Utah's Taxpayer Bill of Rights: Should Iron County Families Get Their Surplus Tax Dollars Back?

A bold new proposal making waves across Utah could fundamentally change how government handles your tax dollars. Representative Tiara Auxier of Morgan County has introduced a Taxpayer Bill of Rights amendment that would cap government revenue growth and return surplus taxes directly to residents. For Iron County families facing rising property taxes and inflation, this proposal deserves serious consideration from multiple angles.

What the Proposal Would Do

The proposed constitutional amendment would limit revenue collection at all levels of Utah government, from state agencies down to your local city council, based on a simple formula: inflation plus population growth. If government collects more than this cap allows, the excess goes back to taxpayers rather than staying in government coffers.

Perhaps more importantly, any tax increases above this cap would require voter approval. This gives Iron County residents direct say over whether their property taxes, sales taxes, or other levies can rise beyond the basic inflation and growth adjustments.

Representative Auxier points to a striking statistic: Utah ranks as the highest taxed red state in America and sits at number 12 out of all 50 states in the percentage of income residents pay toward all forms of taxation. The proposal aims to reverse this trend and restore taxpayer control over government spending.​

How Iron County Families Would Benefit

Iron County residents feel the squeeze from multiple levels of government. The county itself maintains substantial fund balances, with financial statements showing Iron County as "financially strong and prepared for the future" with healthy reserves. While fiscal responsibility is admirable, Iron County families might reasonably ask: when does prudent saving become excessive hoarding?​

Consider what surplus refunds could mean for a typical Iron County household. With the county collecting revenues across general funds, special revenue funds, and capital projects, any collections beyond the inflation and population growth formula would be returned proportionally to taxpayers. For a family already paying property taxes, sales taxes, and various fees to the county, cities like Cedar City or Parowan, and special districts, these refunds could provide meaningful financial relief.​

The proposal would also bring accountability to local government spending decisions. Iron County School District, for instance, attempted a property tax increase of $2.46 million in 2025 that would have raised annual taxes by nearly $70 for a home valued at $431,000. Under a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, such increases beyond the inflation and growth cap would require voter approval, giving families direct input on whether they can afford higher taxes.​

At the state level, Utah has accumulated impressive reserves. The state's rainy day funds reached a historical high of $1.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2024. Combined General Fund and Income Tax Fund surpluses in recent years have exceeded $1 billion. While these reserves provide stability during economic downturns, they also represent tax dollars collected from working families that could be returned when government takes in more than needed.​

The Case for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Supporters of this proposal raise compelling arguments rooted in fiscal discipline and democratic accountability. The fundamental question is simple: who should decide how much money government can take from your paycheck? The current system allows elected officials to set budgets and raise taxes with limited direct voter input. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights would shift power back to citizens.

Fiscal Discipline and Limited Government

Representative Auxier emphasizes that taxpayers are "feeling like they have no power anymore". The TABOR approach forces government to prioritize spending within reasonable limits rather than simply raising taxes whenever new wants arise. Colorado passed similar legislation in the 1990s, and Auxier notes it has "lasted through multiple swings and switches in their government," suggesting bipartisan durability.​

When government knows it cannot automatically keep surplus revenue, it must make harder choices about what truly serves the public versus what merely expands bureaucracy. This discipline can lead to more efficient operations and better use of existing resources.

Voter Accountability

The voter approval requirement represents democratic governance at its most direct. If Iron County Commission or other local bodies wants to raise property taxes significantly, residents should have the right to vote on it. If Cedar City needs additional sales tax revenue for a major project, citizens can decide whether the benefit justifies the cost. This direct accountability strengthens the connection between government actions and public consent.

Protection Against Tax Creep

Without firm limits, taxes tend to rise gradually over time through a process known as "tax creep." Assessment increases, new fees, expanded levies, and other mechanisms can increase the tax burden without any single dramatic change that triggers public outcry. A revenue growth cap tied to inflation and population provides an objective standard that prevents this erosion of household budgets.

Economic Growth Benefits

States with lower tax burdens often experience stronger economic growth as businesses and families have more resources to invest, spend, and build prosperity. Representative Auxier's data showing that states like Texas and Florida have lower tax burdens suggests Utah could become more competitive by restraining government revenue growth. For Iron County, which has seen economic development efforts in areas like tourism and manufacturing, keeping more money in private hands could fuel additional growth.​

The Case Against the Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Critics of TABOR-style legislation raise equally serious concerns based largely on Colorado's 30-year experience with their constitutional amendment. While supporters point to Colorado as a success story, opponents highlight significant problems that emerged.

Service Quality and Infrastructure Degradation

Colorado's experience reveals how strict revenue limits can undermine essential services. Between 2001 and 2002, Colorado had to suspend free vaccinations for children against diseases like diphtheria. By 2003, the state ranked dead last in the nation for children receiving full vaccinations. When government lacks flexibility to address basic public health needs, citizens suffer consequences far more costly than any tax savings.​

One Colorado Springs school district lost $35 million over six years due to TABOR. The result: slashed teacher salaries, nine school closures, increased class sizes, elimination of new programs, outdated technology and books, dropped maintenance, and even lower winter heating temperatures. Iron County families depend on quality public education. Similar constraints could force local schools to make devastating cuts that harm student outcomes for generations.​

Inadequate Formula

The inflation plus population growth formula sounds reasonable in theory but fails to account for actual government cost drivers. The inflation measure used in Colorado TABOR tracks consumer prices like groceries and gas, not the costs government actually faces for healthcare, construction materials, technology systems, and specialized services. This mismatch creates a growing gap between what communities need and what government can afford to provide.​

Iron County's infrastructure needs provide a concrete example. Road maintenance, water system upgrades, emergency services equipment, and courthouse facilities do not follow consumer inflation trends. Construction costs have risen far faster than general inflation in recent years. A strict TABOR formula could leave Iron County unable to maintain critical infrastructure even as revenue grows modestly.

Property Tax Paradox

Ironically, Colorado's TABOR has led to higher property taxes for most residents. Research shows that more than 80 percent of Coloradans now pay more in school property taxes than they would if TABOR had never been enacted. Because TABOR restricts general revenue but allows certain fees and local levies, governments shift the tax burden in ways that often hit middle class families hardest.​

Salt Lake County recently proposed a nearly 20 percent property tax increase, and Davis County proposed a 30 percent jump. While these increases reflect inflation and growing service demands, they also show how governments respond when revenue sources become constrained. A TABOR amendment might simply redirect these pressures into forms of taxation less visible or equitable than current broad based taxes.​

Economic Mobility Concerns

Colorado's flat tax requirement under TABOR means wealthy individuals and large corporations pay the same rate as working families. Middle income Coloradans making between $52,000 and $95,000 actually pay the highest share of their income in state and local taxes. This upside down system perpetuates inequality rather than creating broadly shared prosperity.​

Iron County has seen significant growth in tourism, outdoor recreation, and retirement communities. Without progressive taxation options, the revenue needed to serve growing populations and diverse needs falls disproportionately on year round working residents rather than seasonal visitors or higher income newcomers.

Crisis Response Limitations

The COVID pandemic, natural disasters, and economic shocks require flexible government response. Colorado's TABOR cap meant the state could not save massive surplus funds from 2023 to cushion the budget deficit that followed in 2024. Iron County faces similar risks from wildfires, floods, drought, and economic volatility tied to tourism and resource extraction. Strict revenue limits could leave the county unable to respond effectively when crisis strikes.​

Why Government Entities Build Surplus Reserves

Understanding why governments maintain substantial reserves helps frame the TABOR debate more clearly. The practice is not inherently wasteful or malicious. States and counties build rainy day funds for several legitimate purposes.

Economic Volatility Management

Tax revenues fluctuate with economic conditions. Sales taxes drop during recessions when people spend less. Income taxes decline when unemployment rises. Property taxes can fall when real estate markets crash. Without reserves, governments face brutal choices during downturns: slash essential services, lay off employees, or raise taxes on citizens least able to afford increases.

Utah's $1.5 billion rainy day fund represents careful planning for inevitable economic cycles. The Pew Charitable Trusts recommends states maintain reserves equal to 15 percent or more of operating expenditures to weather typical recessions. Utah's reserve level falls within this prudent range.​

Disaster Response

Iron County faces natural disaster risks including wildfire, flood, and drought. Federal disaster aid has become less reliable, and recent policy shifts suggest states may need to shoulder more emergency costs independently. Reserve funds enable rapid response when disaster strikes, preventing the devastating delays that occur when government must seek emergency appropriations or federal assistance before acting.​

Infrastructure Investment

Major capital projects like courthouse facilities, water systems, roads, and emergency equipment require substantial upfront investment. Building reserves over multiple budget years allows government to fund these projects without issuing excessive debt or imposing sudden massive tax increases. Iron County's recent construction projects, including justice facilities and infrastructure improvements, have benefited from this approach.​

Bond Rating Protection

Strong reserves improve government bond ratings, which reduces borrowing costs. When Iron County needs to issue bonds for capital projects, lenders look at financial reserves as evidence of fiscal management. Better bond ratings mean lower interest rates, which saves taxpayer money over the life of the debt.

Examples of Government Surpluses Throughout Utah

Iron County is far from alone in maintaining substantial reserves. Government entities across Utah have accumulated significant surplus funds, raising questions about whether revenue collection has exceeded reasonable needs.

State Level Surpluses

Utah's fiscal year 2022 ended with a combined General Fund and Income Tax Fund budget surplus of $1.46 billion before transfers, consisting of about $1.37 billion in revenue surplus and $84.3 million in budget savings. After statutorily required transfers, about $1.255 billion remained available for appropriation. The 2022 legislative session dealt with what Senator Jerry Stevenson called "the largest budget we've ever dealt with since state history," with over $2 billion in extra money to spend.​

These surpluses reflect revenue collections substantially exceeding original estimates. While Utah's strong economy explains some excess revenue, the magnitude suggests tax rates may be higher than necessary to fund essential government operations.

County Level Reserves

Washington County's 2024 budget shows substantial fund balances across multiple funds, with millions appropriated from fund balances to support operations. Weber County's general fund shows healthy reserves with projected ending fund balances in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Salt Lake County maintains significant surplus funds and reserves across governmental operations.​

These county level surpluses provide stability but also represent tax dollars collected from residents that exceed immediate operational needs. Under a TABOR framework, some portion of these excess collections would return to taxpayers.

Municipal Surpluses

Even smaller Utah communities maintain notable reserves. Brian Head Town's fiscal year 2025 budget shows fund balance appropriations and surplus funds being deployed for various projects. Parowan City maintains an unassigned general fund balance of approximately $938,000, equal to about four months of operating expenses.​

While these municipal reserves serve important purposes, they also illustrate how governments at every level collect more revenue than immediately needed for operations, building substantial savings accounts funded by taxpayer dollars.

Learning from Colorado's 30-Year Experience

Colorado provides the only real world laboratory for how a Taxpayer Bill of Rights functions over multiple economic cycles and political environments. The evidence presents a mixed picture that both sides of the debate can cite to support their positions.

Colorado voters approved TABOR in 1992, but by 2005, they voted to suspend key provisions for five years through Referendum C, acknowledging serious problems. This suspension reflected widespread recognition that TABOR's limits were causing more harm than good in critical areas like education, healthcare, and infrastructure.​

Economic analyses comparing Colorado to peer states found very limited evidence for short term growth benefits from TABOR, and no sustained long term economic advantage. The promised economic boom from lower taxes and smaller government did not materialize as TABOR proponents predicted.​

Yet Colorado's TABOR has endured for over 30 years, surviving various political shifts and sustained opposition. This longevity suggests a degree of public support rooted in distrust of government spending and appreciation for voter control over tax increases. The requirement for voter approval on tax increases has given Coloradans direct say in major fiscal decisions, which many residents value even if they acknowledge TABOR's limitations.

Recent Colorado legislative efforts have attempted to work around TABOR through reclassification of revenues, creation of enterprise funds not subject to TABOR limits, and other mechanisms. These maneuvers suggest TABOR creates perverse incentives for government to hide spending and revenue rather than promoting genuine transparency and efficiency.​

The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld TABOR against numerous challenges, though a current legislative effort seeks to overturn it entirely through federal court arguments that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government.​

Making the Choice for Iron County

Iron County families face a consequential decision if this Taxpayer Bill of Rights proposal advances. The choice is not between responsible fiscal management and reckless spending, nor between taxpayer rights and government tyranny. The real tradeoff is more nuanced.

A TABOR amendment would provide powerful tools for limiting government revenue growth and requiring voter approval for tax increases. Iron County residents would gain direct control over major fiscal decisions and could receive refunds when government collects more than the inflation and growth formula allows. These benefits appeal to citizens frustrated by steadily rising property taxes and feeling disconnected from spending decisions made by elected officials.

However, Colorado's experience demonstrates serious risks. Essential services can suffer when rigid revenue formulas prevent government from responding to actual cost increases. Infrastructure maintenance gets deferred, creating larger problems and costs down the road. Education quality declines when school districts lose funding flexibility. Emergency response capacity weakens when reserves cannot be built during good economic times.

Iron County's specific circumstances matter. The county's strong fiscal position with healthy reserves suggests room to return some surplus to taxpayers without jeopardizing essential services. Yet the county also faces growing infrastructure needs, tourism impacts requiring expanded services, wildfire and drought risks requiring emergency preparedness, and economic volatility tied to seasonal industries.​

Perhaps the most important consideration is whether TABOR represents the best mechanism for addressing legitimate concerns about tax burdens and spending accountability. Alternative approaches exist. Utah could adopt spending growth limits without Colorado's strict revenue cap. The legislature could require more frequent voter approval for tax increases without constitutional constraints on all revenue. Transparency reforms could give citizens better information about government finances without rigid formulas that ignore actual cost drivers.

The voter approval requirement may be TABOR's most valuable component. Giving Iron County residents direct say over property tax increases exceeding inflation and growth promotes democratic accountability without necessarily imposing Colorado's problematic revenue formula. Utah could potentially adopt this element while avoiding aspects of TABOR that have proven most harmful in Colorado.

Conclusion

Representative Auxier's Taxpayer Bill of Rights proposal raises fundamental questions about the relationship between citizens and government in Utah. Should elected officials have discretion to collect and spend tax revenue based on their judgment of public needs? Or should constitutional limits restrict revenue growth and require voter approval for increases?

Iron County families have experienced rising tax burdens at multiple levels of government while watching surplus reserves accumulate in public coffers. The frustration driving support for TABOR is understandable and legitimate. Yet Colorado's three decades of experience provides cautionary lessons about unintended consequences that can harm the very taxpayers TABOR aims to protect.

The debate should focus less on whether government ever builds excessive reserves, which clearly occurs, and more on what mechanisms best balance fiscal responsibility, service quality, emergency preparedness, and taxpayer protection. A constitutional amendment lasts for generations and is extremely difficult to modify when problems emerge. Colorado's ongoing struggles with TABOR demonstrate the risks of rigid formulas that sound reasonable but prove unworkable in practice.

Iron County residents should demand fiscal accountability and resist unnecessary tax increases. Government at all levels must justify revenue requests and demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funds. But we should also expect government to maintain quality schools, safe roads, reliable emergency services, and capacity to respond when disaster strikes.

Whether the Taxpayer Bill of Rights represents the right tool for achieving these goals depends on learning from Colorado's experience and carefully weighing both the benefits of voter control and the risks of inflexible constitutional constraints. Iron County families deserve both tax relief when government collects excessive surplus and quality public services that support thriving communities. Finding the right balance will require thoughtful consideration of evidence from both sides of this important debate.