Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis Mosquito Abatement proposes small tax increase; Sunset council hears details and public meeting notice
Summary
A Davis County Mosquito Abatement official briefed the Sunset City Council on a proposed countywide tax increase to fund facility upgrades, a new adulticide product and expanded surveillance; the presentation included a Truth‑in‑Taxation meeting date and an estimate of resident impact.
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A representative briefed the Sunset City Council Oct. 21 on a proposal from the Davis Mosquito Abatement District to raise its tax rate to fund building upgrades, updated pesticide storage, new adulticide products and expanded laboratory surveillance.
The presenter said the district’s current tax rate is 0.000093 and that the proposed rate would be 0.000117. Using the district’s figures, the presenter calculated the annual residential cost rising from $30.61 to $38.61 (an increase of $7.92 per year for a typical residence, as presented). The district’s stated reasons for the request included: the current pesticide‑storage building is 27 years old and not adequate for larger palletized granular products and liquids; new adulticide products are substantially more expensive (the presenter cited an example moving from $75 per gallon to $295 per gallon for a new product); use of spray drones and expanded granular product handling; increased surveillance and laboratory capacity after recent mosquito‑borne disease activity, and growth in service area demand.
The presenter said two Davis County residents died from West Nile virus during the previous season and that the district now needs more laboratory capacity, additional CO2 traps and safer handling facilities for increased product usage. The speaker said the district will hold a Truth‑in‑Taxation hearing on Dec. 11 (in person and electronically) and invited residents to attend and comment. The presenter supplied an address (85 North, 600 West in Kaysville) and said meeting start times are typically 6:30 p.m., but recommended checking the district notice for confirmation.
Ending Council members thanked the presenter and noted the small per‑household cost increase as a way to contextualize the proposal. The council did not take formal action; the item was informational and residents were directed to the county hearing for formal comment.
