Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fire Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cedar Fort council weighs dedicated tax, fees to shore up volunteer fire department

Cedar Fort Town Council · February 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members discussed a proposal to use a state-authorized local sales-tax option or household/impact fees to fund equipment and move the volunteer department toward advanced life support; December sales-tax receipts of $7,485 and estimates for additional revenue framed the debate.

S2 told the Cedar Fort Town Council that the volunteer fire department needs a more reliable funding source and proposed asking voters to allow a dedicated local tax.

"The state of Utah allows up to 1% sales tax that can be direct just directly toward fire unit, EMS," S2 said, and suggested placing a ballot question asking residents to approve an additional local sales-tax allocation for fire and emergency services. S2 noted the town's December sales-tax deposit was $7,485 and said an added levy could produce material monthly revenue for the department.

Council members and participants described specific shortfalls. S2 said the department had purchased some items out of pocket and still lacks broad readiness: "We spent thousands of his own dollars on the buyer's station," S2 said, adding that the department needs new turnout gear, oxygen tanks, vehicle batteries and other basic equipment. The council discussed the cost of moving from basic life support to advanced life support, with firefighters estimating about $50,000 a year in ongoing medical supplies alone.

Options discussed included an extra 1% municipal sales tax dedicated to the fire department, a flat household fee (S2 suggested $25–$30 per month as one scenario), impact fees tied to new development, or continuing to pursue grants. S1 asked for a breakdown of what additional sales-tax revenue would be listed as and how the county/state splits current receipts; S2 offered to get a full tax breakdown for the council to review.

No formal vote was taken. S2 said the council would collect data on receipts, possible revenue from a municipal option sales tax or smaller increases, and return with language for a ballot question if the council wants to pursue it.