North Ogden opens public hearing on FY2025‑26 budget; debate centers on $1.2M for roads and whether to use a transportation fee or property tax

The North Ogden City Council opened a public hearing on the fiscal‑year 2025‑26 tentative budget and spent extensive time debating options to finance road repairs and other capital projects.

John Call, the city manager, told the council the county had not yet issued certified property‑valuation figures needed for a final tax rate, creating timing uncertainty. “We don’t have a certified tax rate for you to consider,” Call said. He added the budget currently assumes a programmed 3.5% property‑tax increase and that the council must decide whether to seek additional revenue — about $1.2 million — specifically to accelerate road projects.

Council discussion centered on two options: restore the city’s previously collected transportation utility fee (TUFF) or increase the property‑tax rate. Supporters of a fee said it is easier to track and can include an automatic waiver process for low‑income households. Opponents said any added charge will be treated like a tax and that residents should be fully informed. Philip Swanson, representing the citizen budget committee, recommended a fee because it is simpler to earmark and track: “The biggest concern… is the ability to track those funds and make sure that those funds are not forgotten,” he said, and he suggested a sales‑tax estimate of 5.5% for next year.

Call outlined key budget figures used in the discussion: about $2.827 million in existing general‑fund balance, an existing programmed $300,000 capital‑improvement contribution that staff proposed removing for this year, and a $1.2 million transfer proposed for the capital projects fund if the council chooses to raise that revenue for roads. He said insurance and workers‑comp costs have also risen and are contributing to an expected use of fund balance of roughly $2.52–$2.89 hundred thousand in the tentative budget if no further revenue is approved.

Public commenters gave a range of views. Philip Swanson (citizen budget committee) urged a transparent fee with an estimated $11.50 pool entry subsidy reduction to avoid subsidizing nonessential amenities. Brenda Ashdown cautioned the council not to count on overly optimistic sales‑tax growth. Other members of the public raised neighborhood concerns, from unleashed dogs to speeding near Bates Elementary.

No final tax rate or utility fee was adopted at the meeting; staff will return with certified valuation numbers from the county and revised budget scenarios. Council members said they expect to see alternative revenue scenarios, including a property‑tax proposal sufficient to cover the tentative shortfall and a transportation‑utility‑fee option with estimated household impacts. Staff estimated that $1.2 million divided across approximately 7,000 residential accounts would equal roughly $14.28 per month if no waivers are included; that figure will change based on the final design of the fee and any exemptions.

Council members said they want clearer outreach and mapping that shows which roads would be repaved in a first year of increased funding, and staff agreed to return with updated numbers and outreach plans before the next meeting.