Update – August 25, 2025: Last week a resident filed a referendum petition, which, if it qualifies, will place the property tax increase on the November 4th ballot for voters to approve or reject. That means our budget, and our ability to meet city needs, could be up in the air until then. So, what’s really at stake? At its core, the question is: what kind of city do we want Ivins to be?
Original article – August 15, 2025: Last night, the City Council voted to approve an $860,000 property tax increase. At least 80 residents packed the council chambers, and the vast majority opposed it. In three and a half years on the City Council, it was the hardest meeting I’ve faced – by far.
I consider my job on City Council is to help residents: answer their questions, solve their problems when I can, and make life in Ivins a little better. I know this tax increase doesn’t feel like help to anyone, certainly not to their household budgets, but I believe it’s necessary for the long-term good of our city. Still, last night I had to make a decision that will cost every household more money. It’s not the kind of choice you sleep easy after making. I didn’t. I finished this article before 6 am this morning.
Over the past several months, I’ve received a steady stream of ideas from residents on how to avoid a tax increase. The public comments last night echoed many of those same suggestions. This article explains why those cost-cutting ideas, while sounding good, didn’t work for me.
I won’t rehash in this article why I believe we need a property tax increase or how we got here. This article is already too long and I’ve already covered that in other articles: “Why a Property Tax Increase is on the Table” in June, and “Time for a Property Tax Discussion” in April.
Delay Some Expenses
Some residents suggested we avoid a tax increase by simply delaying certain projects. On the surface, that sounds helpful and harmless, but it’s neither. Delaying doesn’t make the cost disappear; it just pushes it into the future, often at a higher price due to inflation. And in our 5-year capital plan, we still have to show we’ll have enough money to pay for the project whenever it happens. The only way to reduce or avoid a tax increase is if we determine the project isn’t needed at all and remove it from the plan entirely. I’ll get to that shortly.
Dip Into Savings Until Black Desert is Finished
Our 5-year plan already assumes we’ll see major new revenue from Black Desert Resort. We will get benefits, no question about that, but how much and how soon is still uncertain. For example, the start of construction on their “Boardwalk” with retail shops and restaurants has already been delayed at least a couple of years. That means the full economic benefit (politician-speak for more tax revenue) is probably at least five years away. Banking on it now to cover our budget gap would be risky, it’s like spending your income tax refund before you know the amount or when it will arrive.
We Don’t Need Such a Large Reserve
Our goal is to keep a General Fund Reserve, basically our rainy-day fund, equal to 35% of annual operating revenue. Right now, it’s about 32%. A resident I met with recently suggested lowering that goal to 20%, which would free up roughly $1.5 million. That’s more than enough to cover our deficit for a couple of years.
Should we lower the goal? The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends cities keep a reserve of at least two months of operating expenses (about 16.7% of the annual budget). At first glance, that seems to support the lower number. But GFOA’s “at least” is the key part, they stress that each city’s risk level should drive the actual target.
To help determine that target, GFOA provides a Reserve Amount Calculation Workbook to measure 24 different financial risk factors. The analysis also adds risk for smaller cities. When we ran Ivins through that tool, we scored 30 out of 40 points. The higher the score, the greater the risk. GFOA’s guidance says a score between 25 and 31 means the city “faces a moderate to high level of risk and should consider adopting a target for reserves significantly higher than the recommended minimum, in the range of 26–35%.” Our score is bumping the high end of the 25-31 risk range, which is why our reserve target is 35%.
Yes, this kind of risk assessment involves judgment calls, but it’s systematic and based on a structured framework. It forces us to look at each risk factor and weigh it, rather than simply saying, “That seems high” or “Other cities have less” without any method behind the decision.
Delay Vehicle Purchases
Five of our police vehicles are at the end of their service life, each with 100,000–124,000+ miles. Police mileage is harder on a vehicle than personal driving. Patrol cars spend long hours idling, and every hour of idle time adds wear equivalent to additional miles on the engine. Replacing these vehicles isn’t a luxury; it’s essential for safety and reliability. Plus, 44% of the replacement cost is reimbursed by Santa Clara, reducing the net cost to Ivins.
The same logic applies to other city vehicles. Parks crews need trucks to haul tools and equipment to job sites. Public Works crews use them to respond quickly to utility and infrastructure issues across the city. Animal Control needs a properly equipped transport vehicle to handle animals safely. These aren’t take-home cars or perks, they’re the essential tools our teams need to do their jobs.
Why Not Lease Vehicles?
On the surface, leasing can sound like a money-saver. In reality, it locks the city into a fixed, inflexible annual payment. Once you sign, you’re committed.
If we leased our entire fleet and later decided that leasing no longer made sense, we’d face a massive one-time cost to purchase all the vehicles outright just to keep operations running. That’s the kind of financial cliff we want to avoid.
In fact, avoiding large, long-term lease commitments scored as a positive in the Government Finance Officers Association’s reserve risk analysis we use to set our reserve targets. Why? Because owning gives us flexibility. We can adjust replacement schedules if finances get tight, and we’re not trapped by a contract. Leasing might feel easier up front, but it adds long-term risk and reduces our ability to adapt.
Do a Better Job Controlling The Police Budget
A resident recently noted that our law enforcement costs came in over budget last year and suggested tightening that spending to save money this year. She’s correct. The costs were higher than originally budgeted. But here’s why that happened, and why it’s not the budget problem it might appear to be.
When the budget was first set, we weren’t providing a School Resource Officer (SRO) for Vista School. The state requires schools to have an SRO, so our police department created that position. It shows up as a new expense in our budget, but Vista reimburses the city for 80% of the total cost, salary, benefits, and all.
Similarly, Black Desert Resort (BDR) events require a police presence that was hard to quantify in the first year. Those costs appear in the budget as city expenses, but BDR reimburses the city in full for that extra coverage.
So yes, the raw numbers went over budget, but they were driven by reimbursable services, not overspending. The extra police work didn’t create an ongoing budget hole for taxpayers.
We Don’t Need to Increase Police Wages
Some residents suggested we could still fill police vacancies without a pay increase. The reality is, without it, we’d be far less competitive in attracting top recruits from the academy, and in keeping the experienced officers we already have.
In the past year alone, we lost a highly skilled officer to Washington City and an outstanding sergeant to the County, both lured away by higher pay. Losing people of that caliber hurts our department and ultimately costs more in turnover and training.
Also, 44% of the cost for our police services is covered by Santa Clara, so Ivins isn’t paying the full bill for this increase.
We Don’t Need Four Additional Staff
I believe residents expect high-quality service and a well-maintained city. I also believe we have a responsibility to respect our employees by not overburdening them to the point of burnout.
For perspective: Utah cities average 2.22 police officers per 1,000 residents; we have 0.85. In parks, the national best practice is 1 maintenance worker per 10 acres; we’re at 1 per 16.8 acres. Public Works is also short-staffed compared to benchmarks. And these shortfalls are noticed. I regularly get emails about weeds in public spaces, delayed repairs, and road conditions.
Here’s why the new positions in this budget are being proposed:
- Animal Control: We used to have two full-time officers and one part-time officer. Now we’re down to one full-time officer and two part-time animal care technicians cleaning and caring for the animals. Only officer can respond to calls (1,064 last year), effectively placing her on-call 24/7 for after-hour emergencies. That’s not fair to her and not sustainable for the city.
- Public Works Stormwater Compliance: State and EPA rules are tightening stormwater permit requirements. We are the last city in the county to add staff for this. Following a recent audit by the State, with directives from the EPA, our current staffing levels are not sufficient to maintain full compliance. The State and the Feds are only too happy to add regulatory requirements but not pay for the added cost to cities to comply. Fortunately, only 20% of this position comes from the general fund; the rest is paid from utility enterprise funds. Cutting it would barely change our budget gap but would hurt compliance.
- Parks Maintenance: We maintain 101 acres now, with 12 more coming soon. At current staffing, weeds win more often than we do. Two more workers bring us closer to our own long-term goal of 1 maintenance worker per 13 acres, which is still a leaner department than the national standard of 1 per 10 acres.
Delay Hwy 91 Landscaping
If we were in a recession and revenues were falling, I’d agree this could wait. But this isn’t about an economic downturn, our budget gap comes from 15 years of holding the property tax rate flat while costs rose with inflation.
My job is to look out for the entire city, not just one area. I won’t tell residents along Hwy 91 that they can’t have an attractive, well-kept roadway while I enjoy one on Center Street or the Parkway. Good landscaping is part of what makes Ivins stand out, and I believe most residents, wherever they live, value keeping our city looking its best. I suppose we’ll see in November if that’s true.
We Don’t Need More Parks
Some residents say we shouldn’t buy Fitness Way Park land. We don’t need it. First, the cost will be paid 100% from developer impact fees. It has no impact on our need for a property tax increase. They say the same about Arrowhead Trail Park. Its $500k purchase price is paid 80% from a state grant. In addition to the cost issues, I believe we need to at least maintain the same “level of service” for residents, meaning the same number of park acres per resident as our population grows.
Delay the Animal Shelter Remodel
Cats and dogs don’t vote but I think they deserve representation too. This remodel has been needed for years, and waiting longer would be unfair to the animals, the staff, and the residents who care about them. The issues now aren’t just about convenience, they affect safety, health, and basic functionality.
The retaining wall and outdoor cement are cracked, corroded, and uneven, making the yard prone to flooding and impossible to properly disinfect. The drainage system is inadequate, limiting the shelter’s usable space and creating unsanitary conditions. There is no secure area to pull in the Animal Control vehicle before unloading an animal, which poses safety risks.
Kennel space is so limited that the shelter has been forced to turn away animals and restrict owner surrenders. Overcrowding increases animal stress, creates a less safe environment for staff, and lowers adoption chances. Isolation areas for sick or aggressive animals are insufficient, making it hard to prevent illness from spreading.
Fixing these problems will allow the shelter to provide humane care, meet health and safety standards, improve public engagement, and help more animals find permanent homes. Delaying further only compounds the risks and costs.
Delay Buying Advanced Water Meters
Water is our biggest long-term challenge, and “Advanced Metering Infrastructure” (AMI) is one of the smartest tools we can add to our toolbox right now. These aren’t just meters, they’re a real-time monitoring system that gives both the City and residents immediate data on water use. That means we can spot leaks within hours instead of weeks, help residents adjust usage before they get a big bill, and better manage our water supply citywide.
Right now, we lose an estimated 10% or more of our water to leaks, water we’ve already paid to treat and deliver. Every day we delay means more of that precious supply disappears before it ever reaches a faucet.
There’s also a well-documented principle in behavioral science: what gets measured gets managed. Studies show that when people can see their usage in real time, they naturally use less, without mandates or penalties. AMI meters make water use visible, so conservation becomes the easy, obvious choice.
The cost is also about as good a deal as we’ll ever get. Half is covered by a state grant, and the other half comes from our water enterprise fund, money already set aside from monthly utility bill payments specifically for water improvements like this. None of it comes from the General Fund, so this purchase has zero impact on a property tax increase.
Delaying this project wouldn’t save taxpayer dollars, it would just postpone the benefits. And in the meantime, we’d keep losing water we can’t afford to waste, keep relying on slow manual reads, and miss the opportunity to help residents take control of their own water use. With our water future on the line, this is an investment we can’t kick down the road.
Add More Retail to Generate Tax Revenue
Some residents suggest we can avoid a property tax increase by bringing in more retail. I wish it were that simple. Ivins already has over 70 acres earmarked for commercial uses like retail and office, not counting what’s already built or reserved for tourism development. That land could support more than 1.3 million square feet of commercial space in a mix of one- and two-story buildings.
Even if we matched other cities in the county for retail and office space per capita, which is unlikely given our end-of-the-road location, we’d need about 774,000 square feet of retail and 384,000 square feet of office space when we’re fully built out at about 20,000 residents. We already have enough land for that and have for decades. The challenge is demand. Developers simply haven’t been lining up, because location matters.
And here’s the irony: the very thing that makes Ivins less ideal for much retail, our quiet, end-of-the-road setting, is the same thing residents love about living here. We don’t have the through-traffic of a major highway, and that’s a big part of our peaceful character. Over time, our unique charm will attract more businesses, but the pace will be gradual, and it won’t close today’s budget gap. Counting on retail development to solve our immediate shortfall is like waiting for a winning lottery ticket, possible, but not a plan.
Is the City’s Budget Bloated?
If you want to know whether a city’s budget is bloated, there’s no magic number, but there is a reasonable yardstick: total tax revenue per capita (per resident) (property taxes, sales taxes, transient room tax, etc.). The Utah Taxpayers Association publishes an annual Cost of City Government report that compares exactly that.
In 2024, the average among the three Washington County cities large enough to be included in the report (St. George, Washington, and Hurricane) was $1,158 collected in total taxes per capita. Ivins? $919 per capita. That’s $239 less per person, every year.
The report also lists statewide averages ($841 mean, $782 median), but that’s a mix of all types of cities and economies, so the comparison is apples to oranges. The most relevant benchmark for Ivins is how we stack up against the cities in our own county that face similar development patterns, infrastructure demands, service expectations, and cost pressures.
Put another way, if we were “bloated” in the way some people claim, our number would be higher than the county average, not dramatically lower. We run lean, and the numbers prove it. And even if we added the $860,000 property tax increase, total taxes would have been about $996 per capita, still well below the big-city average.
Our Deficit is Structural, Not Temporary
This isn’t a one-year hiccup we can fix with duct tape and optimism. It’s a structural gap: Our ongoing revenues aren’t enough to cover our ongoing expenses. Until we fix the structure, the shortfall will be back year after year, only bigger. One-time cuts don’t solve it; they just kick the can down the road and make the landing harder when it finally stops rolling.
A Final Thought
I don’t like paying more in taxes any more than you do. But pretending we can keep the services and quality of life that residents expect, with no tax adjustment, isn’t leadership. It’s wishful thinking. And it leaves the next City Council holding the bag when the hole is even deeper.
We’ve already waited, delayed, stretched every dollar, and patched with one-time money. There’s nothing left to squeeze without cutting into the things that make Ivins the city we all chose. This is the year to stop pretending, face the numbers, and fix the problem, before the problem fixes us.
Property Tax Relief Programs
There are many different tax relief programs available for Washington County (primary) property owners. The deadline to file for property tax relief is September 1.
While these programs can offer meaningful help, how many residents actually qualify, and how easy or difficult it is to apply, can vary quite a bit depending on the program.
Details on the qualification requirements and benefits of each program are included below. See the property tax relief section on the county’s website for more information at https://www.washco.utah.gov/departments/auditor/property-tax-relief/