development & taxes
By Kathy Bence
February Snow by Brad Langston
My husband and I were out of town for the March 18 city council meeting. As retired grandparents, we are frequently away. I did watch the meeting on YouTube, but I prefer attending in person—especially because the YouTube recording does not include any slide presentations.
Audit Presentation
This audit presentation began here with explanations of what the state auditor demands. Government audits do not require opinions unless there are obvious problems so this was just the facts with limited commentary.
The state auditor’s office said that cities with significant financial activity related to PIDS need to be consolidated in the report with the city that created it. There were cities that didn't agree, along with attorneys that didn't agree. In the end, the state auditor’s office won.
Public Comments
While there were no public comments, this is a good place to mention that I’m pleased with the new council’s decisions regarding public comments.
While they have continued the 3-minute time limit and they won’t be responding to the comments, they now allow comments on matters that will be on the agenda. Previously, that was not allowed.
If you attend a meeting knowing the council will discuss an issue you care about, you can speak on that topic. That makes sense to me. Of course, this may not apply if there is already a scheduled public comment period for that specific agenda item. Either way, attending the meeting gives you the opportunity to comment on matters the council is considering.
Business Items
Application for the maximum height of an accessory building
This was about a Conditional Use Permit Application for the maximum height of an accessory building located at 184 S Ash Creek Drive, submitted by Spencer Richins. The current zoning is R-1-20 Single Family Residential.
The discussion begins here with the owner explaining why he wanted a taller garage door. It was an interesting discussion where Councilman Wayne Olsen questioned why we have the ordinance. He pointed out that the point of the ordinance seems to be to make someone come in, file for a Conditional Use Permit, pay a fee, and then get what they want. While the city attorney argued that the CUP may sometimes be denied, Wayne’s point seemed to be that it never is.
Application for a radio tower
This is about a Conditional Use Permit Application for a radio tower located at 370 W Shangri-La Drive, submitted by Brandon Nielsen (the general contractor) on behalf of Ray and Kathy Bence. The current zoning is MU-20, Multiple Use. The discussion begins here. Among the required material are descriptions of setbacks and lot line adjustments.
Since this is our property and we are requesting the conditional use permit, I am able to give some background on this tower.
When we started building our house about eight years ago, my enthusiastic husband envisioned a way to protect and inform his new community in the event of an emergency. He asked a city councilman if he could build a radio tower on our property and was told: “Sure! It’s your property. Do what you want!”
Hence, a radio tower was built. It is a tower which has a ham radio antenna but also houses a non-profit community radio station: KTQZ 97.3 FM. In addition, the tower has a repeater which is used for radio communications within the community.
The councilmember’s advice was ill advised and we should have obtained a permit before erecting the structure. To bring this tower into compliance, we have done what the city has required.
The Conditional Use Permit passed with Councilman Sands opposing. I’m not clear on his reasoning so you can listen to the YouTube for a better explanation of his opposing vote.
Firelight Hillside Development Permit
This discussion on a Hillside Development Permit submitted by Firelight begins here.
This discussion is about hillside density for phase one of Firelight. From the discussion, there didn’t seem to be any problem and the Planning Commission had signed off on this.
The question came up who would maintain the retaining walls long term. It was decided that this would be spelled out later and individual landowners would likely maintain their own area.
The motion to approve this hillside development carried unanimously.
Meeting frequency for the Chief Toquer Reservoir Recreation Committee
This resolution amended the meeting frequency for the Chief Toquer Reservoir Recreation Committee. No one seemed excited, but the meetings need to be at least monthly rather than quarterly. The motion passed.
Chief Toquer Reservoir Recreation Committee
This discussion on the members of the committee that will be meeting at least monthly begins here. The discussion left me confused on who exactly is part of this committee. From what I could follow, it includes members outside of Toquerville. Within the city- our mayor, a staff member, and volunteers. There was discussion on whether the city employee tasked with this responsibility would need to be paid or forgo other responsibilities.
The council approved the committee, with Wayne’s vote in opposition. He questioned the need for these extra meetings.
Work Items
Strategic Plan
The discussion on the Stratgic Plan for Fiscal Year 25-26 begins here. This was the first discussion only. An overview of the plan is on the city’s webpage, with the specifics on this page.
The council needs to decide what issues will take priority. Prior to this council meeting, the city had an open house and the few that attended did not provide much input.
Among the things that were discussed was whether cleaning out Ash Creek and La Verkin Creek was still a priority. They talked about what a public safety plan would look like for the city now that there was more growth. There are plans for a fire station in the Firelight area of Toquerville.
Also discussed was Westfield park and the need to finish the project. They considered hiking trails within the city boundaries.
RFP for Economic Development
This discussion about circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) begins here and is worth hearing.
City manager Ben Billingsly presented the possibility of circulating an RFP for economic growth. In other words, the city would hire an economic development consultant to decide what the retail needs are within the community and then try to recruit those retail businesses. Since the city is looking at large residential growth, there will be room for commercial growth.
The Mayor said that as much as he didn’t like spending money, part of the council’s responsibility is to manage growth. By soliciting businesses, he felt they might be less likely to end up with businesses the city may not want. He hoped for businesses that would service the community and bring tax revenue.
On the other hand, Wayne felt that worthwhile businesses come when they see the growth and come when the time is right. He said that consultants are often costly and unsuccessful in recruiting. He did not see how a recruiter would be successful without the residential rooftops. Business comes when they want to and landowners sell to the developer that offers the most money, regardless of recruiting.
Other council members seemed to agree with the Mayor.
Councilman Todd Sands asked if we should be looking for an urban planner to find other commercial areas.
The discussion moved toward the idea that it couldn’t hurt to have a consultant advise the city on when the time is right to recruit businesses.
Property Tax Revenue and Truth in Taxation Policy
The discussion begins here. While Ben did his best, this was not an easy topic and my reporting may have errors.
He explained that the property tax and truth in taxation policy ties back to a strategic plan objective. He described the purpose of an ordinance around truth and taxation and what it would look like.
Property tax is a critical revenue for municipalities in Utah. It is intended to pay for operations and maintenance, repair and replacement for general government operations. While there are road funds, park funds, etc, these other revenue sources are essentially insufficient for funding.
I find it interesting that additional taxes for specific purposes fail to fund their intended purposes. Perhaps that’s why we have so many taxes. Related to this, Mark Twain said:
“The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.”
Ben said that in a community that doesn't have a large commercial base, property tax is absolutely critical. Not only does the property tax have to make up for the fact that we don't have sales tax revenue, it's also the only stable tax. During economic downturns, sales tax suffers.
Ben explained the definition of mill levy. The explanation below is copied from this website:
The mill levy is a property tax applied to the assessed value of a property. The rate of the tax is expressed in mills and is equal to one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed value. The mill levy is calculated by determining how much revenue each tax jurisdiction needs for the upcoming year to fund its public services, such as schools, public infrastructure, and parks. This revenue is then divided by the total value of all property within the area, and the combined rates from various jurisdictions create the mill levy for the entire region
There are two reasons that the amount we pay in property tax could change up or down. The first is if an entity goes through truth and taxation and says they want to increase our middle levy higher than the certified tax rate or if a property value changes disproportionately to other properties in the community.
He spoke of the mill levy for property owners in Toquerville. The school district is the biggest taxing entity as it is throughout the state, with a mill levy of 4.6 mills. By the time the other entities are added Toquerville has a mill levy of 7.7 mills in 2025.
The median home value in Toquerville is is $590,000. If this is a primary residential property, you have an exemption on 45% of the property. That leaves an assessed value of $324,500. So the amount that you'll pay in 2025 is $2,500 in property taxes. $300 goes to the city of Toquerville.
$590,000 x .45 = $265,500. $590,000 - $265,500 = $324,500
$324,500 x .0077 = $2,498.65= $2,500 (rounded?)
Of the $2,500, $300 goes to Toquerville
I am guessing that this is the correct calculation. If Ben had a slide with this math equation, I couldn’t see it on YouTube.
The state, which seems to determine more and more of what happens in Toquerville, is requiring this policy. The purpose of this truth and taxation policy is for cities to be transparent about taxes and why there will be a property tax increase. Hearings are spaced to provide time for residents to comment. Generally, these gradual increases are based on the Consumer Price Index.
Rather than a rare, large, overwhelming tax increase, the policy ideally results in small, incremental taxes. I thought of frogs placed in warm water that slowly increases to a boil.
Towards the end of this discussion, Councilman Todd Sands asked if all the building will result in a lower mill levy. His question could not be directly answered. My understanding was that all the development and new homes will not lower the mill tax levy.
This reminded me of a Brian McNary quote:
“Cities promise revenue and lower taxes from growth but instead traffic increases, crime increases, tax increases and the water table decreases.”
This policy will be presented and decided on in a future meeting.
Calendar of Events
Easter Egg Hunt – Saturday, April 4th, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. – Center Street Park.