The Logan City Council on Aug. 7 approved Resolution 25-29, raising the city's property tax levy by 2.9% following a required truth-in-taxation public hearing. The measure passed by roll-call vote after staff explained how state truth-in-taxation rules limit what the city may collect and several residents spoke in favor and with questions.

Rich, a city staff member, told the council that under state truth-in-taxation rules the city generally "is entitled to receive the same amount of property tax it received from existing customers in the prior year" and that the proposed 2.9% increase "would result in an increase on the average residential home of approximately $7.69 per year." He said the city's portion of a typical property tax bill is about 12% of the total owed to all taxing entities.

The tax increase, Rich said, is part of the city's approach to fund ongoing operating needs a little each year rather than large, one-time jumps. He told the council that without annual, modest increases the city would need to cut capital and operating budgets, estimating cuts of about $89,000 in the general fund and $82,000 in the library fund if the increase were not adopted.

Members of the public who spoke at the hearing generally supported the increase as modest and necessary. Katie Lee Colvin said the proposal seemed reasonable and praised staff for specifics about how the revenue would be used: "I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that, our city finance folks have and and specificity about what the funding is needed for." Josh Oliver said he supported funding for the library and emergency services but asked the council to monitor whether property owners pass tax increases through to renters.

Other questions raised included how taxable value is calculated. Roger Yost asked why a detached workshop on his property did not receive the same residential exemption; staff said the 45% primary-residence exemption is set in state code and that the county assessor determines qualifying reductions.

A council member moved approval of Resolution 25-29 and a second was recorded. Roll-call votes were: Mark, Aye; Jeanne (joining remotely), Aye; Ernesto, Aye; Mike, Aye. The motion carried and Resolution 25-29 was approved.

Council members and staff emphasized the increase is intended to keep pace with inflation and rising costs, including employee retention and higher supply and utility costs, rather than to expand services. Rich said the city's approach is to "raise property taxes by a small incremental amount each year" so it can maintain operations and avoid large future increases.

The council also noted that detailed comparisons with neighboring cities are included in the public packet and that the county provides the formal notice comparing taxing entities. The hearing closed after in-person public comment and the council took final action on the resolution.