After hearing several complaints about a proposed $2,811 impact fee for every new home to be constructed in the city limits, the group almost unanimously agreed that the proposed resolution was flawed. Still, the council adopted Resolution 584 with only one vote of opposition, by mayoral candidate Steven Taylor.

“It's a fact that our fees in the city, I think, have gotten out of line,” Taylor said, suggesting instead that the council find savings in the city's budget. “I think that these impact fees need to be reduced by a third.”

Other critics at a public hearing prior to the council vote found fault with several aspects of the proposal.

Troy Kartchner, a contractor and spokesman for a grassroots group of businessmen in the real estate industry, denounced the plan to use impact fees to subsidize police and fire protection, saying, “This ought to be provided to everybody for the same price,” even if it means increasing property taxes.

The new impact fees also will subsidize Logan's utility company, which has a monopoly in the city limits and already charges several hundred dollars more for new construction than the state's other provider, Kartchner said.

“Logan city should be competitive with Utah Power & Light,” he said, adding that Logan's for-profit power company should not be subsidized by impact fees.

City resident Tim Wolters criticized a study commissioned by Logan officials and used as the basis for setting the amount of the impact fees. A projected tripling of the culinary water capacity in the city over the next 20 years just doesn't line up with a projected population increase of 40 percent, Wolters said. He predicted the city may gain a short-term benefit from the fees, but ultimately Logan would drive away development.

“I think we're giving away Logan's competitive edge,” Wolters said, adding that prospective new residents and business owners, as well as citizens who want to trade-up to bigger homes and offices, will look elsewhere to avoid paying impact fees.

Mayor Doug Thompson echoed his distaste for the details of the proposal, while supporting it overall.

“I have no doubt that there's something wrong with this particular passage, but I don't think we're ever going to get it perfect,” he said.

“We ought to go forward with the closest thing to perfect that we can and I think that's what we have.”

abrunson@sltrib.com