The tax referendum

Where it stands

Signing the petition does not repeal the tax. Enough valid signatures put the increase to a vote, and only a majority voting against it repeals it. The fact check on “sign the petition and the tax goes away” walks through that claim.

On 6 October the sponsors said publicly that they have not begun gathering signatures. They say the petition packets the city issued contain significant errors, so signatures gathered on them could be thrown out, and that they are retaining an attorney to ask a court to order corrected materials. If a court agrees, they say, the signature deadline starts again. That is the sponsors’ account, not a record this page can check; it will be replaced with the court filing if one is made.

Sources: the city’s Proposition Information Pamphlet (impact statement); the referendum petition packet; the sponsors’ public statement of 6 October 2026.

Two petitions

The first targeted Resolution R-57-2026, adopted on 6 August. It set the city’s rate at 0.001500, an increase in budgeted property tax revenue of about $5,591,594, or 183.02% over the year before. Residents filed a referendum application against it on 11 August, the last day the law allowed, and one of its sponsors spoke at the 18 August hearing.

On 18 August the council repealed R-57-2026 in full (R-61-2026) and adopted R-62-2026 in its place at 0.000900: about $2,132,876 a year, 69.81% over the prior year. The vote was 4 to 1, Councilmember Rich Wood against. With R-57 gone, the first petition had nothing left to overturn.

The second targets R-62-2026. Ten sponsors signed notarized applications on 22 August, and the city stamped them received on 24 August. That was the deadline: the law allows until the first business day at least five days after the vote (§ 20A-7-601(6)), and 23 August was a Sunday. This is the referendum now in progress. ABC4 reports that the city attorney found it legally referable to voters. The city’s budget officer and attorney wrote the impact statement the law requires, and the city posted its information pamphlet on 14 September and lists it, the petition and the resolution under “Referendum Information” on its home page.

Sources: R-57-2026; R-61-2026; R-62-2026 and its roll-call certification; the 18 August meeting; the referendum application in the city’s pamphlet; Daily Herald, 13 Aug 2026 (the first application); ABC4 (the city attorney’s finding); the city’s home page.

How a tax referendum works

Utah has a section of law written for exactly this case, a referendum on a property tax increase (Utah Code § 20A-7-613). In order:

1. Step 1
   File the application. At least five sponsors, notarized, with a copy of the resolution, within days of its passing (§ 20A-7-601(6)). The city recorder decides whether it was on time.
2. Step 2
   The city writes an impact statement. The budget officer and city attorney estimate what a repeal would do, within a few business days (§ 20A-7-602.5). For R-62-2026 it is in the city’s pamphlet.
3. Step 3
   Gather signatures, against two tests. A share of active voters citywide, and the same share in at least three-quarters of the city’s voter participation areas (§ 20A-7-601). The share is 8.25% if Eagle Mountain is now a second-class city and 10% if it is still third class. The Census Bureau’s 2025 estimate puts the city at 66,557, past the 65,000 line, but a city keeps its class until the lieutenant governor certifies a new one (§ 10-2-301, § 10-2-302, § 67-1a-2(3)). ABC4’s report gives the requirement as about 10%, the third-class figure.
4. Step 4
   Beat the clock. Each packet goes to the county clerk within 30 days of its first signature, or 40 days of the clerk handing the sponsors the packets, whichever comes first (§ 20A-7-613(3)). This is the deadline the sponsors want a court to reset.
5. Step 5
   The county verifies. The county clerk has 10 business days to check signatures; then the city has a few more to act on the result and write the ballot title (§ 20A-7-613(4)–(6)).
6. Step 6
   The vote. The earlier of the next regular general election or municipal general election, unless a special election is called (§ 20A-7-613(7)). Which date applies here is disputed.
7. Step 7
   The result. If a majority votes against the increase, the rate goes back to the old certified rate of 0.000530 (§ 20A-7-613(10)(b)). If not, the increase still loses a year: the certified rate for the year the petition was filed stays at the old figure, and the increase takes effect the following year without another Truth-in-Taxation hearing (§ 20A-7-613(10)(a), (c)). Winning stops it; losing delays it.

Source: Utah Code § 20A-7-613 and Title 20A, Chapter 7, Part 6.

The fight over the date

The petition packet the city issued asks that R-62-2026 be referred to voters at “a special election to be held on August 10, 2027.” The information pamphlet the city posted on 14 September does not name a vote date.

Residents say that is wrong. The statute sends a tax referendum to the earlier of the next regular general election or the next municipal general election, unless a special election is called (§ 20A-7-613(7)). The next general election is 3 November 2026. The law also has the county print a referendum on the ballot before it qualifies when the signature deadline falls after ballots are printed, and tell voters afterward if it never qualified and the votes will not be counted (§ 20A-7-613(13)). That rule applies to “the election for which the sponsors are attempting to qualify the referendum,” and the packet names August 2027.

At the 15 September meeting a resident told the council the August 2027 date was wrong and asked the city to correct it. Mayor Jared Gray answered that the county was already printing ballots and the signatures were not in:

“There’s no way to get it on the ballot because we don’t have the signatures yet, and it’s already required to be into the county right now. So given the signatures, it will be an item that will be voted on. It’ll just be voted on at the appropriate time with the next election.”

Marcus Draper of the city staff, at the dais with him, read the statute and added that the intent would be to call a special election if the petition qualifies. The sponsors now say the packets contain other errors as well, and are asking a court to order corrected ones. Which date holds is for the city recorder, the county clerk and, if it gets there, a judge. This page does not decide it.

What has happened since. It is not on the November ballot. Utah County’s amended sample ballot for 3 November, posted 17 September, carries one local question in the county, Salem’s Proposition 8, and nothing for Eagle Mountain. Unless a court or the city changes course, the earliest vote is a special election.

Why the date matters for the money. The first tax bills at the new rate go out in November 2026. The city’s impact statement says a repeal would reverse the decision “to collect an additional $2,132,876 annually in property taxes starting November 2026.” Neither the statement nor the statute says what happens to bills already paid if the vote comes the following August.

Sources: the petition packet; the city’s pamphlet; the 15 September meeting (transcript); § 20A-7-613; Utah County’s amended 2026 general sample ballot.

What a repeal would do

The city’s impact statement, required by law and written by its budget officer and attorney, says repealing R-62-2026 would stop $2,132,876 a year in new property tax, $99.31 a year on the average home. It would not cut anyone’s tax below last year’s: taxes “would stay the same dollar amount as they were in 2025.”

The increase pays toward the city’s contract with the Utah County Sheriff’s Office. A referendum would not end that contract. The statement says the city would instead pay the $2,132,876 out of sales tax, “causing a deficit in other areas of the budget,” and make it up by cutting services, drawing on reserves, or both. It finds no significant legal impact either way. The county’s cost of verifying signatures and running the question is also charged to the city (§ 20A-7-613(12)); no one has published a figure for it.

The pamphlet carries one argument, the mayor’s case for keeping the rate. The sponsors’ argument is listed and marked “not timely submitted,” so it was left out. The council’s reasons for the increase, and the case against it, are on the Tax page.

Source: the fiscal and legal impact statement and the mayor’s argument, in the city’s Proposition Information Pamphlet.

The last Utah city to try this

Ivins City, in Washington County, raised its rate in August 2025 for about $860,000: a 33.76% increase, $121.37 a year on the $743,000 home its notice used. Residents ran a referendum and gathered the raw number of signatures. On 16 October the city recorder declared it insufficient anyway: the threshold was met in only two of the city’s four voter participation areas, and the law required three. The question was already printed on the ballots, so the county printed it and did not count it. The increase took effect.

Ivins has about 11,000 people. Eagle Mountain is roughly six times larger, and how many voter participation areas it has is a question for the city recorder. What carries over is the shape of the test: a petition has to reach across the city, not just reach a total.

Source: Ivins City press release on Proposition 14, 16 October 2025.

Timeline

1. 16 Jun 2026
   CouncilTruth-in-Taxation notice and hearing on a proposed 0.001700 rate. Meeting
2. 6 Aug 2026
   CouncilAdopted R-57-2026 at 0.001500. Meeting
3. 11 Aug 2026
   ResidentsFirst referendum application filed against R-57-2026, on the last day allowed. Daily Herald
4. 18 Aug 2026
   CouncilRepealed R-57-2026 (R-61-2026) and adopted R-62-2026 at 0.000900, 4–1, Wood against. Meeting
5. 22 Aug 2026
   ResidentsTen sponsors signed and notarized the second application, against R-62-2026; stamped received by the city 24 August, the deadline. Pamphlet
6. 8 Sep 2026
   CityMayor’s argument against the referendum received for the pamphlet. Pamphlet
7. 14 Sep 2026
   CityProposition Information Pamphlet posted on Utah’s public notice site. Notice
8. 15 Sep 2026
   CouncilResidents disputed the August 2027 vote date; the mayor said the signatures were not in and the county was printing ballots. Meeting
9. 17 Sep 2026
   CountyAmended sample ballot for 3 November posted, with no Eagle Mountain question. Notices
10. 6 Oct 2026
    SponsorsSaid publicly that no signatures have been collected and that they are retaining an attorney to seek corrected packets.

What the record doesn’t settle

• When a vote would be held. The petition says 10 August 2027; the statute points to 3 November 2026 unless a special election is called. It is not on the November ballot.
• What the packets get wrong. The sponsors say the city’s packets contain significant errors but have not published a list, and no court filing has been made public.
• The signature deadline. It depends on when the clerk handed over the packets and whether a court resets it. Neither date is public.
• The threshold. 8.25% or 10%, depending on whether the lieutenant governor has certified Eagle Mountain as a second-class city; no certificate has been found, and the reported figure is about 10%. Nor has the number of the city’s voter participation areas been published.
• Bills already paid. What happens to November 2026 tax bills if the increase is repealed by a vote held after they are paid.
• The city attorney’s finding. Reported by ABC4 but not published as a document.
• The cost of an election. Neither the city nor the county has published what verification and a ballot question would cost.

A document that settles any of these is worth sending to civicrollcall@gmail.com, as is any error on this page.

Page compiled 6 October 2026 from the city’s resolutions, its referendum pamphlet and petition packet, meetings through 15 September 2026, Utah County’s sample ballot, Utah Code as published by the Legislature, and the sponsors’ statement of 6 October.