The Herald Journal spoke with bill sponsor, Rep. Chris Wilson, as well as, Cache County Assessor Bret Robinson and its Tax Administration Supervisor Dianna Schaeffer, about the impacts of the bill, for Utah counties, municipalities and residents.

A continuation of 2024-bill S.B. 29’s efforts to improve transparency and clean up processes related to property taxes, S.B. 202 does many things, with some of the bill having already taken effect and other parts set to become law on the first day of 2026.

For Wilson, the work on both S.B. 29 — Truth in Taxation Modifications — and S.B. 202 started in 2023.

“There were some taxing entities that were not following the state code and, to be honest with you, there were some gray areas and some ambiguity in some of the tax code, so I started working,” Wilson said.

Simultaneously, Utah’s Legislature was auditing taxing entities throughout the state to check for potential noncompliance, issues with the systems in place and potential improvements to be made.

With the audit continuing past 2024’s Legislative Session, S.B. 29 represented immediate issues noticed and Wilson said S.B. 202 aims to finish the process started by the 2023 audit.

Primary changes from S.B. 29 included the requirement for taxing entities to include the dollar-amount of revenue it would stand to gain from its proposed tax increase on its notices, rather than just including the percentage. The bill also required said entities to provide additional instructions and resources for citizens to gather more information about the process with the valuation of their properties, and list what the generated revenue from a potential property tax increase would be used for.

S.B. 29 also required property tax notices — in Cache County, the green and white notice landowners receive no later than July 22 — to include this information as well.

S.B. 202 is largely a continuation and broadening of these requirements — laying out additional, specified requirements — primarily through electronic means — notices must contain, regarding how citizens can appeal property valuations and attend Truth in Taxation hearings.

“I just think we need to have more participation,” Wilson said, later adding, “I hope when people participate more, they’re going to be more confident in participating and feel better about how the process works.”

An undoubtedly complex process becomes more so for Schaeffer and Robinson, as S.B. 202 simultaneously provides resources but asks for more accountability from the county parties involved.

With Robinson’s office now required to submit a preliminary assessment book on every property value within the county to the Utah State Tax Commission in 2026, something which will happen a week earlier than the deadline for the finalized version, more of his resources will be occupied.

“One of the challenges with any of these bills — and I think (the bill) moves the needle in a good way, in the sense that we’re making things more transparent and more fair to the taxpayer — but our resources are stretched,” Robinson said. “That’s one of the challenges that we have — is to get everything done with the limited resources that we have.

“As the parcel count goes up, our resources don’t (always) go up, and then as they get more requirements — and that’s great — but our resources do not go up.”

Schaeffer also feels the strain of resources, regarding the aforementioned green and white property tax notice.

With lawmakers trying to strike a balance between sufficient requirements and too many requirements, Schaeffer worries property tax notices will turn into a word soup that nobody even reads, much less understands.

“For me, I think the readership goes down, because when I was doing (the) form’s design, you’ve got to leave some empty space for (the reader’s) eye to move,” Schaeffer said. “So I try to discriminate where I use my red ink; hopefully that’s going to draw their eyes to the base of the matter.”

The bill does provide some additional resources from the Utah State Tax Commision, by way of offering training for prospective board of equalization hearing officers.

According to Wilson, with some counties citing their inability to comply with a previous statute, which required Truth in Taxation notices to be published in newspapers, S.B. 202 removes the requirement.

Per Utah’s Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, the requirement has been in place since 1985.

While notices are still required to be physically published — often in a city or county building — and electronically published, via the entities’ official websites and the Utah Public Notice website, Schaeffer wonders if the elimination of newspaper-notices will result in less awareness.

“I mean, I’m hoping people are able to find these ads, because who reads the Public Notice Website?” Scheffer asked. “For the average landowner, they’re not popping in there. Are they popping into their city’s or their special service district’s websites on a regular (basis)?”

With other responsibilities added to Schaeffer and Robinson’s offices, the two are up for the challenge, increased electronic accessibility and more accountability from taxing entities, but recognize the potential of strain being placed in certain areas.

For Cache County residents seeking clarification on anything regarding these processes, Robinson and Schaeffer’s contacts can both be found at cachecounty.gov and they urge residents to reach out.

Schaeffer also plans on continuing her tradition of publishing a comprehensive listing of every proposed tax increase within the county on the website under the “Tax Administration” tab at cachecounty.gov/auditor/.