SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah State Tax Commission told the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee on Sept. 16 that it is finding widespread uncertainty and inconsistent implementation of recent changes to the state’s truth‑in‑taxation (TNT) notice and hearing rules and that it may decline to certify some taxing‑entity rates this year.

Diana Herring, executive director of the tax commission, and Jennifer Hansen, senior director for property and miscellaneous tax, said changes enacted in recent sessions (notably 2024’s Senate Bill 29 and subsequent clarifying language) give the commission explicit authority to decline certification when requirements of Utah Code 59‑2‑919, subsection 8, are not followed. The commission’s review of notices, agendas, consolidated advertisements and hearing procedures has identified many cases where local practice and staff interpretation differ from what the commission views as the statute’s strict reading.

‘‘We have run into some issues,’’ Herring said, explaining that earlier statutory language left the commission with advisory power but that the new authority allows it to deny certification if the strict steps are not followed.

Why it matters: If the commission determines a taxing entity failed to meet the statutory checks, it may not certify that entity’s tax rate. That could halt collections or force entities to repeat the process, with fiscal and operational consequences for counties, school districts and special service districts.

Scope of the problem and key points of confusion

- Counts and timing: Commission staff said their initial list included about 81 fiscal‑year taxing entities; two jurisdictions failed required early notification and were denied. Of the remaining entities reviewed for the current cycle, staff estimated roughly 30 that will not meet the commission’s strict interpretation by statutory deadlines and about 20 that are already certified.

- Ambiguous statutory language: Staff and local officials identified multiple gray areas that repeatedly caused non‑uniform implementation: what qualifies as ‘‘electronic participation’’ or ‘‘virtual participation’’ (is an email read into the record sufficient, or is two‑way audio/video required?), how to present and post the consolidated advertisement listing all taxing entities in a county, and whether a TNT hearing may be combined on the same agenda with other business without violating the ‘‘no other items’’ requirement.

- Consolidated advertisement: Taxing entities frequently posted either the county’s consolidated ad or only their own individual notice; the commission said many entities failed to show evidence the consolidated ad was presented at each taxing entity’s hearing and posted on each entity website as the statute anticipates.

Local officials urge clarification rather than blanket denials

County auditors and school officials who testified at the committee meeting urged legislative clarification and a practical approach for this year.

Rod Mann, Utah County auditor, told the committee he favors simplifying requirements and said the commission and counties have worked to educate local entities, but that many taxing entities carry out truth‑in‑taxation only once every several years and do not build a body of institutional expertise. Mann warned against a strict, zero‑tolerance enforcement posture that leaves no room for small, technical mistakes.

Several county auditors and school district business officers described detailed public hearings — including full auditor checklists, large public attendance, in‑person streaming and hours of testimony — where the public’s opportunity to participate was not in dispute, even where a technical posting or file format issue later drew the commission’s attention.

Legislative context and next steps

Senator Wilson, who sponsored prior TNT language changes, told the committee that the statutes enacted in recent sessions were intended to improve transparency and that the commission’s new authority to deny certification reflects legislative intent. He said he has a bill file open to address clarifications and that an audit with additional recommendations is expected this fall.

Commission staff asked the committee to consider whether specific subsections of 59‑2‑919 should be clarified so local taxing entities know with precision what is required — for example, making explicit what constitutes virtual participation and whether a TNT hearing must be the only item on the agenda for that local meeting.

Local testimony and concerns

- Several school districts (Granite, Box Elder, Tooele) and county auditors testified that they had followed trainings the tax commission provided, that they had posted notices and held extensive public hearings, and that technical differences (PDF file problems, timing of revised checklists, or whether consolidated ads were placed on entity websites) were the primary points of contention.

- Some local leaders said they would prefer continued training and an advisory remediation process this year while the legislature considers clarifying language; others — including Utah Taxpayers Association — supported strict enforcement to ensure statutory compliance and protect taxpayers’ notice rights.

What happens next: Commission staff said they would continue outreach and that legislative clarification could reduce future disputes. Committee members suggested the possibility of a bill to define terms and simplify notice requirements, and several county auditors offered to help draft clearer operational language.