HB 511 revises Utah’s property-tax increase procedures by creating a new voter-approval framework for taxing entities that want to adopt budgets funded by property tax revenue above the prior year’s budgeted amount. Under the bill, most taxing entities would have to place an opinion question before registered voters at the general election before adopting a budget that exceeds last year’s property tax budgeted revenue, unless the increase is limited to maximum new growth revenue. The ballot question would ask voters to authorize a tax rate sufficient to generate no more than the proposed revenue amount.
The bill also changes the timing and interaction of existing budget, levy, notice, and hearing deadlines for cities, towns, counties, and school districts when a property-tax rate increase is proposed. It exempts a taxing entity that uses the voter-approval process from the usual truth-in-taxation notice and hearing requirements, and it shortens or adjusts several filing deadlines tied to budget adoption and levy certification. In addition, it limits the amount of revenue a taxing entity may count from new growth by replacing references to eligible new growth with a new concept called maximum new growth revenue, which is defined as the lesser of revenue from eligible new growth or an inflation-adjusted budget increase.
The bill amends multiple sections of Utah Code governing local government budgets, school district levies, referendum petitions, and property-tax notices. It adds Section 59-2-911.5, which is the core voter-approval provision, and updates related sections so that counties, cities, towns, and school districts must align their budget and levy processes with the new election requirement. It also changes how referendum petitions work for property-tax increases, including barring a referendum challenge when the taxing entity has already submitted the required opinion question to voters.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is favorable but limited: the House committee held the bill with a 9-0 vote, suggesting no recorded opposition in committee but also no advancement at that stage. Because there are no transcript excerpts, the discussion record does not show detailed arguments for or against the measure. The committee action indicates the bill was considered seriously, but its status remained unresolved after the hold.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the shift from local governing-body discretion to direct voter approval for many property-tax revenue increases. Supporters would likely view the bill as expanding taxpayer control and transparency, while opponents may see it as restricting local budget flexibility and making it harder for cities, counties, towns, and school districts to respond to inflation, growth, or service needs. The bill’s new cap on revenue from growth and its changes to notice and referendum rules are also likely to be debated by local governments and school districts that rely on property-tax revenue.
HB 511 would substantially revise Utah’s property-tax increase framework by adding a voter-approval requirement for many taxing entities seeking to budget property-tax revenue above the prior year’s budgeted amount, while preserving an exception for increases limited to maximum new growth revenue. It would amend budget-adoption and levy-certification deadlines for cities, towns, counties, and school districts, and it would alter the truth-in-taxation notice and hearing process by exempting entities that submit the required opinion question to voters. The bill also creates a new statutory definition of maximum new growth revenue and updates related property-tax notice, referendum, and state certification provisions to conform to the new process.
The available voting history suggests the bill received a neutral-to-positive committee reception, with a 9-0 House committee vote to hold the bill. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a significant policy change, but the record provided does not show a final legislative consensus.
The central contention is whether property-tax revenue increases should require direct voter authorization rather than being approved through the normal local budget and truth-in-taxation process. Local governments and school districts may object to the added procedural burden and reduced flexibility, especially because the bill ties their ability to exceed prior-year budgeted revenue to an election outcome. By contrast, taxpayer advocates are likely to support the measure as a check on tax growth and a way to increase public control and transparency. The bill’s limitation on new-growth revenue and its changes to referendum availability are additional pressure points because they affect how much revenue taxing entities can retain and how taxpayers can challenge increases.