West Valley City Council adopts fiscal 2027 budget with property tax increase, 6-1

The West Valley City Council adopted a budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, 2026, on Aug. 11, 2026, after a public hearing on a proposed property tax increase, according to the meeting minutes. ^[1]

Councilmember Lars Nordfelt moved to approve Resolution 26-89 and Councilmember Scott Harmon seconded. Councilmembers Cindy Wood, William Whetstone, Harmon, Don Christensen and Nordfelt and Mayor Karen Lang voted yes. Councilmember Tom Huynh voted no. The mayor votes as a member of the council. ^[1][4]

What the city presented

Lang said the city was considering a property tax rate above the certified tax rate. She said the increase was expected to generate approximately $1,907,662 in additional property tax revenue, about a 5% increase, to be used for operational and employee compensation costs. ^[1]

Finance Director Jim Welch said the increase would cost an average homeowner approximately $32 a year, or $2.73 a month, and was intended to support nine new firefighter positions and increased pay for non-sworn and police department employees. ^[1]

Welch said the total proposed budget was approximately $176 million, about 5% more than the prior year. He listed four new police officers, nine new firefighters, three additional employees, pay adjustments and higher contract and operating costs among the significant additions. ^[1]

He said sales tax made up about 41% of General Fund revenue and property tax about 33%, and that police accounted for about 36% of General Fund spending and fire about 19%. ^[1]

The July notice

The city's notice of proposed tax increase, posted July 7, 2026, said property tax revenue would rise 4.93% above the prior year's budgeted amount, excluding eligible new growth, for about $1,949,129 in additional revenue a year. ^[2]

The notice said city tax on a $456,000 home would go from $643.05 to $674.90, an increase of $31.85 a year. On a business property of the same value, it would go from $1,169.18 to $1,227.10. ^[2]

The minutes do not explain the difference between the notice's $1,949,129 and the $1,907,662 cited at the hearing. ^[1][2]

The hearing and debate

Five residents spoke at the hearing. Their comments, as summarized in the minutes, included opposition to the tax increase, concern about property taxes for older residents, support for added police and firefighters, a request for more information on the three non-public-safety positions and a suggestion to sell or repurpose city-owned former church buildings. ^[1]

Huynh said he opposed the tax increase and questioned the city's ownership and financial support of its golf courses and the Maverik Center, according to the minutes. He also criticized benefits provided to current and former council members, including complimentary golf and access to a suite at the Maverik Center, and asked the city attorney to review whether they complied with city gift policies. The minutes do not record a response to that request. ^[1]

Wood said residents should receive quality services for the taxes they pay and that additional police officers, firefighters and employees require funding. Nordfelt said periodic increases were necessary under Utah's property tax system to keep a sustainable revenue source. ^[1]

The final rate

The Utah State Tax Commission's table of approved rates for tax year 2026 lists two levies for West Valley City: a general operations rate of 0.002691, with final budgeted revenue of $40,489,424, and a discharge of judgment rate of 0.000003, with $41,467. Together the listed rates come to 0.002694 and the budgeted revenue to $40,530,891. ^[5]

Those are approved rates and budgeted revenue for the year, not money collected. The table does not list the certified rate or the added revenue from the increase, so it does not explain the gap between the July notice and the hearing figure. ^[5]

Follow-up, Oct. 24: the budget amendment on the council's Oct. 13 agenda, Ordinance 26-37, was adopted that day according to the city's signed copy, with an Oct. 14 effective date. The posted copy leaves out the exhibit with the amended amounts, so it does not show what changed. It also does not explain the difference between the July notice and the hearing figure above, which remains open. ^[6][3]