A guide to how your city collects, spends, and saves money. FY2008 through FY2025 (audited) and FY2026 (proposed).
The "$139 million budget" is misleading.
About $66M of that is savings from prior years. The city's actual annual income is $60-65M.
Half that income comes from your utility bills.
Water, sewer, and garbage fees bring in $28M. Property tax brings in $9M. The state sends back about $4.6M from sales tax and other formulas.
64% of operating revenue is guaranteed.
Property tax and utility fees are locked in. The other 36% depends on the state legislature, federal grants, or the economy.
A 2023 court ruling cost the city $1.5M/year.
Bradbury v. Lewiston made it illegal to move utility fee money into the General Fund. Seven positions were cut. Three patrol slots are unfunded. Property tax collection has fallen to 94.15% -- the lowest in a decade, with $0 recovered on FY2023-2024 delinquencies as of the audit date.
Federal grants have collapsed.
From $5.9M (2023) to $42,000 (2026). COVID relief money is gone. There is no replacement.
The $128M infrastructure plan is understated.
The CIP used a 3% cost escalator. The administration admitted it should have been 8-10%. The real total is probably $170-190M. The sewer system alone needs $72M.
FY2027 starts in the red.
New revenue ($315-355K) does not cover payroll increases ($408K). The foregone property tax balance is nearly gone. Seven positions remain frozen.
The city's emergency reserves are nearly empty.
Unassigned General Fund balance: $348,893 (FY2025 ACFR). Down 52% from $722,361 the year before. That's about 9 days of General Fund operations. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends two months.
Sales tax sharing is not based on property tax.
The formula uses population and a fixed baseline. Moscow generates an estimated $25-35M in sales tax for the state and gets back $3M.
Moscow reports its budget on an "all funds" basis, which adds up every dollar in every account, including beginning fund balances carried forward from prior years. This is legal and standard in Idaho, but it inflates the headline number.
The FY2026 total of $139.5M breaks down into:
The city's actual annual cash revenue (new money coming in) is approximately $60-65 million. The rest is savings. The 18-Year Municipal Financial Analysis notes: "This makes the budget appear larger than the city's actual annual cash flow. The city's actual annual cash revenue (excluding fund balance and transfers) is approximately $60-65M."
Moscow prepares its budget on a modified accrual basis and reports on an all-funds-inclusive appropriation model per Idaho Code 50-1002. Beginning fund balances are appropriated as revenue, which means accumulated enterprise capital reserves count toward the headline total.
Key structural features that inflate the reported total:
| Fund | FY2026 Budget | Fund Balance Component | % from Fund Balance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sewer Capital Projects | $29,420,331 | $25,133,620 | 85% |
| Capital Projects (General) | $19,715,912 | $13,981,167 | 71% |
| Sanitation Capital Projects | $12,818,197 | $11,918,027 | 93% |
| Water Capital Projects | $12,024,437 | $9,366,194 | 78% |
| Stormwater Capital Projects | $597,083 | $386,717 | 65% |
| Fleet Management | $5,416,121 | $3,259,988 | 60% |
| Total (these funds) | $79,992,081 | $64,045,713 | 80% |
The city aggressively accumulated enterprise capital reserves from approximately $14M (FY2008) to over $60M (FY2026), primarily in sewer and sanitation funds, to pre-fund the $128.4M 10-year CIP without heavy borrowing. This is financially prudent but makes year-over-year budget comparisons misleading without stripping fund balance carryforward.
Actual annual cash revenue (total appropriations minus beginning fund balances minus interfund transfers) is approximately $60-65M. Of this, $27.8M is enterprise fund operating revenue (water/sewer/sanitation/stormwater charges for services), $20.6M is General Fund, and the remainder is streets, recreation, debt service, and internal service funds.
GASB 54 fund balance classifications apply. The FY2025 ACFR reports General Fund balance of $6,722,703, with unassigned at just $348,893 (~2.5% of expenditures). This is down 52% from $722,361 in FY2024, which was already far below the GFOA minimum recommendation of 16.7%. The audit opinion is unmodified; the city has received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for 22 consecutive years (awarded for FY2024).
The FY2024 ACFR reveals a two-sided variance on General Fund transfers:
| Item | Budget | Actual | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| GF Transfers In (from enterprise funds) | $4,620,500 | $2,745,950 | ($1,874,550) |
| GF Transfers Out (to Capital Projects + others) | ($4,747,507) | ($7,426,294) | ($2,678,787) |
| Net GF Transfer Position | ($127,007) | ($4,680,344) | ($4,553,337) |
The General Fund was budgeted for a near-break-even transfer position. Instead, it sent $4.68M more than it received -- a $4.55M adverse swing from budget.
Transfers IN shortfall ($1.87M): Likely a Bradbury effect. The July 2023 ruling created legal uncertainty about enterprise-to-GF transfers. Moscow budgeted $4.62M in enterprise transfers but received only $2.75M.
Transfers OUT overage ($2.68M): The Capital Projects Fund received $7.93M in transfers against a budget of $2.47M (p. 88). FY2025 budget documents reference "completion of $2.0M Pullman-Moscow Airport Terminal local match," which would account for roughly $2M of the $2.68M overage. The remaining ~$680K is not explained in any published document. The original and final budget columns on ACFR p. 81 are identical, meaning no formal budget amendment appears in the audited statements.
Why it may be legal: Moscow's ACFR states "Budget adopted at fund level" (Note 2). The math:
| Category | Authorized | Actual | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expenditures | $18,874,222 | $16,168,870 | $2,705,352 under |
| Transfers Out | $4,747,507 | $7,426,294 | ($2,678,787) over |
| Total Outflows | $23,621,729 | $23,595,164 | $26,565 under |
Total actual outflows ($23.60M) were $26,565 below total authorized outflows ($23.62M). If "fund level" means the city can move money between expenditure lines and transfer lines within the total, no appropriation was exceeded. The external auditor (Presnell Gage, PLLC) issued an unmodified opinion with no findings. But this interpretation -- that transfer authority is fungible with expenditure authority -- is not stated in the ACFR or any published city policy.
What's missing: The Budgetary Highlights section (p. 81) discusses revenue and expenditure variances in detail but does not mention the transfer variance. The MD&A provides one sentence: "mainly due to transfers to Capital Projects." Of the $2.68M overage, ~$2M is plausibly the airport match. ~$680K is unexplained in any published document.
The FY2025 ACFR (Presnell Gage, February 17, 2026) shows the same pattern in a second consecutive year:
| Item | Budget | Actual | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| GF Transfers In | $2,849,357 | $0 | ($2,849,357) |
| GF Transfers Out | ($4,586,143) | ($5,710,690) | ($1,124,547) |
| Net Transfer Position | ($1,736,786) | ($5,710,690) | ($3,973,904) |
The cause: the city budgeted $2.85M in enterprise-to-GF transfers using the old classification, but reported actuals using the new Bradbury-compliant classification (internal service charges under Charges for Services). The budget was never restated. This means the line-item budget-to-actual comparison for transfers and charges for services is unreliable in both FY2024 and FY2025. The net cash impact washes out, but the presentation is misleading without this context.
Again, no budget amendment was adopted. Original budget = Final budget on p. 81 of the FY2025 ACFR.
GF unassigned reserve fell to $348,893 (from $722,361 in FY2024). Capital Projects Fund grew to $18,554,627 (from $14,149,230).
Sources: FY2025 ACFR pp. 81, 88; FY2024 ACFR pp. 81, 88. Auditor: Presnell Gage, PLLC.
Sources: FY2024 ACFR pp. 46, 81, 88; Note 2 (budgetary compliance); Note 3C (interfund transfers). Auditor: Presnell Gage, PLLC. Audit date: February 19, 2025.
Sources: FY2026 Proposed Budget pp. 25-27; FY2024 ACFR pp. 21-41, 43-44; 18-Year Municipal Financial Analysis (March 2026).
| Metric | FY2024 | FY2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| GF Total Balance | $6,790,657 | $6,722,703 | -$67,954 |
| GF Unassigned | $722,361 | $348,893 | -$373,468 (-52%) |
| Total Net Position | $190,819,618 | $211,881,336 | +$21.1M (+11%) |
| Capital Projects Balance | $14,149,230 | $18,554,627 | +$4.4M (+31%) |
| Total Debt | $14,066,767 | $12,480,778 | -$1.6M (-11%) |
| Property Tax Collection | 94.24% | 94.15% | -0.09 pp |
| FTE | 159.31 | 162.81 | +3.50 |
| MURA Net Position | $4,240,200 | $5,145,451 | +$905K (+21%) |
| Enterprise Net Position | $95,374,527 | $108,891,720 | +$13.5M (+14%) |
Sources: FY2024 ACFR (Presnell Gage, Feb 19, 2025); FY2025 ACFR (Presnell Gage, Feb 17, 2026).
| Source | Amount | % of GF | Who Controls It |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property Tax (General) | $8,086,463 | 39% | City (capped at 3% + new construction) |
| Franchise Fees | $1,680,127 | 8% | City (contractual with Avista, cable, etc.) |
| State Sales Tax Sharing | $2,953,964 | 14% | State Legislature |
| State Liquor Tax | $532,000 | 3% | State Legislature |
| Internal Service Charges | $3,163,548 | 15% | City (inter-fund billing) |
| UI Public Safety Agreement | $1,628,470 | 8% | Negotiated contract |
| Licenses & Permits | $1,008,459 | 5% | Market-dependent |
| Other (fines, investment, grants) | $1,566,418 | 8% | Various |
| Fund | Charges for Services | Total Fund Budget |
|---|---|---|
| Sewer | $9,392,300 | $9,868,026 |
| Water | $8,010,436 | $8,812,725 |
| Sanitation | $6,902,401 | $7,581,059 |
| Stormwater | $1,293,509 | $1,489,532 |
Enterprise funds receive no General Fund subsidy and have been self-funded for the entire 19-year period. However, from FY2008 through FY2024, these funds transferred $2.1M-$4.6M annually to the General Fund. Those transfers paid for general city services (police, parks, streets) using utility fee revenue. The 2023 Bradbury ruling found this practice lacked legal authority and forced the city to stop. For 16 years, utility ratepayers were subsidizing the General Fund. That subsidy is now gone, and the General Fund has not replaced the lost revenue (see Section 6).
Source: FY2026 Proposed Budget pp. 25-29, 44-50.
Revenue classification follows Idaho municipal budgeting standards. Key accounting note for FY2026: enterprise fund transfers to the General Fund were reclassified as "Internal Service Charges" under Charges for Services following the Bradbury v. City of Lewiston ruling (Idaho Supreme Court, Docket 49667, July 2023). This creates a discontinuity in GF revenue line items between FY2025 and FY2026:
| Line Item | FY2025 Adopted | FY2026 Proposed | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfers In | $2,849,357 | $0 | -100% |
| Charges for Services | $1,742,742 | $4,792,032 | +175% |
| Net Effect | $4,592,099 | $4,792,032 | +$199,933 |
The reclassification is not revenue-neutral at the margin. Enterprise funds previously transferred $2.85M; the new internal service charge methodology recovered $3.16M, but the structure requires documented cost nexus (administrative overhead, billing services, facilities) per the court's "rational relationship" test. The remaining $1.63M is the UI Public Safety Agreement, which was already classified as Charges for Services.
| Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Electric (Avista) | $631,800 |
| Sanitation (LSI) | $497,864 |
| Cell Phone 911 Tax | $236,500 |
| Natural Gas (Avista) | $217,359 |
| TV Cable | $81,000 |
| Land Line 911 | $15,604 |
| Total | $1,680,127 |
Sources: FY2026 Budget pp. 67-75 (GF detail), pp. 44-50 (enterprise detail), p. 17 (budget message re: reclassification).
| Revenue Source | FY2026 Amount | Rating | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property Tax (all levies) | $9,019,281 | HARD | Constitutional; city sets rate within 3% cap |
| Enterprise User Fees | $25,598,646 | HARD | City sets rates; ratepayer-funded; self-supporting |
| Franchise Fees | $1,680,127 | HARD | Contractual with Avista, cable, cell providers |
| Internal Service Charges | $3,163,548 | HARD | Inter-fund billing; city controls |
| Road & Bridge Tax | $1,381,267 | HARD | Dedicated levy for streets |
| State Sales Tax Sharing | $2,953,964 | MEDIUM | Idaho Code 63-3638; legislature controls formula |
| State Liquor Tax | $532,000 | MEDIUM | Formula-based but legislative discretion |
| Highway User Fund | $1,144,076 | MEDIUM | Idaho Code 40-709; 30% to cities by population |
| UI Public Safety Agreement | $1,628,470 | MEDIUM | Negotiated contract; renewable |
| Licenses & Permits | $1,008,459 | SOFT | Construction-cycle dependent |
| Investment Earnings (all funds) | $3,843,782 | SOFT | Interest rate dependent; was $94K in GF alone (FY2008) |
| Federal Grants | $42,000 | SOFT | Down from $5.9M in FY2023; ARPA exhausted |
| Fines, Other | $1,904,576 | SOFT | Variable |
Revenue stability analysis based on coefficient of variation across the 19-year dataset and statutory/contractual protections:
| Category | FY2008 | FY2026 | CAGR | Volatility | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GF Property Tax | $3.63M | $8.09M | 4.5% | Low | Idaho Const. Art. VII; IC 63-802 (3% cap + new construction + foregone) |
| Enterprise Charges | $11.7M | $25.6M | 4.4% | Low | City ordinance; rate study-driven; IC 50-1028 |
| Franchise Fees | $978K | $1.68M | 3.0% | Low | Franchise agreements; IC 50-329 |
| State Sales Tax | $439K | $2.95M | 11.2% | Medium | IC 63-3638(10); FY2020 baseline; 45.2% cities share |
| State Liquor Tax | $270K | $532K | 3.8% | Medium | IC Title 23; appropriations-based |
| Highway User Fund | $847K | $1.14M | 1.7% | Low-Med | IC 40-709; 30% to cities by population |
| Investment Earnings (all funds) | $94K GF / $133K all | $393K GF / $3.84M all | 8.3% GF | High | Market rate; all-funds figure driven by enterprise fund balance growth |
| Federal Grants | ~$2M | $42K | n/a | Extreme | Federal appropriations; ARPA complete; CDBG/LHSIP/TAP cycle-dependent |
The structural shift: hard revenue as a share of total budget declined from ~35% (FY2008) to ~29% (FY2026). This is driven not by hard revenue shrinking but by capital fund balance accumulation expanding the denominator. As a share of operating budget ($63.9M), hard revenue covers approximately 63%.
The city has approximately $58M invested at 4-4.5%, generating roughly $2M/year in interest. This money flows to capital funds, not operations. The all-funds investment earnings figure ($3.84M in FY2026) is not available for General Fund use. GF investment earnings are $393K. The difference explains why "investment income" appears large in all-funds reporting but does not help the operating budget.
Foregone property tax capacity remaining: $15,000 (per March 2026 workshop). After FY2027, the city's annual new revenue capacity under IC 63-802 is limited to:
FY2027 projected cost increases: $522K payroll (GF + Rec/Culture), minus ~$114K recaptured through enterprise allocations = $408K net. Gap before non-personnel costs: $50-80K. Departments already cut discretionary spending 20% two years ago. That cut is now the permanent baseline.
Health insurance loss ratio: 117.8%. The FY2026 renewal at 1.9% was below actuarial expectations. FY2027 is expected higher. The dependent coverage increase from 65% toward the 80% market average may need to pause.
Sources: 19-year dataset; Idaho Code citations as noted; FY2024 ACFR; FY2026 Budget; March 23, 2026 Budget Workshop (audio transcribed).
| Year | Sales Tax Share | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| FY2008 | $438,930 | Broken out separately |
| FY2013 | $382,000 | Last year broken out; post-recession recovery |
| FY2020 | ~$2,500,000 | Estimated (merged into Intergovernmental) |
| FY2024 | ~$2,900,000 | Estimated from Intergovernmental line |
| FY2026 | $2,953,964 | Broken out again in budget detail |
The AIC (Association of Idaho Cities) projected a 2.6% increase for FY2026. Moscow budgets at 1% growth, citing tariff uncertainty.
Idaho Code 63-3638(10)(a) establishes the distribution mechanism. The formula is not point-of-sale based. Key statutory elements:
The sales tax/property tax confusion arises from IC 63-802, which credits state revenue sharing against a city's property tax levy authority. This means a city receiving more revenue sharing has lower allowable property tax capacity, and vice versa. But the causation runs from the formula to the levy limit, not from the levy to the allocation.
Historical vulnerability: state revenue sharing to cities fell approximately 17% in FY2009-FY2010 during the Great Recession. The proportional reduction clause in IC 63-3638 triggered automatically. No legislative action was required to cut distributions.
Risk factor: Idaho's 2022-2023 income tax cuts reduced state general fund revenue by approximately $4 billion over the budget window. While sales tax and income tax are separate streams, a weakened state general fund increases political pressure to raid or restructure revenue sharing formulas.
Sources: Idaho Code 63-3638(10); Idaho State Tax Commission; AIC revenue projections; FY2026 Budget p. 17; Idaho Fiscal Facts 2008.
| Revenue Stream | FY2026 | Statute | Formula Basis | Predictability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales Tax Sharing | $2,953,964 | IC 63-3638 | Per capita + FY2020 baseline | Medium-High |
| Liquor Tax | $532,000 | IC Title 23 | Appropriations-based | Medium |
| Highway User Fund | $1,144,076 | IC 40-709 | 30% to cities by population | Medium-High |
| Federal Grants (pass-through) | $42,000 | Various | Application-based | Low |
| Total State/Federal | $4,672,040 |
Intergovernmental revenue as a percentage of General Fund revenue:
| Year | GF Intergovernmental | GF Total | % of GF |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2008 | $1,012,440 | $10,701,860 | 9.5% |
| FY2013 | $1,200,000 | $12,100,000 | 9.9% |
| FY2019 | $2,500,000 | $16,000,000 | 15.6% |
| FY2024 | $3,900,000 | $22,600,000 | 17.3% |
| FY2026 | $3,651,261 | $20,619,425 | 17.7% |
State-dependent revenue has grown from 9.5% to 17.7% of the General Fund over 19 years. This increased reliance creates exposure to legislative risk. The FY2026 decline in intergovernmental ($3.65M vs. $4.34M in FY2025) reflects lower grant expectations and conservative sales tax projections, not a formula change.
IC 40-709 distributes highway user funds as: 30% to cities (by population), 70% to counties/highway districts (by equal share, vehicle registrations, and improved mileage). These funds are restricted to highway construction, maintenance, and debt service on highway bonds.
Sources: IC 63-3638, IC 40-709, IC Title 23; FY2008-FY2026 budget extractions; Idaho Fiscal Facts.
Case: Bradbury v. City of Lewiston, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 49667 (July 2023)
Issue: Whether city-imposed "street impact fees" collected through utility bills constituted an unauthorized tax.
Holding: The fees failed the "rational relationship" test. A municipal fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the specific service provided to the payer. Street maintenance is a general public benefit, not a direct service to the utility ratepayer. The fee was therefore an unconstitutional tax.
Impact on Moscow: Moscow was hit harder than most cities because it had been routing $2-5 million annually from enterprise funds into the General Fund for 16 years. The ruling forced the city to eliminate these transfers entirely and replace them with documented internal service charges at lower amounts.
| Year | Transfers In | Year | Transfers In |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2008 | $2,126,500 | FY2018 | $3,162,310 |
| FY2010 | $2,300,835 | FY2020 | $3,802,050 |
| FY2012 | $2,358,680 | FY2022 | $4,304,857 |
| FY2014 | $2,577,890 | FY2024 | $4,614,000 |
| FY2016 | $2,811,385 | FY2025 | $2,849,357 |
| FY2017 | $2,971,820 | FY2026 | $0 |
The transfer loss was not the only hit. Several other costs landed at the same time:
The Bradbury ruling applied a strict nexus test to utility fees under the Idaho Constitution's prohibition on unauthorized taxes. The court found that "street impact fees" collected through utility billing lacked a rational relationship between the fee charged and the service provided to the individual ratepayer. General infrastructure maintenance (roads, sidewalks) benefits the public at large, not specific utility customers.
Moscow's response (FY2026 budget, p. 17): "Enterprise fund service charges reclassified from 'Transfers In' to 'Internal Service Charges' under Charges for Services following legal rulings, with reduced amounts."
The new Internal Service Charge structure requires cost allocation studies demonstrating that each charge corresponds to a specific administrative service provided by the General Fund to the enterprise fund (billing, customer service, HR, legal, IT, facilities). This is consistent with OMB Circular A-87 / 2 CFR 200 cost allocation principles used in federal grant administration.
| Enterprise Fund | Charge to GF |
|---|---|
| Sewer | $1,320,917 |
| Water | $897,198 |
| Streets | $307,232 |
| Sanitation | $201,361 |
| Stormwater | $161,391 |
| IS Fund | $90,180 |
| Fleet | $89,269 |
| Total | $3,067,548 |
Net revenue loss: FY2024 transfers ($4.61M) minus FY2026 internal service charges ($3.07M) = $1.54M annual structural deficit absorbed through position eliminations and service cuts.
| Item | Annual Cost | Source |
|---|---|---|
| GF transfer loss (net of ISC recovery) | $1,540,000 | Bradbury ruling |
| Street fund capital capacity loss | $700,000 | Bradbury ruling |
| 7 frozen positions (salary + benefits) | $600,000 | FY2024 budget cuts |
| AG forensic detective funding pulled | $138,000 | State AG office |
| Jail closure prisoner transport | $72,000 | Latah County jail closure |
| Total annual structural impact | $3,050,000 |
No targeted legislative fix has been enacted. Idaho HB 388 (2024) addressed development impact fees but did not restore municipal authority to transfer enterprise fund revenues to general government purposes.
The FY2025 ACFR (February 17, 2026) shows GF transfers in at $0 (budget: $2,849,357) and transfers out at $5,710,690 (budget: $4,586,143). The reclassification from transfers to internal service charges ($2,823,288) accounts for the transfers-in disappearance. The GF unassigned balance fell to $348,893. The budget was not restated to reflect the new classification in either FY2024 or FY2025.
The word "Bradbury" does not appear anywhere in the FY2025 ACFR. The reclassification is described only as "a change in the classification of some interfund transfers to internal service charges."
Sources: Bradbury v. City of Lewiston, Docket 49667 (Idaho S.Ct. July 2023); FY2025 ACFR pp. 81, 88; FY2024 ACFR pp. 81, 88; FY2026 Budget pp. 17, 72-73; March 23, 2026 Budget Workshop (transcribed); Spokesman-Review (Dec. 5, 2023).
| Item | FY2024 Budget | FY2024 Actual | FY2025 Budget | FY2025 Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GF Transfers In | $4,620,500 | $2,745,950 | $2,849,357 | $0 |
| GF Transfers Out | $4,747,507 | $7,426,294 | $4,586,143 | $5,710,690 |
| Net Transfer Swing | ($4,553,337) | ($3,973,904) | ||
| Budget Amendment? | No | No | ||
| GF Unassigned (ending) | $722,361 | $348,893 | ||
| Capital Projects (ending) | $14,149,230 | $18,554,627 | ||
Two consecutive years of the same pattern: budget built on old transfer classifications, actuals on new. Combined two-year GF unassigned decline: $722,361 to $348,893 (-52%). Combined two-year Capital Projects growth: $7,018,466 to $18,554,627 (+164%).
Program: School District Facilities Fund, created by HB 292 (2023), codified as Idaho Code 33-911.
Statewide total: $106.6 million distributed in FY2024.
Distribution method: Per-pupil, based on Average Daily Attendance (ADM).
Moscow SD #281 share: $651,750
Priority of use (in statute):
This is a city levy impact, not a city revenue source. The offset reduces the school district's property tax levy, which lowers the total tax bill on your home. The city itself does not receive or control this money.
IC 33-911 establishes the School District Facilities Fund, funded via IC 57-811, IC 63-3638, IC 67-7434, and direct legislative appropriations. The fund distributes on a per-pupil (ADM) basis to all Idaho school districts.
The Legislature appropriated approximately $203M to the fund. In the first year, the actual property tax offset was $25.1M against $217.5M in statewide supplemental levy obligations (11.5% offset), per Idaho Education News reporting. The remaining fund balance carries forward for future use per the statutory priority order.
The Moscow SD #281 offset of $651,750 represents the district's ADM share. This reduces the district's levy requirement from property owners but does not flow through the city's budget. The city's levy and the school district's levy are separate taxing authorities appearing on the same property tax bill.
Note: The total property tax bill for a Moscow homeowner includes levies from the city ($3.64/$1,000), the school district, Latah County, the highway district, and other special taxing districts. The city controls only its own levy.
Sources: Idaho Code 33-911; HB 292 (2023); Idaho Dept. of Education FY2025 Tax Levies for School Purposes; Idaho Education News.
| Year | Amount | Major Programs |
|---|---|---|
| FY2023 | $5,889,164 | ARPA, airport, CDBG, TAP, LHSIP |
| FY2024 | $2,002,894 | ARPA ($863K), Airport terminal ($518K), Fire pumper ($335K), TAP ($109K) |
| FY2025 Est. | ~$1,000,000 | Declining; ARPA complete |
| FY2026 Proposed | $42,000 | Minimal |
The FY2024 ACFR listed two major federal programs: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CFDA 21.027) and Highway Planning and Construction (CFDA 20.205). Both are cycle-dependent and not recurring.
Moscow qualified as a low-risk auditee in the FY2024 Single Audit. Major federal programs tested: ARPA (CFDA 21.027) and Highway Planning & Construction (CFDA 20.205). No findings, no questioned costs.
The grant revenue trajectory reflects the national ARPA wind-down. Moscow's GF intergovernmental line declined from $4,554,782 (FY2024 actual) to $3,651,261 (FY2026 proposed), a $903,521 reduction driven primarily by the absence of ARPA and reduced pass-through transportation funding.
Capital Projects Fund intergovernmental revenue also declined: from $3,103,502 (FY2026) reflecting LHSIP safety grants and TAP bike/pedestrian funding on a project-specific basis. These are competitive, non-recurring, and cannot be relied upon for baseline budgeting.
Sources: FY2024 ACFR pp. 131-139 (Schedule of Federal Awards); FY2026 Budget pp. 70-71, 333-336.
| FY | Total Budget | Operating Funds | General Fund | GF Prop Tax | Enterprise | Levy Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | $49.9M | $25.4M | $10.7M | $3.6M | $12.1M | $4.43 |
| 2009 | $55.6M | $28.5M | $11.3M | $3.8M | $14.5M | $4.60 |
| 2010 | $47.9M | n/a | $11.3M | $3.9M | n/a | $4.49 |
| 2011 | $47.1M | n/a | $11.6M | $4.0M | n/a | $4.48 |
| 2012 | $49.6M | $27.9M | $11.6M | $4.1M | $13.4M | n/a |
| 2013 | $61.2M | $35.5M | $12.1M | $4.2M | $20.7M | n/a |
| 2014 | $57.0M | n/a | $12.7M | $4.5M | n/a | n/a |
| 2015 | $59.8M | $33.3M | $13.5M | $5.1M | $17.0M | n/a |
| 2016 | $63.9M | $35.7M | $14.6M | $5.2M | $17.8M | ~$5.00 |
| 2017 | $73.9M | $36.6M | $14.7M | $5.3M | $18.6M | n/a |
| 2018 | $79.9M | $38.5M | $15.2M | $5.6M | $20.0M | n/a |
| 2019 | $85.8M | $40.2M | $16.0M | $5.8M | $20.7M | n/a |
| 2020 | $101.4M | $42.9M | $16.9M | $6.3M | $22.7M | ~$4.50 |
| 2021 | $96.1M | $42.5M | $16.9M | $6.3M | $22.6M | n/a |
| 2022 | $102.4M | $45.9M | $18.6M | $6.6M | $23.8M | n/a |
| 2023 | $109.2M | $49.3M | $20.3M | $6.9M | $24.8M | n/a |
| 2024 | $120.7M | $55.4M | $22.6M | $7.3M | $28.3M | $3.61 |
| 2025 | $133.1M | $51.3M | $20.1M | $7.7M | $27.6M | $3.52 |
| 2026 | $139.5M | $51.7M | $20.6M | $8.1M | $27.8M | $3.64 |
10-year cumulative total budgeted (FY2017-FY2026): approximately $1.04 billion.
Growth decomposition (FY2008 to FY2026):
| Driver | Contribution | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Organic operating growth | ~$18M | Personnel $9.5M to $20M; 41 FTE added (131 to 172) |
| Enterprise fund expansion | ~$14M | Rate increases + stormwater fund creation (FY2022) |
| Capital fund balance accumulation | ~$50M | Enterprise capital reserves grew from $14M to $60M+ |
| Inflation component | ~$8M | CPI 45-50% cumulative over 18 years |
Property tax levy rate trajectory: $4.43 (FY2008) to $3.64 (FY2026), a 17.8% decline. This occurred while assessed valuation grew 163% ($942M to $2,475M). The city has been 27-38% below the Idaho state average levy rate consistently for 18 years. In FY2014, Moscow was the lowest among comparable Idaho cities at $4.45 vs. Coeur d'Alene's $6.77 and Lewiston's $9.61.
FTE per 1,000 residents: 6.0 (FY2008) to approximately 6.6 (FY2026). Lewiston operates at 9.4 FTE/1,000; Coeur d'Alene at 6.6. Moscow's staffing remains lean for its service portfolio, which includes a volunteer fire department saving an estimated $4M/year vs. a career department.
Sources: 19-year dataset; 18-Year Municipal Financial Analysis; FY2008-FY2026 budget documents; FY2024 ACFR.
| Category | 10-Year Total | % of CIP | Key Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sewer / WRRF | $71,566,224 | 56% | Phase V ($14M), Headworks ($7.1M), UV system ($5.1M), Screw pumps ($3.65M) |
| Transportation | $20,563,037 | 16% | Downtown streetscape ($3M), Bridge ($2.3M), Mtn View Rd ($1.9M) |
| Water | $18,584,823 | 14% | Well 9 generator ($1.8M), N Almon main ($2M), Well 8 rehab ($1.2M) |
| Parks & Rec | $9,903,267 | 8% | Palouse River playfields ($3.3M), pool improvements |
| General Facilities | $5,591,347 | 4% | City shop, building maintenance |
| Stormwater | $2,188,796 | 2% | Clay Storm Main (on lists since 2012) |
| Total | $128,397,494 | 100% |
| Source | Estimated 10-Year Contribution |
|---|---|
| Enterprise fund capital reserves (existing) | ~$50M |
| Annual enterprise capital transfers | ~$35M |
| DEQ revolving loans | ~$8-10M |
| General capital fund + grants | ~$20M |
| GO bonds / revenue bonds | ~$5-10M |
| Potential gap (at 3% escalator) | $10-15M |
The CIP was adopted as a planning document, not a binding budget commitment. It uses a prioritization matrix scored across five factors: probability of failure, risk to persons/property, magnitude of impact, duration of service outage, and cost of restoration.
Funding priority order (from CIP introduction):
At the March 23, 2026 budget workshop, the administration stated: "We've been carrying 3% annual escalator... we probably should have been carrying 8 to 10 but we were afraid to do that." A council member responded: "I had a concern about that because we're underfunding our future capital projects. It looks like... we are not actually funding them."
Sensitivity analysis on the $128.4M CIP at different escalation rates:
| Escalator | 10-Year CIP Total | Gap vs. 3% Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| 3% (current CIP assumption) | $128.4M | -- |
| 5% (conservative correction) | ~$148M | +$20M |
| 8% (low end of admitted range) | ~$172M | +$44M |
| 10% (high end of admitted range) | ~$192M | +$64M |
This escalator gap compounds on every project in every year. The further out a project is scheduled, the more understated its cost. WRRF Phase V (2034, $14M at 3%) could be $20-22M at 8-10%.
Additional projects not in the CIP: downtown streetscape ($26M per study, vs. $3M in CIP -- placed on hold), alternative water supply from Snake River (decade-long project, no cost estimate), and playfield lighting ($2M joint project with MSD).
Current sewer capital reserves: $25M. Annual sewer capital transfers: $3.3-4.1M. Projected 10-year generation with interest: ~$35M. Total available: ~$60M against $71.6M CIP requirement at 3% escalation. Gap at 3%: ~$10-12M. Gap at 8%: ~$35-40M.
The $14M WRRF Phase V alone represents the largest single project in the entire CIP and addresses active NPDES permit violations for effluent discharge temperature during summer months. Options include full land application or mechanical chillers. Delay is not viable without risking EPA enforcement.
The CIP allocates $2.2M (1.7% of total) to stormwater over 10 years. Stormwater capital reserves: $387K. The Clay Storm Main Replacement has appeared on project lists since at least FY2012 -- 14 years without completion. Annual stormwater revenue: $1.3M, with a 12% rate increase already applied in FY2026.
The stormwater fund was created in FY2022. It is the youngest and smallest enterprise fund. If EPA tightens MS4 permit requirements (which it does periodically), the city faces an unfunded federal mandate with no capital reserves to absorb it. Stormwater is the category most likely to produce the next Bradbury-scale surprise -- not because of a court ruling, but because of deferred federal compliance.
| Component | Governmental | Business-Type | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Assets (gross) | $120,937,077 | $104,348,889 | $225,285,966 |
| Accumulated Depreciation | ($50,575,220) | ($49,424,402) | ($99,999,622) |
| Outstanding Debt | ($5,821,247) | ($11,107,015) | ($16,928,262) |
| Net Investment | $64,540,610 | $43,817,472 | $108,358,082 |
Accumulated depreciation of $100M against gross assets of $225M indicates a 44% consumption ratio. The $128.4M CIP represents 57% of current gross capital assets, confirming that the city is in the middle of a major replacement cycle.
FY2025 outstanding debt: $12,480,778 ($3,800,000 GO bonds + $1,155,000 revenue bonds + $7,525,778 DEQ loans), down from $14,066,767 in FY2024. No new borrowing in FY2025. Debt-to-personal-income: 0.88% (down from 1.04%). Per capita debt: $495 (down from $570).
Idaho Code 50-1019 sets the municipal GO debt limit at 2% of assessed market value for ordinary purposes. Moscow's legal debt ceiling: approximately $49.5M. Current GO debt: $3.80M. Available GO borrowing capacity: approximately $45.7M.
Revenue bonds (backed by utility fees) do not count against the GO limit. DEQ revolving loans carry below-market rates (typically 2-3%) and are the preferred vehicle for water/sewer projects.
If the CIP gap is $50-75M at real escalation rates, the city has the legal capacity to borrow but would need voter approval for GO bonds (66.67% supermajority per Idaho Constitution Art. VIII, Sec. 3). Revenue bonds require simple majority. Debt service on a hypothetical $40M, 20-year GO bond at 4% would cost approximately $2.9M/year -- roughly one-third of current property tax revenue.
Sources: 2025-2034 CIP (Adopted); FY2025 ACFR; FY2024 ACFR pp. 43-44, 104-106; FY2026 Budget pp. 20-21; Idaho Code 50-1019; 18-Year Municipal Financial Analysis.
All four enterprise funds are operationally profitable and collectively grew net position by $13.5M (14.2%) in FY2025:
| Fund | Operating Income | Net Position Change | Ending Net Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water | $2,801,223 | +$4,841,533 | $37,344,208 |
| Sewer | $3,115,424 | +$5,980,764 | $54,484,659 |
| Sanitation | $452,358 | +$1,084,343 | $14,381,777 |
| Stormwater | $347,839 | +$1,625,772 | $2,681,076 |
| Total Enterprise | $6,716,844 | +$13,532,412 | $108,891,720 |
Enterprise funds hold $108.9M in net position. This is the primary funding source for the $128M CIP. The sewer fund alone holds $54.5M against a $71.6M sewer CIP.
Source: FY2025 ACFR, Proprietary Funds statements (p. 51).