S.B. 238 Property Tax Adjustments: transcript

You. Uh, appreciate that Mr. Chair. Appreciate, uh, giving me a phone call and let me be able to present. And I do want everybody to know that this is my favorite House committee. So I think I've been in front of this committee more than any other committee, maybe combined. So anyway, it, it's a pleasure and thanks again. Senate Bill 2 38 Property tax adjustments. Obviously many of you have been on the interim Reverend Tax Committee. This is the third bill in a row that we've done most of it based on the audits that our great legislative audit team has been able to do on truth and taxation. Um, this year, this Senate Bill 2 38 modifies several provisions of Utah's property tax code related to the residential exemption, property tax, appeals judgment, levies, and of course, the truth in taxation process. The bill is intended to improve compliance and administration of the residential exemption. Clarified ev evidentiary standards in valuation appeals and refine notice hearing and certification requirements for taxing entities that impose judgment levies or seek to increase property tax revenue through truth in taxation. This bill is, is in response to performance audit, um, that we heard, I think it was last October in rev rev tax. Um, I'd be happy to go through the bill. Sometimes people get after, after me when I go through the, but, uh, let me just quickly go through some of the things, if that's okay. Nobody will go to sleep. Um, requires a residential property owner to file an application with the County Board of equalization to receive residential exempt exemption, excuse me, repeals. Existing statutory provisions that require county assessors to issue notices following a change in ownership, clarifies burden of proof requirements and valuation equalization of appeals involving property access by the State. State Tax Commission modifies advertisement requirements for judgment levies by eliminating newspaper publication requirements and requiring electronic publication requires judgment levy advertisements to include the amount and term of the judgment levy and the tax impact on an average residential and business property. It aligns judgment levy hearing, timing, and notice requirements with existing truth and taxation notice requirements. It requires a taxing entity to publish and the consolidated list of all taxing entities within a county that are undergoing truth and taxation hearings on the taxing entity's main page of their website clarifies a virtual participation and truth and taxation hearings, and requires the taxing entity to include instructions for virtual participation. It requires a county if requested by a taxing entity to assist in facilitating virtual participation and modifies timing requirements for providing evidence of truth and taxation compliance to the state of Tax Commission for the commission certification of compliance. Um, again, Mr. Vice Chair, uh, this was, like I said, this is the third year in a row that we've continued to try and clarify language, um, working again with our, our great legislative audit staff and also with the tax commission. Um, and I, I think that will, um, conclude my presentation, Mr. Vice-Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. So I, I don't know how, how does this happen now, when we, when, uh, ownership changes? Do we have right now, do they have to apply for the primary Residence Essential exemption?

Uh, well, what what we've run into is, um, from what I understand, and, and maybe you can help with this also because I know this was a recommendation of the task commission. We, we don't really know. We, we believe that there is widespread abuse of multiple primary residences, reg people claiming residential, uh, uh, homes in this, in the state. And so this was the recommendation of the tax commission to try and clean that up. 'cause obviously if they have more than one primary, then they're not paying their fair share of property taxes and other people are paying more than their fair share. So this was a problem brought, uh, I think it was during the audit, uh, that they found it. And then the tax commission said, we need to clean this up because more than people were claiming more than one primary resident.

Right. So I I I assume most homes are primary residents. So going forward now, whenever they buy a new home, they have to go to the county and do it, or is it, is it like a easy thing to do?

So, Josh Nielsen, director of Property Tax for the tax commission. Thank you for having me. Um, during the legislative audit process, they did, um, audit some of the counties and there is five counties that have an ordinance where this is done already. And in auditing, uh, one of those counties, the auditors found that it'd be a very thorough, great process and said, why aren't all the other counties doing this? And so they did put that as a recommendation in their audit, and this is a response to that. Um, and so you are going to have several of the counties that, you know, Salt Lake County, um, the Wasatch, FRA County is where they default to primary residence, where they're now going to have to send out an application for every property that exchanges hands. That's residential.

Got you. So is, um, how does this work in application? Say you buy a home in November or December, uh, is it for like, when's the cutoff when, you know, is it all automatically, how are you taxed for the next year? Like how, how much time do you have? Right.

They, I mean, if they submit the application, it, it should be, you know, if you buy a home in November, December, it should go automatically for the January 1st of the following year. Okay. And in most cases, you're going to have homes that go from residential to residential. And so that exemption will probably stay there. It gets a little bit more complicated when somebody, a residential, you're buying a home that's not a primary residence and you're trying to switch it over. Um, but if it's, happens, if it happens before the bill goes out and the tax notice goes out, then a lot of they'll get, they'll prorate that.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I I do have a question. Okay. So let's say I have my residence. I'm going to switch it to a rental. I buy another home in a different county. I then apply, make that my residence. Is there gonna be communication back to the other county or could I still have that rental be considered a second?

Uh, a primary residence, If you are renting it to somebody who is living there as their primary residence and more than 183 days in the year, then that property will also be eligible for the primary reside residential exemption. And so if you, if you just turned it into, like you didn't purchase it, but you're turning it into Right. Um, the onus would probably be on you to communicate that with the county. But the ownership didn't change and it is still somebody's primary residence. And so therefore you would get that. Now when you purchase a home in another county, that county may ask if you have a primary residence in another county. And so you may have to, they'll have to communicate with one another to say, why does this individual have two homes? And then you'll, you'll have to show proof of the rent, you know, the rental agreement and things like that of why it's not your current primary residence, but the residence of someone else in that county.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Yes. That does make a lot of sense to do it that way.

I don there's, there's a mechanism to allow it to happen, but, um, this is probably at the county's discretion at the moment. Um, there's no particulars that say when they have to fill it out. Okay.

Um, the, the counties that are currently doing are gonna be the ordinance counties, and they usually make sure they send out an application to every, every person where the property changes hands.

Oh, thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, so at the first of your presentation you were talking about, uh, people abusing this privilege, but Representative, could you pull

Better. But you make it sound like people are abusing this, uh, tax law on property tax. And do you want that when in fact, uh, a lot of them are paying double the tax because they have two, uh, homes or three homes. You know, you're, you're paying a hundred percent. You don't get the, the residential, uh, well that's

What the problem, if you have two residences, but you're claiming both of them as primary residences, then you would get the discount for both residences rather than just one of 'em. One of 'em you'd have to pay at full a hundred percent. So, so they're gaming the system so the rest of us are paying more property tax. 'cause they're, they're, they've got two primary residences, um, getting the discount. And, 'cause if you have, if you have three homes in the state of Utah, only one of 'em is primary. The other two, you're gonna pay a hundred percent of the property tax, uh, evaluation, if that makes sense. Yes. You won't get the 45% discount. Yeah.

But looking at it another way, those people that have multiple homes are actually paying a lot more than their share of property tax because they don't get the exclusion. So say, say for example, you have a a, a summer home up at Garden City, or you have, um, a condo mm-hmm. Somewhere Yep. They, they stack up. There's, you know, the mm-hmm. The tax. But you can't declare that because, you know, strictly stated on your, your return that, uh, you know, what, what's your primary residence? And, you know, what are your other homes or buildings are you, uh, involved in?

My understanding is you're right, in a perfect world, you'd have one primary residence, you'd be paying the, you wouldn't get a deduction on your property taxes on your Garden City home or your condo in Salt Lake City, but you would have probably residents on your other, the problem we've seen is people are claiming more than one primary residence in the state of Utah because counties either aren't talking to each other and they don't know. So that's what the problem is. That's the loophole we're trying to close, is people claiming more than one primary residence, which means they get the, the discount on how much property tax they pay, if

that makes sense. Oh, yeah, It does. I I think if I can make another comment that, uh, most people are aware of the cost of their home and can read that on their, uh, the yearly, you know, tax, uh, bill that comes out, they should be able to see that, know that. But if they don't, they should be able to read it because it's clear on the, on your, uh, pretax, uh, statements that that's not included in the residential exclusion.

So I, I think, um, just to backtrack a little bit, one of my understandings of the legislative audit is the concern of either people having multiple properties where it's not being checked, or these counties that are defaulting to the primary residence automatically. And when you have people coming from out of state that don't know the rules or the laws, and they, you know, you come by a, a home that you want to turn into an Airbnb or a nightly rental, um, you're not going to tell the county that it's not your primary residence. And so it's defaulting to that and the county's not catching that. And so this was one mechanism that if everybody has to file for it, then you'll be, make sure that that happens.

Um, a lot of taxpayers who might be receiving the primary residence on multiple homes, if you're receiving the primary residence on multiple homes, and you see that on your tax notice, most taxpayers are not gonna be honest and say, Hey, I'm getting this twice. Um, they're not gonna bring that to your attention. So even though they're seeing it, I think most of us would appreciate a 45% exemption and not call ourselves out on it.

Yeah. So most of those people that fall in that category, um, if they have three homes, will take the most expensive home as their primary residence. Um, they could, but they would have to prove to the county in that situation. If we're doing, if the counties are doing their jobs right, the counties would communicate with one another and the house that you're claiming your primary residence, you'd have to show proof that you're living there. 183 days Yeah. That your driver's license is there, that you, you vote in that area. Um, and that's where your primary residence should be. Now, is there taxpayers that possibly could find ways around that to try to make sure it's on the most expensive home? I'm sure they could do that.

Okay. Well, I appreciate you bringing this forward.

Yeah. So I could, I mean, the bottom line is we all know how much we get hammered about property taxes in November. What we're trying to do is just be fair that people are paying their fair share, and that if you have, you know, if you're claiming multiple primary residents, then, then you're getting a bigger break than the rest of us are. Yeah. So, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice chair. Uh, thanks for presenting. This is a really good bill and I'm very interested in it. I had someone mention to me about people that have homes, sorry, I'm not being loud enough. People that have homes that they rent out and how this sort of f of rental rates. Have you, have you looked into that?

So it will affect the, the rent if Yes, because they'll pass the increase in the property tax onto the renters. There should not be an increase in the property tax if it is somebody's primary residence. So if they're renting it out to somebody and it is their primary residence and there's, then they still qualify and therefore there should not be an increase in property taxes and shouldn't be an increase in their rent. Yeah. Nothing should change in

That particular Okay. So it doesn't have to be the owner's primary property. It has to be anybody's

Yeah. Anybody that, as long as somebody lives in that property, 183 plus days, they're eligible for that exemption. Yeah. So that's what rental homes. And then we've, we've seen some bills being presented in the legislature about changing that, but this doesn't do anything to that. It'll still be exempt.

Okay. Thank you. As a primary residence, I'll take the answer back. Thanks.

Good afternoon. My name's Todd Hubber. I'm the business administrator for Grant School District, and I just wanted to thank, uh, Senator Wilson for the clarification that is in this bill for the truth and taxation process hits the, the three main areas that were problematic for school districts as we went through this last tax season. Uh, so this is very helpful, uh, in the direction that he gives us.

Well, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Cameron Deal, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and my testimonies similar to Todd's, uh, over the summer when we had local governments that got tripped up on some of the ambiguities in the truth and taxation process this bill is addressing and, uh, and clarifying those rules so that everybody understands, uh, the rules of the game. And so, uh, we're supportive of the bill and working with Senator Wilson on it. Thank you.

Yeah. I'd like to, uh, move that we pass out SB 2 38, uh, property tax adjustments with the payable recommendation.

Um, I think this is a reasonable way to, to, uh, have a fair tax system with the property taxes. So I think work they've worked it through well.

Well, I just hope having cam support the bill doesn't hurt the bill. So, uh, I, but I, I do appreciate, cam, you, we, we've, we completely, we keep working on this bill that we know last year and, and we'll continue to do so. And I, I appreciate the input. We try to be fair, uh, with the truth in taxation. I think we owe it to our, our, our taxpayers to make sure it's a fair process. We'll continue to work on it, but I'd sure appreciate the support.

Yeah. In spite of that endorsement, I, I still favor the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair Again. Thank you. My favorite committee. Appreciate it. Very.

yeah. Any, when I'm in front of them, transportation's my favorite committee. Thanks again, Mr. Vice Chair. Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that. Uh, Senate Bill 2 3 8 modifies several provisions of Utah's property tax code related to the residential exemption, property Tax Appeals judgment levies, and the Truth and taxation process. The bill is intended to improve compliance and administration of the residential exemption, clarify evidentiary standards in valuation, appeals and refine notice hearing and certification requirements for taxing entities that impose judgment levies or seek to increase property tax revenue through Truth and Taxation. Uh, this bill is a response to the performance audit, if we remember, uh, from local authority, property tax and shifting tax burden. That was done. It's a follow up bill. So, so some bills I did both in 2024, which was SB 29 and 2025, SB two, uh, 2 0 2. And, uh, the property tax, uh, performance audit was an ongoing, and both of those bills, uh, were prompted by the, um, recommendations from the audit, uh, audit, uh, committee, uh, or the, the auditors in that, uh, in that audit. Um, key points from, from, uh, from this bill, the residential exemption, um, that requires a residential property owner to file an application with the County Board of Equalization to receive a re residential exemption. Um, repeals existing statutory provisions that required county assessors to issue notices following a change in ownership clarifies burden of proof requirements in valuation and equalization appeals involving property assessed by the State Tax Commission. It modifies advertisement requirements for judgment levies by eliminating newspaper publication requirements and requiring electronic publication. It requires judgment levy advertisements to include the amount and term of the judgment levy and the tax impact on an average residential and business property aligns judgment levy hearing time and notice requirements with existing truth and taxation notice procedures. As far as the truth in taxation process, it requires a taxing entity to publish the consolidated list of all taxing entities within a county that are undergoing truth In taxation hearings. On the taxing entities main page of their website, it clarifies virtual participation in truth in taxation hearings and requires the taxing entity to include instructions for virtual participation. It requires a county if requested by the taxing entity to assist in facilitating virtual participation. Uh, that can be request from special districts to very small and limited. And we felt it was, it was, and I believe the county even asked that it would be okay for them to help them facilitate that. Virtual participation modifies timing requirements for providing evidence of truth in taxation compliance to the State Tax Commission and for commission certification of compliance. The performance audit of local authority property tax and shifting tax burden was reviewed by the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee during October, 2025. During the committee meeting, the report contains two recommendations to improve the property tax system. The recommendations are that the legislature should consider clarifying the meaning and intent of virtual participation and consider whether statute concerning primary residential exemption eligibility would benefit from a statewide requirement. Actually, during 2025, of course, we're aware a number of taxing entities failed to have their truth in taxation tax rates certified by the tax commission due to taxing entity non-compliance with requirements of section 59 dash two dash 9 1 9 of the 30 calendar year dating entities of the 30 calendar year entities and 83 physical year taxing entities that started the process, uh, only 18 calendar year entities and 28 fiscal year entities successfully completed the process. Lemme go over that again. The physical year taxing entities, there was 65 that actually went through the process. Of those 37 were, were not approved, and 28 or 43% were approved during the calendar year. Taxing entities, we just had, there were 22 entities that asked for a tax increase. And out of those 18, um, were, were approved. So only four were not approved. And to me, Mr. Chair, that tells me that people are, are, are realizing what the requirements are, and I think there's been a great learning crew curve. And I expect next year that the physical year taxing entities will, um, uh, it'll ha be able to, uh, comply, uh, with what the, uh, the code is. Uh, if I could turn some time over to Commissioner Valentine, Mr. Chair? Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, commissioner Valentine, uh,

this bill was actually taken, uh, before us this morning in the Utah State Tax Commission, and we've voted to approve the portions of this bill that we actually have brought to the sponsor. Uh, most of those provisions that he's just read are ones we've asked for, some have been asked for by your Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, and some have been off offered as response to the ongoing audit. Uh, but those items that we have, uh, indicated our full support for is pretty much the meats and potatoes of the bill. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to answer any questions. And, and, and if I could, just to sum, uh, just to, uh, let, let everybody be aware that a lot of this language also, um, we, we took input from the League of Season towns. We're still, we're still, uh, happy to talk with them and make sure we continue with clarifying language. And also, uh, uh, UAC also has asked to meet with, with me, and I'll be happy to meet with them tomorrow. So we'll continue to work through this and see, make sure we can nail down and the, the language and make it, uh, um, hopefully easy and, and clear it up for everybody.

Thank you very much. You were the most effective legislator for ending tax increases last year, so I just, you know, hats off to you.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now, some of the cities that weren't able to raise their taxes may not think that's a Brad Bond. Yeah. I hope I have security. Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. No, but I thought it was a, a great bill and, and I think it's, you know, just to remember and not we need to go back, but, um, the legislative auditors just felt like without teeth, that these entities would continue to not follow the truth in taxation. So that's why we put that in there. And what's interesting is we didn't get any pushback last year when we passed the bill. And obviously now I think it, I think it's, it's working as these entities now were having less and less that, uh, um, have not conformed, I heard someone call it unintended consequences, and I said, no, no, those, those, those were intended consequences. So Yeah, I think it's working Tax, tax cutting. Chris Wilson, that's what we call 'em. Okay.

Hello, I'm Jennifer Partridge. I am the Vice President of the Utah School Boards Association, and I'm speaking for them today. We have not taken a position on this bill because we have not had the time to talk about it yet. Um, but I can express that we are grateful for clarifications. Uh, many of the entities that did not, um, certify this last year through Truth and Taxation are some of our school districts. Um, we desire to be compliant and especially to be transparent with our communities and grateful for, for those changes that help, uh, make it more clear what we should be doing. Um, one thing we would like to see in the bill to, uh, work with, uh, Senator Wilson on is, uh, one question that came up through the whole process is who do we appeal to if there are, um, disputes on whether we should be certified or not? And as we were going through this process last time, uh, nobody could let us appeal to them because they said there was nothing in the code about that. And so we would like to see that in the code. Um, we would also appreciate some time, um, in the bill to allow us if there is a need to redo, uh, because it is important that we meet our obligations to our community to be transparent, but we also need to meet our financial obligations. And if we find out that we are not certified and there's no time to go back and go through the process again for that budget year, then that becomes a hardship on our budgets. And so we would like to see what we could work out regarding that. So thank you.

Thank you. I move that we pass out, uh, Senate Bill 2 38 to the floor with a favorable recommendation.

Oh, I, I appreciate the comments. Lemme just, just say that, um, you know, there, there is no appeal process and there was a reason for that because of the pre appeal process in the fut in the, the past had just meant non-compliance. And so I, I, like I said, I think the learning curve's there. I think most, most of these entities that did not get the, uh, get their, uh, rate approved, I think will come back next year. And, and hopefully they'll, uh, they'll figure it out. And, uh, and also I wanna know that, let everybody know that the, the tax commission was very lenient and they looked at in many, many, any way possible that they could approve this. Uh, as, as I've talked with them, they approve their rates, but here again, we owe it to our constituents. We, we know what kind of feedback we get during property tax, uh, time. And I think this is a, a, a good bill. And again, we're continuing to adjust and use some things, and I do appreciate the Tax Commissioner, commissioner Valentine.

taken the, uh, suggestions from our performance audit from our legis, from our legislative audit team, as they've done, uh, audits of concerning our local authorities, property tax and, uh, shifting the tax burden, what this bill will modify, taken their recommendations. Uh, they came to the Rev Tax Committee, our interim tech committee in October and reported on some recommendations. We've taken those recommendations and others this as Senate Bill 2 38 modifies several provisions of Utah's property tax code related to the residential exemption, property tax appeals judgment, levies, and the truth and taxation process. The bill is intended to improve compliance and administration of the residential exemption, clarify evidentiary standards and valuation appeals and refine notice hearing and certification requirements for taxing entities that impose judgment levies or seek to increase property tax revenue through the truth in taxation. Again, I mentioned these were recommendations plus we've tried to fine tune, uh, with the, uh, the process of truth in taxation and, uh, trying to clarify some language from last, uh, bill and the bill previously in 2024. That should conclude. Be happy to answer any questions Mr. President.

Vote. Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Aye. Musman Owens Aye. Pitcher Lum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Aye.

Senator Weiler. Thank you Mr. President. This bill extends the Sunset date

This is the, uh, third attempt, uh, that we are working on property tax adjustments. Uh, this, this modies several provisions of Utah's property tax code related to the residential exemption, uh, property tax appeals judgment, levies, and the truth and taxation process. This bill is intended to improve compliance and administration of the residential exemption, clarify evidentiary standards and valuation appeals and refine notice hearing and certification requirements for taxing entities and impose judgment levies or seek to increase property tax revenue through truth and taxation. Uh, this also has a couple of recommendations that were, that were brought to the, uh, rev and tax interim committee in October of 2025, which we've also put into this, uh, into this bill. Uh, be happy. That should conclude my presentation. Mr. President Prote.

Thank you Mr. President Sponsor yield to questions.

Thank you. Um, my two neighbors are elderly couples and they have expressed a lot of frustration with the increase in property tax. Would this make it easier or more difficult for them if they were not computer savvy to appeal their property tax, um, concerns?

Senator Wilson. Uh, Mr. President Prote, this will not change, uh, their ability to repeal it should. The bill we ran last year actually made it easier 'cause you could do it online if you wanted to as an option.

Thank you. Um, so if they do not have access to a computer or if they do not really work well with computers, would they still have the similar access as they had before?

Senator Wilson? Uh, yes they do. Mr. President Prote,

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. President Prote. Uh, a motion, uh, to Senate bill 2 38 pass.

Senator Vickers. Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Gilmore Escamia Fillmore, Uh, aye. Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kinins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Aye. Musman Owens Aye. Pitcher Lum Re Sandal Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle SB 2 38.

Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. In October of last year, the interim revenue and tax Committee reviewed the performance audit of local authorities property tax and shifting tax burden. And the report contained two recommendations to improve the property tax system. Uh, the recommendations are the, the legislature should consider are clarifying the meaning and intent of virtual participation in truth and taxations hearings. And consider whether the statute concerning the primary residential exemption eligibility would benefit from a statewide requirement. Uh, additionally, uh, a number of you remember during 2025 that a number of taxing entities failed to properly hold their truth and taxation, uh, meetings to certify their rate. Uh, also found a number of taxing entities in non-compliance, uh, with the requirements of, uh, section 59 2 dash 19. Uh, we had a number of entities that didn't end up having their rates certified and even found some had, uh, RA raised taxes. Without going through the the process at all, this bill seeks to, uh, modify, uh, address that audit and those issues that arose last year. Uh, some of the provisions relate to the residential exemption to make that process standard statewide. When property, uh, changes hands, property changes, ownership, uh, also addresses the property Tax Appeals judgment levies. And as I mentioned, truth and taxation. Uh, this is, uh, an important bill that I think addresses some of the, the maybe subtleties in our truth and taxation hearing. We wanna make it very clear that citizens can participate virtually in a truth and taxation hearing and what the notice looks like to make sure that they can access that hearing and have, uh, the proper notice. So those are the basics of what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, happy to answer any questions.

Oh, I apologize. No, I'm just presenting the bill. We're just on, I'm, We're Just Aing Senate bills.

My mic. Okay. Um, so, um, I had, um, three cities that got tripped up last year that were not able to certify their rate because of our changes and because of the process through the tax commission. So I appreciate the good sponsor in the Senate working through that. So I'm gonna ask you the, the three, um, reasons my cities got tripped up and if you can point to maybe we're in the bill that hopefully this won't happen again. So the first was, um, in if the count, when the counties tell the other entities who else is raising taxes that might impact your taxpayer, and then they have to do that notification. We had a number of communities, that's probably the most common one where they weren't, there wasn't maybe great direction to the counties. There was a little, it was a little unclear in how and when the counties had to tell other entities, school districts and cities what was happening in other entities. Is that cleared up in this bill? Um,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is, it requires taxing entities to publish the consolidated list of all the taxing entities within a county that are undergoing truth and taxation hearings on the taxing entity's main page of their website.

Okay. And then my second question is, the other thing that tripped some people up is, is how exactly it said we had to have virtual participation. Some people just had a zoom link where people could watch online and send in questions. Other people had ways people from the public could give public comment or ask questions. Um, has, how has that been clarified?

Uh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Speaker lines, uh, five through five 30 through 5 32 and 6 0 4 through six 15 clarifies participation in, uh, the truth in taxation Hearing requires the taxing entity to include the instructions for virtual participation on their website. And then line six 16 through six 18 requires a county if requested by the taxing entity to assist in facilitating virtual participation.

Thank you. And then my last question is, um, one of my communities, um, had noticed a truth in taxation meeting as a standalone meeting on a day on, you know, the day they were assigned, um, and then had a subsequent meeting later in the day to do business. And since they had, even though they were separate meetings, um, but they were the same day, uh, they ran into some issues with that. So, does Bill provide any clarity on that piece?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I, that question, I, I'm not aware of the bill modifying anything. The intent for that was that it was a discreet standalone meeting so it wasn't, uh, maybe sandwiched between some other meetings or in the middle of some meetings. To my knowledge, we're not addressing that component of the issue that existed.

Thank you. I appreciate, um, the sponsor responding to some of my questions and I I appreciate the sponsor in the, in the Senate listening to some of the concerns when, when we have a process that becomes too complicated, while it should, there should be a high bar to go through truth in taxation. If, if it becomes an impossible bar or an unclear bar, that's actually when we hurt our taxpayer. So I appreciate the bill. I I think we got to a lot better spot and provided some clarity. So, um, I am, I am, I'm gonna vote in support and I appreciate the work that's been done to make sure that the process actually works. So thank you.

Uh, I will waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker summation has been waived.