Candidates for Public Office
Standing Up for Utah’s Conservative Values | Property Taxes, TABOR & School Lunch Reform
In this episode of the PoliticIt Podcast, host Senator John D. Johnson sits down with Tiara Auxier to examine how fiscal policy and everyday governance decisions affect Utah families. The conversation explores property tax transparency, taxpayer protections modeled on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and school lunch reforms, focusing on how automatic revenue growth, voter consent, and practical school scheduling choices shape household stability, educational outcomes, and trust between citizens and government.
PoliticIt Radio – Tax Danger Zone
Property Taxes, TABOR, and School Lunch Reform
This PoliticIt story is drawn from a full-length interview. It is not a verbatim transcript, but a narrative rendering of the conversation, preserving Auxier’s reasoning, priorities, and policy logic as they unfolded in real time.
Auxier approaches public policy with a practical, accountant’s eye and a clear conservative philosophy: protect property, increase transparency, and return power to taxpayers and parents. In the interview, she focuses on two issues that hit households every day—property taxes and school lunches—while also raising deeper structural questions about how government raises and spends revenue.
The Property Tax Problem in Utah
Auxier says property tax complaints now dominate constituent conversations. Rapid valuation increases over recent years have translated into sharp spikes in tax bills for homeowners, renters, and fixed-income households. For many families, the rise is not just a line item. It threatens the basic sense of security that comes with homeownership.
She frames the problem simply. Under the current system, growth in property values becomes embedded into future baseline budgets even when taxing entities do not raise tax rates. That mechanism allows budgets to increase year after year without a clear, transparent decision by local government.
How “New Growth” Becomes Automatic Revenue
Auxier explains that local taxing entities set tax rates by comparing total assessed value to the revenue needed to fund services. But properties that are improved, developed, or revalued during the year are often treated as “new growth” and folded into final calculations in a way that boosts revenue automatically.
At year’s end, increased valuations are multiplied by the same tax rate and added to the next year’s budget baseline. The result is rising budgets even when rates remain unchanged—fueling confusion and frustration at Truth and Taxation hearings.
Auxier’s immediate reform goal is transparency. She wants new growth treated as part of the regular valuation pool rather than allowed to inflate future baselines without deliberate review.
TABOR: Capping Growth and Restoring Consent
From there, Auxier broadens the conversation to structural reform. She has pushed for a public debate around a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)—a fiscal framework designed to limit automatic government revenue growth and restore voter consent for major tax increases.
Under a TABOR-style approach, annual tax revenue growth is capped based on inflation and population growth. Any increase beyond that limit must be approved directly by voters.
- Auxier highlights three core features discussed in the interview:
- An automatic allowance for modest increases tied to inflation and population growth so governments can meet ordinary cost pressures.
- A requirement that voters approve increases above that cap, restoring direct consent for significant tax decisions.
- A refund mechanism that returns excess collections to taxpayers rather than allowing surplus revenue to be absorbed into general funds.
Auxier points to a recent state example to illustrate why refunds matter. In 2023, Utah collected roughly $123 million more than projected. Under a TABOR-style mechanism, that surplus would be returned to taxpayers rather than retained by the state.
“You never own your home,” she says during the interview. “You’re a renter to the government forever.”
The line captures the emotional core of the issue. Property taxes are levied on unrealized gains. Homeowners see valuations rise on paper but must pay higher taxes without any corresponding cash benefit unless they sell.
What TABOR Does—and Does Not—Do
Auxier is careful to explain what TABOR is not. It is not a hard freeze that paralyzes local government. By indexing allowable growth to inflation and population, routine operations can continue.
The voter-approval requirement applies only when governments seek revenue beyond ordinary growth. In her framing, that requirement forces justification, transparency, and public debate rather than allowing budgets to expand automatically.
At the state level, Auxier notes she has already supported a related reform: removing an automatic indexing mechanism in the state’s share of property tax calculations. That move, she argues, demonstrates a willingness to accept limits at the state level while encouraging accountability locally.
Alternatives and Trade-Offs: Shifting the Burden
Eliminating property tax entirely is complex. Auxier acknowledges that states without property taxes typically replace the revenue through income taxes, sales taxes, or other mechanisms.
She explores a potential shift toward a consumption-based tax system as one alternative.
Consumption taxes are paid when purchases are made rather than on unrealized asset appreciation. They give individuals some control over tax exposure by adjusting spending behavior and reduce the risk of forcing homeowners to sell to cover taxes on paper gains.
But trade-offs matter. Sales taxes can be regressive, especially for low-income households that spend a higher share of income on essentials. Design choices—exemptions, thresholds, rebates, and credits—determine whether a system protects or harms vulnerable residents.
Auxier emphasizes that she is calling for debate, not a predetermined outcome. The question is not whether revenue is needed, but how it is collected and whether the method respects property security and fairness.
School Lunch Reform: Time to Eat, Recess First
The conversation then turns from fiscal structure to everyday household concerns. Auxier strongly supports school lunch reforms that ensure at least 20 minutes of seated eating time and, when possible, recess before lunch.
She explains that many schools currently offer only 10 to 15 minutes for lunch, measured from when students leave class to when they must return. In practice, that can leave children with only a few minutes to eat.
Short lunch periods lead to wasted food, poor nutrition, and hungry students struggling in afternoon classes. Auxier cites research discussed in the interview showing meaningful improvements when schedules change, including increased vegetable consumption and reduced food waste.
She points to a Utah County pilot where recess was moved before lunch. Schools reported less wasted milk, healthier eating, and calmer classrooms afterward.
“Kids learn better when they’re fed,” she says plainly.
Designing Sensible School Schedule Reforms
Auxier does not advocate a rigid mandate. Instead, she wants schools to conduct local reviews through community councils, compare current practices with the state’s model policy recommending 20 minutes seated, and move incrementally toward that standard.
She outlines practical options already in use:
- Staggered lunch schedules to reduce cafeteria congestion.
- Classroom lunches where space is limited.
- Recess-before-lunch scheduling, especially for younger grades.
The reforms, she argues, are low-cost, evidence-based, and deliver measurable returns in nutrition, learning, and reduced waste.
What This Means for Communities
For local governments, Auxier argues budgeting must become more transparent. Removing special treatment for new growth forces budgets to reflect deliberate choices rather than passive revenue escalators. When significant spending increases are proposed, officials must justify them directly to voters.
For homeowners and renters, predictability matters. Limiting automatic growth or requiring voter approval protects those on fixed incomes from sudden tax spikes tied to market swings. Families also benefit from school schedules that better support children’s health and learning.
How Citizens Can Engage
Auxier frames her proposals as an invitation to civic participation.
Citizens can attend Truth and Taxation meetings and ask how new growth is treated. They can request clear explanations of year-over-year revenue increases. Parents can push school boards and community councils to review lunch and recess scheduling. Voters can contact legislators and share real experiences with property tax pressure.
Her underlying message is consistent throughout the interview: government should not grow on autopilot.
Transparency, accountability, and voter consent are not obstacles to good governance. They are its foundation.
⸻
Topics Covered:
• Why property tax bills keep rising even without rate increases
• How “new growth” becomes automatic government revenue
• What a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is and how it works
• Voter consent vs. automatic budget growth
• Property tax alternatives and trade-offs
• School lunch time, recess-before-lunch, and student outcomes
• Practical, low-cost education reforms
⸻
Listen, subscribe, and join the conversation:
▶️ More episodes: PoliticIt.com
🎧 Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube
🗣️ Where Utah Comes to Talk
