Thursday, October 15, 2026The Utah Ledger

Everything Utah, every day.

Logan development tracker

Logan-Providence boundary adjustment

Correction of a boundary where the true line sits about 126 feet south of a fence line used in earlier annexations. The council adopted the ordinance 5-0 on December 3, 2024.

Where it stands
Approved
Type
Annexation
Location
Near Shoreline Estates, Providence
Applicant
City of Logan

Every hearing and vote

  1. September 17, 2024 · City Council

    Workshop: intent to adjust Logan-Providence boundary, Resolution 24-38

    Discussed

    DeSimone said the actual boundary is about 126 feet south of a fence line used in earlier annexations; the adjustment follows state law requiring notice, hearings and an ordinance. Providence declined a joint notice, so each city will hold its own hearing. Action was set for October 1.

  2. October 1, 2024 · City Council

    Intent to adjust Logan-Providence boundary, Resolution 24-38 (public hearing)

    Approved · 4-1

    The council approved a notice of intent to correct a boundary near the Shoreline Estates subdivision, where the actual line sits about 126 feet south of a long-used fence line. DeSimone said it is the least disruptive option; steps include a hearing at least 60 days after adoption, three weeks of published notice, an ordinance and filings. Dr. Gail Yost said she was pleased with the amicable resolution.

    Moved by Council Member Jeannie Simmonds, seconded by Council Member Mark Anderson. Vote: 4-1; Council Member Jeannie Simmonds voted no

  3. November 19, 2024 · City Council

    Workshop: Logan-Providence boundary adjustment, Ordinance 24-21

    Discussed

    DeSimone said the ordinance corrects a jurisdictional discrepancy under the already-adopted resolution of intent, with required notice complete. Action was set for December 3.

  4. December 3, 2024 · City Council

    Logan-Providence boundary adjustment, Ordinance 24-21

    Approved · 5-0

    The council adopted the boundary adjustment under state law after notice requirements were met under the resolution of intent. No one spoke.

    Moved by Council Member Mark Anderson, seconded by Council Member Jeannie Simmonds. Vote: 5-0 on roll call