Moscow operates under a mayor-council form of government. The city council adopts an annual budget each October covering all governmental and enterprise funds. Idaho law requires municipalities to adopt balanced budgets where appropriations do not exceed estimated revenues plus beginning fund balances.
FY2026 proposed total budget: $139.5M across all funds. The General Fund ($20.6M) covers police, fire, administration, and community development. Enterprise funds (water, sewer, sanitation) are self-supporting from user fees.
Revenue vs Expenditure
Moscow's total budget nearly tripled from $49.9M to $139.5M over 18 years, driven primarily by growth in capital project reserves.
Total adopted budget revenue and expenditure by fiscal year, all funds combined.
Revenue equals expenditure for adopted budgets because Idaho law requires balanced budgets. Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, FY2008-FY2026.
Annual Property Tax Increase
The city council took the maximum 3-4% property tax increase in most years, with two zero-increase years (FY2010, FY2021).
Council-approved property tax levy increase each year. Idaho law caps the statutory increase at 3%; additional foregone balance may be recaptured.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
Property tax levies have grown a cumulative 60% since FY2008 through annual compounding.
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base. Calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026. Cumulative figure is calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
Revenue by Source
Nearly half of the city's budget comes from reserves set aside for capital projects. The General Fund ($20.6M) is the largest operating revenue source.
Major revenue sources by fiscal year: General Fund, enterprise funds, and other.
"Other" includes miscellaneous revenue, donations, and one-time receipts not classified in the major categories above. Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Revenue Summary by Fund, FY2008-FY2026.
"Other Revenue" Detail
Breakdown of all-funds revenue sources. Includes transfers, fund balance reserves (mostly capital), investment earnings, intergovernmental grants, and debt/loan proceeds.
Debt/Loan Proceeds shows $0 for FY2008-2011 and FY2024-2026 because the city had no new borrowing those years. DEQ revolving loan draws (Water) occurred FY2012-2023. All zeros verified against City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Revenue Summary fund detail pages, FY2008-FY2026. Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Revenue Summary tables, FY2008-FY2026.
| Source |
|---|
Annual Property Tax Increase
Council-approved property tax levy increase each year. Idaho caps the statutory increase at 3%; additional foregone balance may be recaptured.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base. Calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026. Cumulative figure is calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
Revenue Risk: Impact of a 20% Reduction by Source (FY2026)
The city's biggest financial risk is its reliance on $65.6M in capital reserves. A 20% shortfall in any single source would hit fund balance hardest.
Shows the calculated dollar impact if each major revenue source dropped 20%. Larger bars = greater budget exposure. Calculated - not an official city metric.
Fund Balance ($13.1M impact) is the largest exposure because nearly half the FY2026 budget is funded from prior-year reserves earmarked for capital projects. Charges for Services ($6.8M) is the second-largest. Property tax is relatively stable at $2.4M exposure. Source: FY2026 Proposed Budget, Revenue Summary p.25.
Understanding the General Fund Reserve
The General Fund "reserve" shown in this dashboard is the beginning fund balance budgeted as revenue each year - money carried forward from the prior year to help balance the budget. It is NOT the city's total savings.
The actual year-end General Fund balance (reported in the city's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report) is typically much larger than the budgeted beginning balance shown here. For example, the FY2024 ACFR reported an actual unassigned General Fund balance of $4,057,041 - well above the $2,036,446 budgeted for that year.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends cities maintain unrestricted reserves equal to at least two months of revenue (16.7%). Based on the FY2024 ACFR actual unassigned balance of $4,057,041 against FY2024 General Fund revenue of $20,294,892, Moscow's actual reserve ratio was approximately 20% - above the GFOA recommended minimum of 16.7%.
Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budget revenue summaries (Fund Balance line for General Fund). GFOA Best Practice: Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund (2015).
Why Investment Earnings Grew from $133K to $3.8M
Moscow's investment earnings across all funds grew from $132,500 (FY2016) to $3,843,782 (FY2026) -a 29-fold increase. Two factors drive this:
1. Federal Reserve rates. The Fed held rates near zero from 2009-2015, then raised them to ~2.5% by 2018, cut them again in 2020 (COVID), and hiked to 5.25-5.50% in 2023-2024. City investment returns track these cycles directly.
2. Larger fund balances. Capital project reserves grew from ~$14M (FY2008) to ~$65M (FY2026) as the city accumulated funds for water, sewer, and infrastructure improvements. More cash invested = more interest earned.
This revenue source is rate-sensitive: if the Fed cuts rates significantly, investment earnings will decline even with large balances.
Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budget revenue summaries (Investment Earnings line, all funds combined).
Total Expenditure by Major Fund
The General Fund and three utility funds (water, sewer, sanitation) make up the core of city operations. Most budget growth is in capital projects, not day-to-day operations.
Adopted budget expenditures by fund, stacked by fiscal year.
FY2013 sewer fund spike ($11.9M vs typical $5-7M) reflects bond refinancing recorded as both revenue and expenditure, not an actual spending increase. Adopted budget figures shown. Revenue equals expenditure by law (balanced budget requirement). Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Expenditure Summary by Fund, FY2008-FY2026.
"Other Funds" Detail
Breakdown of "Other" in the Expenditure by Fund chart. These are all funds not shown individually above (General, Street, Water, Sewer, Sanitation, Parks).
Bond & Interest fund shows ~$10M for FY2017-FY2020 because each year's adopted budget included anticipated GO bond proceeds as appropriation authority, even though the bond was not issued until May 2019 ($9.64M GO Capital Facilities Bond). Actual debt service was ~$240-440K/yr for FY2017-2018 (Series 2011 Refunding payoff), rising to ~$1.05M/yr from FY2020 onward for the new bond. The ~$10M figures are total fund appropriations including unspent bond reserves, not actual annual spending. Remaining blanks are years where the fund did not exist or the budget does not break out that fund separately. Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, fund-level appropriation summaries, FY2008-FY2026.
| Fund |
|---|
General Fund by Department
Police is the largest city department at $7.3M (36% of the General Fund). Administration, legal, and community development together account for about 20%.
Police, fire, administration, legal, and community development spending from the General Fund. Admin: FY2025 = $861,012, FY2026 = $837,581.
"Other" includes miscellaneous General Fund expenditures not allocated to the five departments shown above. Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, General Fund by Department, FY2008-FY2026.
"Other Departments" Detail
General Fund departments not shown individually in the chart above: Finance, Human Resources, Buildings & Grounds, Non-Departmental (transfers, VEBA, economic development), Engineering (pre-FY2021), and Public Health.
Engineering appears as a separate General Fund department through FY2020. In FY2021, Engineering was merged into "Community Planning & Design" (later renamed Community Development). FY2021+ Engineering values are blank because the department no longer exists as a standalone budget line.
| Department |
|---|
Spending Per Employee
The city employs 172 people. Budget per employee doubled since FY2008 - but that reflects capital project growth, not salary increases.
Total adopted budget divided by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Calculated - not an official city metric.
Headcount grew 31% (131 to 172 FTE) while total budget grew 180% ($49.9M to $139.5M) from FY2008 to FY2026. Per-FTE spending rose from $381K to $811K, driven primarily by capital project growth, not compensation. Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budgets, personnel summaries.
▶ How to Read the Money Flow Chart
This interactive visualization shows how money moves through Moscow's budget. Each bubble represents a fund or department. Bubble size reflects the dollar amount. Lines between bubbles show transfers from one fund to another.
Getting started: Select a fiscal year from the dropdown. Click Spending to see where money goes, or Revenue to see where it comes from. Click any bubble to drill into that fund's detail - you will see exactly which departments or line items make up the total. Click Back to zoom out.
Controls: Drag the Spacing slider to spread bubbles apart or pull them together. Use + and - to zoom. Drag the background to pan. Hover over any bubble or line for details.
What it shows: Moscow's budget is not a single pot of money - it is 20+ separate funds that transfer money between each other. The General Fund collects property tax and shares it with Streets, Parks, and other departments through transfers. Enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Sanitation) are self-contained circles funded by user fees. Capital funds accumulate reserves over multiple years for infrastructure projects. This chart makes those relationships visible.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Revenue and Expenditure Summaries by Fund, FY2008-FY2026.
Major Fund Comparison
Water, sewer, and sanitation are self-supporting enterprise funds paid for by user fees - they do not rely on property tax revenue.
Revenue for the five largest city funds plotted together over time.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Fund-level Revenue Summaries, FY2008-FY2026.
General Fund Balance
Year-end General Fund balance as reported in budget documents. FY2024 spike ($2.0M) reflects one-time carry-forward surplus; FY2025 returned to normal levels.
Total Debt Service
Moscow's annual debt payments dropped from an $8.2M spike in FY2013 (sewer bond refinancing) to $2.0M in FY2026. The city carries relatively low debt.
Annual debt service payments across all funds (General Obligation bonds, revenue bonds, other). FY2013 includes $8.2M sewer bond refinancing.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Debt Service Summary, FY2008-FY2026.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by Category
Sewer infrastructure accounts for 56% of the 10-year capital plan - $71.6M out of $128.4M total.
10-year CIP ($128.4M) broken down by infrastructure category.
Source: City of Moscow 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan.
FY2013 Debt Service Breakdown ($8.2M)
The FY2013 $8.2M spike was driven by sewer bond refinancing. The 2002 Sewer Revenue Bond (~$10M for WWTP Phase III) was partially refinanced in FY2012, and FY2013 included principal payments on the refinanced bonds recorded as both revenue and expenditure.
| Instrument | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sewer Revenue Bond Debt Service | $7,445,995 | Includes principal payments on 2002 bonds (original + 2008 Phase IV) and 2011 refinanced portion. Refinancing saved ~$73,440/yr ($734,407 total). |
| GO Bond: Hamilton-Lowe Aquatic Center | $208,775 | 2011 Refunding Bond (swimming pool). Levy rate $0.203/1K. Refinancing saved $23,195/yr. |
| GO Bond: Fire Station #3 | $245,085 | Fire Station #3 capital construction bond. Levy rate $0.238/1K. |
| GO Bond: Commodities/Admin | $79,170 | Bond fund ending balance + commodities. |
| HIRC Certificates of Participation | $263,130 | Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center COPs, funded through Hamilton Trust. |
| Total Debt Service | $8,242,155 |
Source: FY2013 Adopted Budget, Debt Service Fund detail.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects (2025-2034)
All capital projects from the adopted 10-year CIP. Click column headers to sort.
| Project | Category | Year | Cost | Funding |
|---|
Construction Valuation
Building permit valuation hit a record $68.4M in 2024 - more than double the 10-year average of about $32M.
Total stated valuation of building permits issued per year (named permits only).
Source: City of Moscow Building Permit Reports, 2014-2025.
New Dwelling Units
Moscow averages about 92 new housing units per year. The 2017 spike (232 units) was driven by large apartment projects.
Number of new residential units authorized by building permits per year.
Source: City of Moscow Building Permit Reports, 2014-2025.
Permit Types by Year
Single-family homes and remodels are the most common permit types across all years.
Named building permits by category per year (excludes mechanical/plumbing/other).
Category totals may not sum exactly to annual named permits due to classification differences in source records. Source: City of Moscow Building Permit Reports, 2014-2025.
Seasonal Permit Activity
Monthly named permit counts by year. Red = highest activity, white = lowest.
2025 data covers January-August only (September-December not yet available). Source: City of Moscow Building Permit Reports, 2014-2025.
Notable Permits
Highest-valuation building permits per year by project type, area, and unit count. Click column headers to sort.
| Year | Description | Valuation |
|---|
Source: City of Moscow Building Permit Reports, 2014-2025. Permits shown are highest-valuation named permits per year.
Three numbers, three different things:
Annual increase % -what council votes on each year (0-4%). This is the percentage increase to the total dollars the city is allowed to collect.
Levy -the total dollars collected from all property owners combined. Grew 60% since FY2008 by compounding those annual increases.
Levy rate -dollars per $1,000 of assessed value. This is how the levy gets split among property owners. The rate fell 25% because property values nearly tripled while the levy only grew 60%.
Annual Property Tax Increase
Moscow took 0% increases in FY2010 and FY2021 (recession and COVID years), but 3-4% in most other years.
Council-approved property tax levy increase each year. Idaho law caps the statutory increase at 3%; additional foregone balance may be recaptured.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
The total property tax levy has grown about 60% since FY2008 through annual compounding.
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base. Calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
Source: City of Moscow Adopted Budgets, Property Tax Summary, FY2008-FY2026. Cumulative figure is calculated by compounding each year's approved increase.
City Property Tax Increase: Moscow vs Lewiston vs Coeur d'Alene (FY2022-FY2026)
Moscow has taken the highest cumulative property tax increases among the three peer cities since FY2022.
Council-approved annual property tax levy increase for each city. Idaho law caps the statutory increase at 3%; cities may also recapture foregone balance (typically 1% under HB389).
| Fiscal Year | Moscow | Lewiston | CdA |
|---|
Sources: Moscow: official budget documents (mayor's budget message). Lewiston: Citizens Budget Guides (cityoflewiston.org); LM Tribune Aug 2024, Aug 2025. CdA: CDA Press budget coverage Sep 2021-Sep 2025 (cdapress.com); city budget resolutions (cdaid.org). Lewiston took 0% for four consecutive years (FY2022-FY2025); FY2026 is the first increase in four years. CdA took 0% in FY2022, then shifted to 3-4% annually. Moscow has taken 3-4% every year since FY2022.
Property Tax Rate by Type (Urban / Rural / Overall)
2025 average property tax rates by county. Source: Idaho State Tax Commission, 2025.
City-Only Property Tax on $400,000 Home
A Moscow homeowner with a $400,000 home pays about $1,001 per year in city-only property tax. That excludes county, school, and other levies.
Estimated annual city property tax only (excludes county, school, and other levies).
Source: City of Moscow FY2026 Adopted Budget; Idaho State Tax Commission 2025 levy rates.
Property Tax Rate Comparison (%)
2025 average property tax rates for Moscow, Lewiston, Coeur d'Alene, and statewide. Source: Idaho State Tax Commission, 2025.
| City / County | Urban Rate (%) | Rural Rate (%) | Overall Average (%) | Annual Tax on $400K Home (Urban) |
|---|
The Rate-vs-Amount Paradox: Levy Rate Falls While Property Values Rise
The city's total property tax levy has grown 60% since FY2008, but the rate per $1,000 of assessed value fell 25% over the same period. Both statements are true at the same time. This chart shows how.
The red line (left axis) shows the levy rate -what you pay per $1,000 of your home's assessed value. It fell from $4.84 to $3.64. The teal bars (right axis) show total city-wide property values, which nearly tripled from $862M to $2.48B. The city collects more dollars each year (the levy grew 60%), but because property values grew even faster, the rate per $1,000 went down.
How to read this chart: The red line is the city's levy rate -how many dollars you pay per $1,000 of your home's assessed value. It dropped 25% since FY2008. The teal bars show the total assessed value of all property in the city, which nearly tripled. The city collects more total tax revenue even at a lower rate because there is more property value to tax. For individual homeowners, your bill depends on how much your home's value changed relative to the city average. Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budgets, Property Tax Summary tables.
How Can the Rate Drop While the Levy Grows?
Two numbers matter for property taxes: the levy (total dollars the city collects) and the rate (dollars per $1,000 of assessed value). The levy grew 60% since FY2008 through annual council-approved increases of 0-4%. But the rate fell 25% because property values grew even faster -nearly tripling from $862M to $2.48B.
Here is how it works: the city decides how many dollars it needs (the levy), then divides by the total assessed value of all property in the city to get the rate. When property values rise faster than the levy, the rate per $1,000 goes down even though the total collected goes up.
For individual homeowners, what matters is whether your property value increased faster or slower than the city average. If your home appreciated faster than average, your share of the tax burden increased -even though the rate per $1,000 dropped.
Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budgets, Property Tax Summary tables. Levy rates from Idaho State Tax Commission. Assessed valuations from Latah County Assessor via budget documents.
Typical Household Annual Cost
A typical Moscow household pays roughly $3,700 per year in combined city fees and property tax.
Estimated annual cost for a typical single-family household on a $400,000 home. Assumes ~500 cubic feet (CF) per month water use, standard sewer, 64-gallon garbage, and 1 equivalent service unit (ESU) stormwater.
| City | Water | Sewer | Garbage | Stormwater | Property Tax | Total Annual |
|---|
Property tax reflects the city-only levy on a $400K home (excludes county, school, highway, and other district levies). Moscow: $3.64/1K (FY2026 budget). Lewiston: ~$5.76/1K (est. FY2025, derived from $24.2M levy; source). CdA: ~$2.15/1K (est. FY2025, per CDA Press). Utility rates: official FY2026 fee schedules.
Fees Comparison: Moscow vs Coeur d'Alene vs Lewiston
Moscow's water and sewer rates are generally lower than Lewiston's but higher than Coeur d'Alene's. Billing structures differ - see the Notes column.
Side-by-side comparison of city fees and utility rates. Green = lowest, red = highest among cities with data.
Important: Rates use different billing structures across cities and are not directly comparable in all cases. See the Notes column for details on each item.
Rates from official FY2026 fee schedules. Coeur d'Alene (CdA) and Lewiston included as regional benchmarks. Lewiston source: Resolution 2025-39 (effective Oct 1, 2025).
| Category | Item | Moscow | CdA | Lewiston | Unit | Notes |
|---|
Idaho Statewide Peer Comparison (FY2025) ▼
Moscow is among the top Idaho cities by total budget. The table below puts that in context.
| City | Population | Revenue | Expenditure | Per Capita ▼ |
|---|
Population estimates are approximate (U.S. Census 2023/2024). Revenue and expenditure from Transparent Idaho FY2025. Per capita = expenditure / population. Moscow's $5,080 per capita is the 2nd highest among top 12 cities, reflecting its large enterprise fund operations (water, sewer, sanitation) relative to population. Moscow figures reflect the FY2026 adopted budget. All other cities reflect FY2025 data from the Idaho State Controller (Transparent Idaho). Direct year-to-year comparison should account for this one-year difference.
Idaho Cities by Total Expenditures (>$20M)
Moscow's $139.5M total budget ranks 7th among Idaho cities. Per-capita spending is among the highest due to large infrastructure investment programs.
FY2025 total appropriations (all funds) for Idaho cities above $20M. Includes general fund, enterprise funds, capital projects, and debt service. Moscow highlighted in cyan. Source: Idaho State Controller, Transparent Idaho.
Why Boise shows $1.17B (26.8% of all Idaho city expenditures): The Idaho State Controller's Transparent Idaho dataset captures all appropriated funds, not just operating budgets. Boise's total includes ~$300M General Fund, ~$463M enterprise funds (airport operations, water/sewer, solid waste, geothermal), $112M+ in airport capital projects (part of a $700M terminal expansion through 2029), urban renewal/CCDC tax increment financing, plus debt service, internal service, and reserve funds. The city's own public-facing budget narrative cites ~$876M for FY2025 (Boise Budget Library); the $296M gap is primarily airport bond proceeds and CCDC allocations that the State Controller captures but the city doesn't emphasize. Source: Idaho State Controller, Transparent Idaho, FY2024 city budget data. Moscow figures reflect the FY2026 adopted budget. All other cities reflect FY2025 data from the Idaho State Controller (Transparent Idaho). Direct year-to-year comparison should account for this one-year difference.
City Property Tax Increase: Moscow vs Lewiston vs Coeur d'Alene (FY2022-FY2026)
Council-approved annual property tax levy increase. Apples-to-apples city-level comparison, all other levies excluded.
Sources: Moscow: official budget documents. Lewiston: Citizens Budget Guides (cityoflewiston.org); LM Tribune. CdA: CDA Press (cdapress.com); cdaid.org. Moscow 5-year cumulative: 19.0%. CdA: 14.0%. Lewiston: 3.0%.
Idaho Counties by Overall Average Property Tax Rate (2025)
Overall average property tax rate by county. Includes all taxing districts (city, county, school, highway, etc.). Source: Idaho State Tax Commission, EPB00129, 11/25/2025.
Property Tax Rate by Type (Urban / Rural / Overall)
2025 average property tax rates stacked by type. Source: Idaho State Tax Commission, 2025.
Annual Property Tax on $400,000 Home
Estimated annual property tax bill based on 2025 urban levy rates.
Property Tax Rate Comparison (%)
2025 average property tax rates for Moscow, Lewiston, Coeur d'Alene, and statewide. Source: Idaho State Tax Commission, 2025.
| City / County | Urban Rate (%) | Rural Rate (%) | Overall Average (%) | Annual Tax on $400K Home (Urban) |
|---|
All Idaho Cities
FY2025 total appropriations (all funds combined: general, enterprise, capital, special revenue, debt service) for all 122 reporting Idaho cities. Figures represent total budgeted authority, not general fund operating budgets alone. Source: Idaho State Controller, Transparent Idaho.
| City | Expenditures | Revenues | % of State |
|---|
10-Year Capital Improvement Plan: Timeline by Category
The city plans to spend $128.4M on infrastructure over the next decade, with sewer upgrades accounting for more than half.
Planned capital spending by year and infrastructure category, FY2025-FY2034. Total: $128.4M across 121 projects.
Sewer projects dominate at $71.6M (56% of the 10-year plan), driven by Water Reclamation Facility improvements. Peak spending year varies by category. Projects with no assigned year are excluded. Source: City of Moscow 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan.
Why Sewer Dominates the Capital Budget
Sewer capital spending has grown from $8.7M (17% of the total FY2008 budget) to $29.4M (21% of FY2026). This is driven by a multi-decade program to upgrade the Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility (WRRF) to meet increasingly stringent discharge standards.
Major projects include effluent filtration improvements, solids handling upgrades, UV treatment systems, and lift station replacements. The 10-year CIP allocates $71.6M to sewer infrastructure -56% of the entire capital plan.
These projects are funded primarily through sewer rates (not property taxes). Sewer fund transfers to the Sewer Capital Fund grew from $2.7M/yr (FY2008) to $3.3M/yr (FY2026), supplemented by accumulated fund balances.
Source: FY2008-FY2026 adopted budgets (Sewer Capital Fund). City of Moscow 2025-2034 Capital Improvement Plan.
Strategic Plan (2015)
The City of Moscow Strategic Plan was finalized November 2015, covering FY2016-FY2020. Facilitated by The Futures Corporation, it involved employees and managers across all departments. Each department developed measurable goals spanning five years.
Key themes: Formalize standard operating procedures across all departments. Increase workforce stability and data-driven budgeting. Expand economic development partnerships with the University of Idaho, Moscow School District, and Latah County. Improve infrastructure maintenance funding. Increase public engagement and transparency.
The plan covers 11 departments with 98 individual goals. Most goals targeted FY2016-FY2017 for initial implementation. The plan period has ended, but many goals informed ongoing operational practices.
Source: City of Moscow Strategic Plan (151 pages), finalized November 2015. Goals extracted from department-level plans.
Climate Action Plan (2022)
Adopted October 7, 2022, the Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides Moscow's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Primary author: Kelli Cooper, Environmental Services Department.
Targets: Net-zero community emissions by 2050. Interim target: 56.6% reduction from 2019 levels by 2035. Net-zero City municipal operations by 2035. The city already met its previous goal of a 20% reduction from 2008 levels by 2020 (4,722 to 3,655 MT CO2e).
Baseline (2019): 150,734 metric tons CO2e community-wide. Largest sectors: transportation and building energy. Framework: Cities Race to Zero campaign through ICLEI-USA.
Key actions: Building energy efficiency improvements. Transportation electrification and mode shift. Renewable energy procurement. Waste reduction and diversion. Urban forestry and land use changes.
Source: City of Moscow Climate Action Plan (178 pages), adopted October 7, 2022. CAP Draft 10.3.22_withpc_clean.pdf.
Plan Timeline
Adoption dates and key milestones for each city plan.
Sources: City of Moscow Comprehensive Plan (2019), Strategic Plan (2015), Climate Action Plan (2022), MURA Strategic Plan (2020).
City Plan Goals & Objectives
The city tracks 114 goals across four adopted plans spanning 2015 to 2050.
Goals from the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Moscow Urban Renewal Agency (MURA) Strategic Plan.
| Plan | Chapter | ID | Goal | Timeline | Responsible |
|---|
Sources: City of Moscow Comprehensive Plan (2019), Strategic Plan (2015), Climate Action Plan (2022), MURA Strategic Plan (2020-2025).
Data Sources
All source documents used to compile this dashboard.
| Document | Type | Category | Years | Notes |
|---|