South Jordan staff outline $1.7M-a-year park fee proposal, estimate $5.28 monthly for single-family households

Mayor Dawn Ramsey presided as city staff presented a detailed parks funding proposal that would add a recurring monthly ‘‘park fee’’ to residential utility bills to create dedicated funding for park operations and capital projects. Don Tingey, the city’s parks director, walked council members through an analysis that staff says would generate about $1.7 million a year and be included in the tentative 2027 budget as an assumption.

Tingey and staff said the proposal splits expected revenue into operations and maintenance and a capital floor. The presentation described roughly $1.2 million currently used for parks and cemetery O&M and recommended a $500,000-per-year capital allocation tied to the parks master plan. Using the city’s utility-account counts (about 29,000 residential accounts broken into roughly 25,000 single‑family and 4,000 multifamily), staff estimated a monthly charge of about $5.28 for a single‑family household and $3.38 for a multifamily unit would produce the $1.7 million projection. Tingey said the $1.7 million figure is “what Sunil has put in the budget this year.”

Why it matters: Councilors repeatedly raised visible deferred maintenance and resident complaints about parks and recreation amenities. Staff framed the fee as a transparent, dedicated revenue source that cannot be spent outside parks, allowing predictable upkeep and modest capital investment without repeatedly competing for general‑fund dollars devoted mainly to public safety.

Key details and next steps - Intended uses: operation and maintenance (trails, forestry, neighborhood and active parks, cemetery O&M) and a capital CIP floor of $500,000 annually to address a backlog of projects identified in the parks master plan. Staff provided a breakdown example of the $5.28 monthly figure (approximately $2.00 to active parks, $0.96 to neighborhood parks, $0.23 to cemetery, with smaller amounts for forestry, trails and open space). - Basis for the estimate: staff used utility-account data (residential accounts), household-size assumptions and the parks/cemetery budget to allocate costs proportionally by household type; the analysis followed the same per‑household approach used for the city’s park impact fees. - Timing and bill appearance: staff said, if implemented, the line item would appear on utility bills beginning in July. The presentation also estimated 30¢ a month would generate about $100,000 a year in additional capital if council chose to scale the fee for specific projects. - Budget treatment: staff placed the $1.7 million estimate into the city’s tentative budget as an assumption to balance the draft; the mayor reminded council that approving the tentative budget is separate from any final decision on the fee and that the council could adopt a tentative budget excluding the fee, which would require making cuts or using one‑time money. - Public outreach: staff said communications materials and talking points are being prepared for resident education before any fee is finalized.

What the council did: Councilors discussed the proposal and asked clarifying questions; staff confirmed the tentative budget currently includes the $1.7 million estimate as an assumption but no council vote adopted the fee itself during the study meeting. The mayor later moved to amend the agenda to add an executive session on real property and the meeting adjourned; the parks‑fee proposal remains a staff recommendation and will return for further budget action and public outreach.

The next procedural steps will be formal public education, any required code or fee‑schedule ordinance drafting, and a future council decision tied to the budget adoption timeline.