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
Total adopted budget revenue and expenditure by fiscal year, all funds combined.
Revenue equals expenditure for adopted budgets because Idaho law requires balanced budgets.
Annual Property Tax Increase
Council-approved property tax levy increase each year. Idaho law caps the statutory increase at 3%; additional foregone balance may be recaptured.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base.
Revenue by 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.
"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 official budget documents.
| 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.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base.
Revenue Risk: Impact of a 20% Reduction by Source (FY2026)
Shows the dollar impact if each major revenue source dropped 20%. Larger bars = greater budget exposure.
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.
Actual year-end reserves (reported in the annual CAFR/ACFR) are typically much larger. For example, the FY2026 budget shows $228,897 in budgeted beginning balance, but the city's actual unassigned General Fund balance is several million dollars.
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends cities maintain unrestricted reserves equal to at least two months of revenue (16.7%). Moscow's actual reserves meet this standard even though the budgeted figures appear low.
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 Jumped 10x
Moscow's investment earnings across all funds grew from $132,500 (FY2016) to $3.8M (FY2026). 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
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).
"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.
| Fund |
|---|
General Fund by Department
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.
"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
Total budget divided by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Shows whether budget growth is driven by headcount or per-employee costs.
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.
Major Fund Comparison
Revenue for the five largest city funds plotted together over time.
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
Annual debt service payments across all funds (General Obligation bonds, revenue bonds, other). FY2013 includes $8.2M sewer bond refinancing.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by Category
10-year CIP ($128.4M) broken down by infrastructure category.
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 |
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
Total stated valuation of building permits issued per year (named permits only).
New Dwelling Units
Number of new residential units authorized by building permits per year.
Permit Types by Year
Named building permits by category per year (excludes mechanical/plumbing/other).
Seasonal Permit Activity
Monthly named permit counts by year. Red = highest activity, white = lowest.
Notable Permits
Highest-valuation building permits per year by project type, area, and unit count. Click column headers to sort.
| Year | Description | Valuation |
|---|
Annual Property Tax Increase
Council-approved property tax levy increase each year. Idaho law caps the statutory increase at 3%; additional foregone balance may be recaptured.
Cumulative Property Tax Increase
Compounded total property tax levy increase since FY2008. Each year's approved increase builds on the prior year's base.
City Property Tax Increase: Moscow vs Lewiston vs Coeur d'Alene (FY2022-FY2026)
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
Estimated annual city property tax only (excludes county, school, and other levies).
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
This chart shows two things happening at the same time: Moscow's tax rate per $1,000 has been falling (red line, left axis), while the total value of all property in the city has been rising (teal bars, right axis). Read the explanation below the chart to understand what this means for your tax bill.
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.
Why Your Tax Rate Dropped but Your Bill Went Up
Moscow's city levy rate fell 25% - from $4.84 per $1,000 (FY2008) to $3.64 per $1,000 (FY2026). But total property tax revenue still grew because assessed valuations nearly tripled from $862M to $2.48B over the same period.
Here is how it works: the city decides how many dollars it needs (the levy amount), 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 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
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
Side-by-side comparison of city fees and utility rates. Green = lowest, red = highest among cities with data.
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). Rates are not directly comparable in all cases due to different billing structures (see notes column).
| 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.
Idaho Cities by Total Expenditures (>$20M)
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.
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
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.
City Plan Goals & Objectives
Goals from the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Moscow Urban Renewal Agency (MURA) Strategic Plan.
| Plan | Chapter | ID | Goal | Timeline | Responsible |
|---|
Data Sources
All source documents used to compile this dashboard.
| Document | Type | Category | Years | Notes |
|---|