity, proposed screening for lagoon inflows, flood recovery costs and the city’s efforts to secure grants and other revenue sources.

City officials told residents the proposed tax increase represents the second installment of a plan first raised at an earlier meeting. “This is the second half of the overall tax proposal that we proposed last year,” the mayor told attendees, noting the council had agreed to split an earlier proposal into two parts. The mayor also said that, because of how Utah calculates property taxes, a homeowner’s tax bill could fall even if the city does not adopt an increase: “If no proposal were to go at all on a property tax increase this year, my property tax would have actually gone down $2.47 from last year.”

Officials walked through what the increased funds would be used for and answered resident questions about how to obtain the full operating budget. The mayor said the complete budget will be posted on the state website after the city finalizes whether the increase is approved and that staff can print paper copies on request.

Roads and maintenance: Residents and council members spent substantial time on road repair and maintenance. Officials said combined spending on road work across last year and this year is “right around $500,000,” and they described current work as chip-and-seal repairs rather than full asphalt overlays because of limited funds. “We can’t afford to put asphalt down on new roads. All we can do is chip and seal when we get the money,” the mayor said. Several residents criticized recent surface work on local streets and urged the city to prioritize smoother surfacing when possible.

Water and sewer funds: City staff and council members described a multi-year effort to stop transferring utility fund money into the general fund. According to figures presented at the hearing, the city was previously transferring about $21,500 a year from the water fund and $6,000 from the sewer fund into the general fund. Council members said last year those transfers were reduced (water transfers cut toward $14,000; sewer transfers toward $4,000) and that the proposed tax increase would allow the city to eliminate transfers from water and sewer entirely this fiscal year.

Officials said preserving utility fund balances is intended to help the city qualify for matching grant funds for large projects. The council and staff also described concerns about sewer capacity over a 10-year horizon and said the city is planning both a screening device to remove solids and education outreach to reduce wipes, food waste and other non-biodegradable material entering the collection system.

Flood damage and grants: Council members recounted a damaging flood that followed the last budget cycle. Officials estimated total citizen damages from that flood at “over a million dollars,” and said the city’s direct out-of-pocket cost was “just a little over $100,000.” Staff described efforts to secure state grants and private assistance after the flood and said volunteers and staff played a large role in recovery work.

Other revenue sources: The mayor and residents discussed other possible revenues, including a recently approved cell-phone tower lease that council members said will generate ongoing revenue for the city. Officials said the city actively pursues grants and that a county or regional grant coordinator (referred to as Shay during the meeting) helps identify opportunities, but cautioned that grants are intermittent and cannot be relied upon as a steady funding stream.

School-district taxes: Multiple residents raised concern about concurrent school-district tax notices; one attendee said the initial school notice showed a 40% increase that the school board later corrected to 16% after a meeting. Attendees were encouraged to address school-district increases directly at school-board meetings.

Public access and next steps: City staff said residents can request printed copies of the budget from the city office and that the finalized budget will be available on the state website after approval. The public hearing closed and the city moved into council business later the same evening.

Notes on attributions and scope: This article summarizes the public hearing and responses from city officials and residents during the meeting. Direct quotes are attributed to the mayor when spoken during the hearing. Where residents or staff used only first names during the meeting, they are identified in the meeting record; the article does not attribute statements to unnamed on-line participants.