HB0236 revises Utah's truth‑in‑taxation regime by adding pre‑notice and budget‑format requirements for taxing entities that are considering levying a property tax above their certified rate. The bill requires taxing bodies to make an initial statement in a public meeting that they are considering a tax increase, to provide specified public notice and hearings, to adopt a tentative operating budget that assumes no revenue from the proposed increase, and to present a separate tentative budget that shows how additional revenue would be spent if the increase is later approved.
It also gives county auditors an audit role and prevents the State Tax Commission from certifying a proposed tax rate above the certified rate if the taxing entity failed to meet the bill's notice or budget requirements.
This is a procedural‑heavy bill aimed squarely at transparency and fiscal discipline at the local level. For compliance officers and local finance officers, HB0236 imposes concrete changes to notice content, meeting timing, budget drafting, and certification risk — all of which affect how taxing entities plan budgets, communicate with taxpayers, and schedule hearings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires taxing entities that intend to exceed their certified tax rate to make a preliminary public statement of intent, hold specified public hearings with prescribed notices to property owners, adopt a tentative operating budget that excludes revenue from the proposed increase, and present a separate tentative budget that incorporates the proposed increase. County auditors may audit compliance and the State Tax Commission may withhold certification for noncompliance.
Who It Affects
Municipalities, counties, special districts, school districts and other local taxing entities that levy property taxes, county auditors who must administer audits and notices, and the State Tax Commission which enforces certification. Property owners receive expanded notice and an explicit estimate of potential tax changes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts more of the procedural burden onto local taxing bodies and county auditors to ensure taxpayers receive clearer, earlier notice of potential tax increases, while giving the State Tax Commission a concrete enforcement lever — certification denial — that can block a proposed increase administratively.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB0236 restructures the pre‑levy process so that taxpayers see a clearer path from "we're thinking about a tax" to "we're voting to adopt one." For any taxing body considering a tax rate above its certified rate, the governing board must first say in a public meeting that it is considering an increase, describe the dollar amount and purpose of additional ad valorem revenue, and explain the approximate percentage change in its property tax revenue. The bill ties that statement to a subsequent public hearing where the governing body must again present the revenue figure, explain intended uses, allow public comment, and (if compiled) present certain lists prepared by the county auditor.
The bill separates calendar‑year and fiscal‑year taxing entities into slightly different timing tracks so the preliminary statement and hearings align with their budget cycles. Taxing entities must post and publish notice in forms set out by the State Tax Commission and must mail a standardized notice form to property owners on the assessment roll; the mailed notice must include an estimate of the tax on each property, a concise explanation of the primary purpose for the proposed increase, the public hearing logistics, and the taxing entity's website.
Taxing entities that proceed to include more ad valorem revenue in a final budget must have previously offered the alternative budget that shows how additional revenue would be allocated.On the budget mechanics side, HB0236 requires taxing entities intending to exceed their certified rate to adopt a tentative operating budget that relies only on revenue expected from the certified rate and other existing sources — explicitly excluding the additional revenue from the proposed increase — so operations are funded even if the increase fails. At the same time, the governing body must prepare and make public an alternative tentative budget that includes the extra ad valorem revenue and explains funding priorities that would be enabled by that revenue.
County auditors gain authority to audit compliance with the new hearing and notice rules and to report findings to the State Tax Commission. The commission may withhold certification of a tax rate above the certified rate when it determines a taxing entity did not follow the bill's procedures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Calendar‑year taxing entities must make the preliminary statement at least 14 days before the general or municipal election and mail the statutory notice to property owners at least seven days before that election.
Fiscal‑year taxing entities must make the preliminary statement during a fixed window in spring (the bill’s operative window begins May 1 and ends June 8) and notify the commission and county auditor of their hearing dates by a statutory deadline.
On or before June 30 a taxing entity that intends to exceed the certified rate must adopt a tentative operating budget that excludes any revenue from the proposed increase and must separately present an alternative tentative budget that shows how the additional revenue would be spent.
The county auditor may audit a taxing entity’s compliance with the hearing and notice requirements and must report noncompliance to the State Tax Commission, which may refuse to certify a proposed tax rate above the certified rate if compliance lapses are not cured by the statutory cutoff (the bill references a certification determination deadline of September 15).
The bill preserves several narrow exemptions: entities explicitly exempted by law, levies allowed under Section 53F‑8‑301, and taxing entities that budgeted and will budget less than $20,000 in ad valorem revenue are exempted from the notice/public hearing requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New preliminary statement and detailed hearing/notice rules
This section adds the core procedural obligations for any taxing entity that may levy a rate above its certified tax rate. It requires an initial public statement of intent (with dollar amount, purpose, and percentage impact), an agenda item specifically calling out that statement, specific advertising and mail notice duties, and a public hearing structure that must allow both in‑person and remote participation. Practically, local clerks and finance officers need to build these agenda and notice steps into meeting calendars and coordinate early with county auditors to ensure the mailed form and hearing logistics are correct.
Permits pre‑adoption expenditures from tentative budgets, with a caveat
This amendment clarifies that taxing entities may expend funds before adopting a final budget either under an adopted tentative budget or a readopted prior year's budget as amended. The change preserves short‑term cashflow flexibility but operates alongside the new limitation that the tentative operating budget — when a tax increase is under consideration — cannot assume revenue from the proposed increase. Finance officers should confirm that any pre‑adoption spending aligns with the tentative budget that excludes proposed‑increase revenue to avoid later reconciliation issues.
Definitions, filing flow, and dual tentative budget requirement
This section revises and expands definitions and the annual administrative flow from assessors to auditors to taxing entities. Most consequentially it mandates the dual tentative budget regime: taxing entities that plan to exceed the certified rate must adopt a conservative tentative operating budget (no proposed‑increase revenue) and also prepare an alternative tentative budget that shows how additional revenue would be used. It spells out what must be transmitted to governing bodies and preserves rulemaking authority for the commission to manage forms and joint advertising. Practically, budgeting cycles must now include time to prepare and publish both tentative budgets and to post the alternative budget publicly in advance of final adoption.
When the new rules apply
The bill takes effect on May 6, 2026. Taxing entities that operate on fiscal calendars and local officials should treat the effective date as the start point for applying the new early‑notice, tentative budget, and audit/certification procedures for the next affected budget cycle.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residential and commercial property owners — receive earlier, standardized, and property‑specific notices that include an estimate of how a proposed increase would affect their individual tax bill and a clear description of intended uses.
- County auditors and local transparency advocates — gain formal authority to compile lists, audit compliance with notice/hearing rules, and escalate noncompliance to the State Tax Commission, strengthening oversight.
- State Tax Commission — gains an enforcement lever (non‑certification) to ensure local compliance with statewide procedural standards before increases are implemented.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local taxing entities and their finance/staff — must absorb added administrative tasks: drafting two tentative budgets, producing and mailing standardized notices to every property owner on the assessment roll, and managing additional public hearing logistics (including remote access).
- County auditors — take on new audit and date‑coordination responsibilities, and may need additional resources to compile lists and resolve conflicting hearing schedules across overlapping taxing entities.
- Taxing entities with tight cashflows — face short‑term budget design constraints because the operating tentative budget cannot assume proposed‑increase revenue; this may require bridge financing, re‑prioritization, or deferred projects if certification is delayed or denied.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate priorities that pull in opposite directions: it strengthens taxpayer notice and procedural accountability around local tax increases, but it also restricts local budgeting flexibility by forcing conservative budgeting and exposing local revenues to administrative certification risk — a trade‑off between transparency and local fiscal discretion that has no one‑size‑fits‑all solution.
HB0236 aims for clarity but raises operational and legal implementation questions. The standardized mailed notice improves comparability, but the requirement to mail a property‑specific estimate based on prior‑year data may produce significant variance between an estimate and a taxpayer's actual bill (because of reassessments, exemptions, or timing differences), which can prompt confusion or contested complaints.
The bill gives the county auditor and State Tax Commission teeth to enforce procedure — refusing certification of a proposed increase is an administratively powerful remedy — but it is also blunt: withholding certification can constrain a taxing entity’s revenue mid‑cycle and force last‑minute operational cuts if noncompliance was technical rather than substantive.
Operationally, the dual tentative budget rule increases transparency yet imposes timing pressure. Preparing a conservative operating budget that excludes proposed revenue is intended to prevent dependence on an unapproved increase, but smaller taxing entities may struggle to produce two credible budget documents on a compressed schedule.
The bill also leaves open some interpretive points — for example, what constitutes "good faith" in preparing the alternative budget, how the commission will treat consolidated or joint hearings and advertisements in practice, and the specific standards the county auditor will apply in an audit of compliance. Those will likely be fleshed out through rulemaking and audit practice, but in the near term they create uncertainty for budget officers and counsel.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.