South Jordan council weighs $5 parks fee, transportation charge and public‑safety district to shore up budget

Mayor Dawn Ramsey convened the South Jordan City Council’s budget work session on March 17, 2026, as city staff presented a package of cost‑saving and revenue options to close projected gaps in the FY26‑27 budget.

City Manager Dustin Lewis said staff had nine cash‑flow options and highlighted three revenue tools under study: a transportation utility fee (TUF), a parks utility fee and forming a public safety district. Lewis recommended short‑term use of one‑time reserve funds to pay the city’s dispatch charges to the Valley Emergency Communication Center (VEC) while staff works to set up a district and completes fee studies.

The proposal is part of a larger budget plan that also includes a recommended change to employee health benefits. Lewis said the compensation committee’s change — raising individual and family deductibles and increasing the out‑of‑pocket maximums — would reduce this year’s insurance premium increase from roughly 9% to just over 4% and “would save us about a quarter million dollars” on the renewal, while giving staff an opportunity to educate employees on benefit use.

Why it matters: Councilors said rising costs and limited appetite at the Legislature and among voters make straightforward property‑tax increases politically difficult, so the city is weighing dedicated fees that would be more transparent to residents and earmarked for specific services. Lewis said a TUF can fund street maintenance, sidewalks and lighting, while a parks fee would pay for park operations, trees, mowing and other maintenance that currently make up about $4.6 million of the general‑fund budget for parks.

What staff told the council: - VEC/dispatch costs: Lewis said the city’s annual VEC bill is “a little over $1,000,000 a year” and proposed using reserves this year to avoid an abrupt hole in the general fund while the district is created. He said a public safety district would allow those costs to be dedicated and transparently billed to district taxpayers over time. - Parks budget and fee estimate: Staff presented rough numbers showing the parks program is roughly $4.6 million annually (the majority for personnel; operations in staff materials were described at about $1.1 million). Lewis said a parks utility fee that covered operations only could be in the neighborhood of $5 per month, but stressed the figure was a preliminary “back‑of‑the‑envelope” estimate that would need a formal study. - Transportation utility fee (TUF): Lewis reviewed legal history and examples in the valley (some cities charge commercial properties, some charge residents) and urged a study to determine how a TUF would distribute burden between residential and commercial properties and what it would fund locally.

Council reaction and direction: Several councilors said a parks fee would likely be more politically palatable than a broad transportation fee; others cautioned about fairness for residents who already pay HOA fees for private parks. Council members asked staff to return with consultant studies and more precise modeling of fee options; several councilors supported using reserves this year to fund VEC costs while the public safety district process (notice, hearings and possible referendum) proceeds.

On next steps, Lewis said staff would begin consultant outreach immediately, aim to hold public hearings as part of the process (staff suggested May for hearings if studies can be completed in time), and bring back detailed proposals and ordinance language. The council recessed to an executive session to discuss property matters before adjourning the public portion of the meeting.

Quotes: - “That change … would save us about a quarter million dollars,” Dustin Lewis, city manager, on the proposed benefit design change. - “We will have a whole public process with that,” Dustin Lewis on the planned community outreach for the Georgian Jordan Ridge Park expansion and on any fee proposal. - “If we do the public safety district, upon creation … the district has to do truth in taxation,” a staff member describing the fiscal and public‑hearing steps associated with district formation.

What remains unresolved: No fee or district was adopted at the meeting. Council direction was to explore the parks utility fee and to pursue district setup steps while using one‑time reserves to cover VEC costs for the coming year; staff was asked to return with formal studies, ordinance drafts and public‑hearing timelines.