Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Ogden outlines $476,300 tentative budget gap, proposes 10.39% top-line truth-in-taxation rate
Summary
City staff told the council the FY2027 tentative budget currently needs about $476,300 to balance; staff proposed a maximum truth-in-taxation rate that would equate to roughly $5.58 per month on the sample shown and identified spending priorities (fire truck, sidewalks, parks match).
City finance staff presented a tentative FY2027 budget at the South Ogden City Council work session on May 5, telling council members the current draft requires roughly $476,300 to balance.
“we really do need $476,300 to balance our budget the way that it's written for for next year right now,” said Speaker 4, the staff member presenting the budget, adding that the estimate is preliminary because county property tax figures are not yet available. Staff said the figure will be itemized in the packet and refined once the county numbers arrive.
The presentation framed the proposal under the state’s truth-in-taxation process: staff recommended publishing a maximum rate that would generate the needed revenue and then identifying exactly how any increase would be spent. Speaker 4 said the proposed top-line rate would be “just north of 10%,” and later cited a maximum rate of 10.39% used for the impact sample. Council members repeatedly urged staff to emphasize the resident-dollar impact rather than percentages; Speaker 1 noted, “to a resident, that doesn't that means something, but what means something to them is how much more per month am I paying.”
Staff showed a sample impact statement that converted the rate into annual and monthly dollars for residents: the example used in the packet equated to about $5.58 per month (annualized as presented in the work session materials). Multiple council members discussed leaving the published maximum rate high and then coming down later, while others warned that changing the displayed allocations after a rate is reduced could confuse residents.
The council did not vote to adopt any budget or tax rate during the work session. Staff reiterated that the numbers are preliminary and that the city must complete formal advertised hearings (staff identified June 16 and August 4 as key dates) before any final adoption. The work session focused on explaining required disclosures, statutory hearing timelines and the items that the proposed tax increase would fund.
