The Utah State Board of Education Finance Committee voted Oct. 3 to recommend that the full board direct staff to convene a working group to study the voted-and-board local levy (the state guarantee), truth-in-taxation timing and transparency requirements, and related policy options.

The working group will include representatives from local school business administrators, school board members, legislators, the Utah Taxpayers Association, the State Tax Commission, county representatives and staff from USBE. Committee chair Cindy Davis moved the recommendation and the committee approved it with one member, Christy Boggess, recorded as opposed.

The move follows extensive public comment and a staff presentation that laid out how Utah’s property-tax system and the state guarantee currently operate and why districts and taxpayers see widely different tax rates and per-student local revenues.

Why it matters: The committee’s discussion focused on how property-tax wealth varies across districts, how the state guarantee (often called the voted-and-board program) attempts to equalize those differences, and how recent formula changes and rapid valuation shifts have affected local levies and perceived fairness. Staff and public commenters said the interaction between local budget processes and the truth-in-taxation schedule causes confusion for taxpayers and administrators.

Staff presentation and public comment
Dale Frost, minimum school program administrator, and Sam Urie, school finance director, reviewed the mechanics of the voted-and-board local levy program and several scenarios staff had modeled. Frost summarized possible legislative levers: increasing or decreasing the number of guaranteed increments (currently 20), changing the guarantee rate, or adding state dollars to the program. He warned that outcomes would be highly uneven across districts and that changes would not produce one-to-one changes in local property taxes.

Parents and local business administrators told the committee they experienced the truth-in-taxation process as opaque or rushed. Emily Daley, a parent from Davis School District, said the current interaction between the “state guarantee hold-harmless” and local levies can create perverse incentives for districts to raise taxes to reclaim state funding already collected locally, calling the result “double jeopardy.” John Larson, business administrator for Jordan School District, urged the committee not to reduce the voted-and-board guarantee, saying, “Any effort to reduce this funding will hurt poor property-tax districts and cause those districts to have to increase taxes in order to compete with wealthier property-tax districts.” Granite School District business administrator Todd Haber told the committee his organization was “opposed to any of the scenario changes” under discussion and raised timing and coordination concerns involving county assessors, auditors and the state tax commission.

Staff explained timing constraints and data flows that shape budgets: counties certify valuations and tax calculations in late May and June; districts must adopt budgets by June 30 and finalize truth-in-taxation hearings in August. That sequencing means districts typically adopt a legally required budget before carrying out public hearings that can change final rates.

Key technical points and models
Frost and Urie reviewed that the guarantee is expressed in dollars per WPU (weighted pupil unit) per tax increment and that the legislature funds the program; the program equalizes local dollars up to 20 increments. Frost showed staff cost estimates for raising or lowering the guarantee and for expanding the number of increments guaranteed; estimates ranged into the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars depending on the option. He emphasized that raising the guarantee or adding state funding can reduce pressure on some districts but will be uneven in effect and expensive at scale.

Committee direction and next steps
After discussion, Chair Cindy Davis moved that staff convene the working group to examine the voted-and-board levy, the guarantee, the truth-in-taxation schedule, and transparency of district funds; the group will report findings and, if feasible, recommend items that could be considered during the upcoming legislative session or in a later session. Members discussed timing; staff said short, focused work could produce recommendations before the session, but more fundamental changes would likely take longer. The motion passed with Member Christy Boggess recorded as opposed.

The working group is charged with identifying options, clarifying who must act to implement changes (local boards, counties, legislature), and reporting back to the board. Committee members emphasized the need to include county and tax-commission participants to resolve the timing issues districts raised.

What the committee did not decide
The committee did not adopt any specific policy changes to the guarantee rate, the number of guaranteed increments, or statutory truth-in-taxation language. Staff presented modeled scenarios (reducing guaranteed increments from 20 to 15, reallocating savings to at-risk WPU add-ons, increasing guaranteed increments, and funding changes by altering the basic levy), but the committee’s action was limited to directing staff to convene a stakeholder working group to analyze tradeoffs and recommend next steps to the full board.

What to expect next
Staff will assemble the working group of named stakeholders and report back either with a small set of specific recommendations the board could forward to the legislature or with a request for more time to study the complex, cross-jurisdictional issues.

Ending note: Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the seized issues are system-level problems involving local taxing authorities, counties and the legislature, and that any practical changes will require multi-agency coordination and time.