North Ogden council weighs transportation utility fee vs. property tax to address mounting road backlog

North Ogden City staff and the Citizens Budget Committee presented council members with choices on how to fund a multiyear program to address deteriorating roads, including a transportation utility fee, increases in property tax, special assessment districts and bonds.

John Call, the city manager, and Bowen (city staff member) presented a prioritized list of high‑need streets and sketches of treatment types — chip seal, seal coat and full rebuilds — that together exceed the staff’s proposed near‑term budget. Bowen and Eric Casperson said the prioritized projects total about $4.9 million on the list shown to council; staff recommended a program the city could reasonably deliver of roughly $3.0 million in roadway work in the next budget year.

The Citizens Budget Committee urged a funding approach that would preserve visibility of the road revenue and keep the money dedicated to transportation projects. Phil Swanson, speaking for the committee, said the committee’s recommendation shifted toward a transportation utility fee because it is easier to dedicate funds to streets and harder for future councils to reallocate those dollars. “With a fee, it would be a little bit more difficult to take that fee away and to use that money on something other than roads,” Swanson said.

The committee’s initial modeling showed a $15 per month fee (about $180 per household per year) as a starting point; members and staff agreed that the $15 level would not close the backlog and that higher rates — or multiple years of increases — would be needed to fully catch up. Swanson said that, using committee calculations, a $15 monthly fee would not be sufficient and one scenario that would materially increase near‑term work would be a $30 monthly fee.

Public commenters and some council members stressed fairness and transparency. Brian Bartholomew, a member of the budget committee, said he and others favored a fee specifically dedicated to roads so residents could see the charge and know where it would be spent. “A fee that is … dedicated to roads, everybody I talked to liked that idea,” Bartholomew said. By contrast, other speakers and council members expressed concern a fee labeled differently would be perceived as a tax and that property‑value‑based increases could place higher burdens on long‑time residents with modest incomes.

Council members discussed practical constraints tied to timing, litigation risk and implementation. Staff noted recent state guidance and litigation around transportation fees, including a referenced court decision involving Pleasant Grove, and said that an external consultant would be useful to design a fee program compliant with the latest statutory changes. Staff told the council an outside study could be completed quickly if the council directed staff to proceed; some consultants indicated they could complete an analysis and hold a hearing by midsummer.

Council members gave informal signals about their current leanings: several members said they prefer property tax for clarity and to reduce litigation risk; others said they favored a transportation utility fee because it is easier to dedicate revenue and to show residents how the money is spent. John Call asked the council to provide a direction for the proposed tentative operating budget to be presented next week so staff could prepare the proper truth‑in‑taxation materials, if the council opts for tax, or begin a fee study and public outreach if the council opts for the utility fee approach.

At the meeting’s close, the council did not adopt a final funding mechanism. Council members asked staff to prepare both tracks (property‑tax and fee) for next week’s budget presentation and to return with a procurement and timeline for a consultant study if the council wants to pursue a transportation utility fee. Staff said they would also model revenues and the schedule for a multi‑year program to reach the $3.0 million annual target and would provide sample resident notices and comparisons.