Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centerville officials adopt interim budget and tax disclosures as council readies truth-in-taxation process
Summary
Centerville City Council on June 2 adopted required tax statements and an interim FY2027 budget that include a proposed property tax revenue increase of about $369,103 (15.84%). Council approved related ordinances and resolutions amid one dissenting vote expressing concern about the scale of the increase.
Centerville’s City Council on June 2 read the statutory notice that the FY2027 tentative budget “includes a proposed property tax rate increase” and adopted related resolutions to comply with recent changes to Utah’s truth-in-taxation law.
The council approved Resolution 2026-13 (the taxing-entity statement) and Resolution 2026-14 (the property tax impact schedule) before adopting interim budget Resolution 2026-16. Staff said the proposed levy, a rate of roughly 0.001390, would generate approximately $369,103 in additional ad valorem revenue, a 15.84% increase over current collections. “The approximate percentage increase in ad valorem tax revenue for the city based on the proposed tax rate increase is 15.84%,” the mayor read into the record as required by Utah Code 59-2-9194BI.
Staff (Nate) told the council the $369,103 figure is broken down into three primary uses: about $83,401 for higher medical insurance costs across departments, $250,000 for a new police officer position, and $35,702 to cover a South Davis Metro Fire assessment increase. “The projected $369,103 in additional property tax revenue is included in the presented interim fiscal year 2027 general fund budget,” staff said.
Councilman Bangader registered the single dissent on the tax-related measures. “I’m going to oppose and vote nay… I believe that we could have done so with a lesser amount by making some specific cuts, belt tightening and other areas,” he said, calling the proposed 15.8% increase “too high.” All other motions on the tax statements, the impact schedule and the interim budget passed 4–1.
Council also adopted an ordinance (2026-15) updating the employee compensation schedule and a resolution keeping the part-time justice court judge’s pay unchanged; those personnel actions were presented as part of the budget process. Staff said the compensation schedule shifts pay ranges by a 2.9% cost-of-living adjustment and retains a 0–5% discretionary merit band (funded via a 2% departmental bucket). The compensation ordinance passed by a 4–1 vote; the judge compensation resolution passed unanimously.
Staff emphasized next steps and public outreach. County tax figures are expected around June 12–13; the council must set the certified rate by June 22 and may hold a truth-in-taxation hearing later in the summer. Staff recommended an additional open house in August so residents can review mailed notices and ask questions before the formal hearing.
The council’s adoption of these interim measures does not itself finalize a tax increase. If the council proceeds later with a property tax increase, law requires a public hearing at which members of the public may comment. If the council decides not to adopt the proposed levy, staff said the city would need to identify alternative funding sources or use fund balance to cover mandated costs such as the fire assessment and insurance increases; the proposed police hire would be discretionary. The final budget must be adopted by September 1.
