Despite protests from a standing room only audience, the City Council here passed a hefty property tax increase Tuesday.
"It's the right thing to do," said Mayor Richard Young.The council then approved a $2.1 million city budget, more than double last fiscal year's budget. Raising taxes nearly 70 percent will give the city $428,594 in property taxes - up from the previous year's collection of $265,798.
The tax hike will raise property taxes $113 on the average $150,000 home.
The increase in taxes is intended to raise most city salaries and put money away to replace equipment as it wears out. Councilwoman Charlee Hanna said employee salaries are too low.
"This is a moral issue," she said. "Everyone deserves to be paid what they're worth."
Young said that wages need to be comparable to the Wasatch Front, because of Mapleton's proximity to larger metropolitan areas. Even with the pay increase, Mapleton employees would still be below comparable wages, Young said.
As for creating a savings fund to pay for new equipment, "that money ought not be borrowed," Young said. The plan would save Mapleton money over time because the city would be collecting interest, not paying it, he said.
Following the hearing, which to many was no more than a formality required by state law, Young singled out some of the speakers. Calling them by name, the mayor explained why he disagreed, or in some cases, agreed with them.
"I don't agree with a lot of the comments," he said, before launching into a lengthy defense of the tax increase that was much like a father counseling his children.
At least two residents called for a citizens committee to study where costs could be cut before the council raised the tax rate. "We are your citizens committee," Young responded. Cost cutting has already been studied in work sessions held earlier this summer, he said. "We would rather have heard from you two months ago" during those workshops.
Many other residents said they are living on fixed incomes and complained of hardships the tax increase would bring. Not everyone in Mapleton is wealthy, they indicated.
Officials prepared a 10-year tax comparison for residents, which was distributed at the hearing. The table showed how Mapleton has not kept abreast of inflation and population increases. When more people move in, the cost of services rises, Young said. The increase approved Tuesday is still below the amount needed to stay even this year, the document states.
One resident said the city waited too long to raise taxes, much like the reconstruction of I-15, which was also put off for years. "Now look at the mess they've got," he said.
"Maybe we need a Prop. 13," suggested another resident, referring to California's plan to limit property taxes approved by voters in the 1970s.
"You're beginning a terrible legacy of financing (city government) with property taxes," said Jerry Syne, a former Roosevelt city manager. "The city is behind the curve without sales taxes if allowed to grow."
If property taxes are all the city has to fund its government, then new homes in the future would have to be limited to more than $400,000 in value, Syne said. "Only that size can pay for the services."
But Young said Mapleton was poorly situated to attract much commercial development, which would create more sales taxes. The town is tucked in at the base of Maple Mountain in south Utah County away from main thoroughfares and too small to bring in major retail businesses. However, a commercial plan is in the works, he said.
In other matters, the council changed the definition of family to allow extended family members to live with the main family in a home without paying a $4,669 impact fee or meet other requirements for a separate apartment. The council also continued its discussion about the troublesome in-home apartment ordinance that allows homeowners to rent their apartments to anyone.
The council is leaning toward an extensive revamp of the ordinance to avoid the pitfalls of allowing them in every home in town, which could hurt property values.
The council couldn't agree on simply repealing the ordinance.