Judge Grants Temporary Order Keeping Ogden Valley’s Tax Case Alive
27 June 2026
A Second District Court judge has issued a temporary restraining order keeping Ogden Valley City’s bid to join the 2026 property tax process alive while the case moves toward a hearing in July.
Judge Catherine Conklin signed the order June 22 in Ogden Valley City v. Utah State Tax Commission, Case No. 260903949, in the Second Judicial District Court for Weber County. The order temporarily blocks the Utah State Tax Commission and its Property Tax Division from enforcing Utah Admin. Rule R884-24P-24(12) to bar the City from this year’s Truth in Taxation process.
How the dispute started
Ogden Valley City’s Certificate of Incorporation was issued January 2, 2026 — one day after the January 1 date on which properties are assessed for the annual property tax levy. The City asked the Tax Commission to recognize it as a taxing entity for 2026 because the administrative rule on which the state relies should not override the Utah State Code’s grant of taxing authority to the new city.
On May 29, the Commission dismissed the City’s petition, Appeal No. 26-1235, for lack of jurisdiction. The Commission didn’t reach the merits — it held only that it lacked authority to review the Property Tax Division’s informal position that the City couldn’t participate because it didn’t exist on January 1.
What the City asked the court to do
Facing that deadline, the City sought emergency relief on several theories: treating the Division’s informal denial as final, reviewable action; mandamus compelling the Division to calculate the City’s certified tax rate under Utah Code § 59-2-924(5)(b), which addresses municipalities incorporated after July 1, 1996; and a restraining order preserving the City’s ability to enter the 2026 cycle. On the merits, the City argues that specific statute should control over the administrative rule requiring January 1 existence.
What the court found
The court found the 2026 process runs on immediate statutory deadlines, and that the City would suffer irreparable injury — lost certified-rate procedures, notice, and hearing requirements that no later ruling could restore — without prompt action. It found the City showed a substantial likelihood of prevailing for purposes of temporary relief, including on its argument that no statute imposes the forfeiture the state asserted, and that the threatened injury to the City outweighed any harm to the state.
The court was careful to note what the order does not do: it doesn’t decide the merits, approve any tax levy, or stop the Tax Commission from contesting the City’s claims at the upcoming hearing.
What happens now
While the order is in effect, the state must let the City proceed with the steps the Truth in Taxation process requires — coordinating with the county auditor, certified-rate procedures, and notice and hearing requirements. The order expires 14 days after entry unless extended, and the case is on an expedited track: any opposition is due June 29, the City’s reply by July 1, and a remote hearing on a preliminary injunction is set for July 2 at 11 a.m. The court did not require the City to post a bond, finding it unlikely the state would incur costs while the order is in effect.
The City presses ahead in the meantime
While the case proceeds, the City has kept moving through the Truth in Taxation process on its own. On June 18, Mayor Wampler sent the Property Tax Division the City’s certified tax rate form and required notices directly by letter, after the City said it lacked the online system access other taxing entities use. The City said the submission continues a consistent record of compliance and does not affect its position in the pending case.
27 June 2026
A Second District Court judge has issued a temporary restraining order keeping Ogden Valley City’s bid to join the 2026 property tax process alive while the case moves toward a hearing in July.
Judge Catherine Conklin signed the order June 22 in Ogden Valley City v. Utah State Tax Commission, Case No. 260903949, in the Second Judicial District Court for Weber County. The order temporarily blocks the Utah State Tax Commission and its Property Tax Division from enforcing Utah Admin. Rule R884-24P-24(12) to bar the City from this year’s Truth in Taxation process.
How the dispute started
Ogden Valley City’s Certificate of Incorporation was issued January 2, 2026 — one day after the January 1 date on which properties are assessed for the annual property tax levy. The City asked the Tax Commission to recognize it as a taxing entity for 2026 because the administrative rule on which the state relies should not override the Utah State Code’s grant of taxing authority to the new city.
On May 29, the Commission dismissed the City’s petition, Appeal No. 26-1235, for lack of jurisdiction. The Commission didn’t reach the merits — it held only that it lacked authority to review the Property Tax Division’s informal position that the City couldn’t participate because it didn’t exist on January 1.
What the City asked the court to do
Facing that deadline, the City sought emergency relief on several theories: treating the Division’s informal denial as final, reviewable action; mandamus compelling the Division to calculate the City’s certified tax rate under Utah Code § 59-2-924(5)(b), which addresses municipalities incorporated after July 1, 1996; and a restraining order preserving the City’s ability to enter the 2026 cycle. On the merits, the City argues that specific statute should control over the administrative rule requiring January 1 existence.
What the court found
The court found the 2026 process runs on immediate statutory deadlines, and that the City would suffer irreparable injury — lost certified-rate procedures, notice, and hearing requirements that no later ruling could restore — without prompt action. It found the City showed a substantial likelihood of prevailing for purposes of temporary relief, including on its argument that no statute imposes the forfeiture the state asserted, and that the threatened injury to the City outweighed any harm to the state.
The court was careful to note what the order does not do: it doesn’t decide the merits, approve any tax levy, or stop the Tax Commission from contesting the City’s claims at the upcoming hearing.
What happens now
While the order is in effect, the state must let the City proceed with the steps the Truth in Taxation process requires — coordinating with the county auditor, certified-rate procedures, and notice and hearing requirements. The order expires 14 days after entry unless extended, and the case is on an expedited track: any opposition is due June 29, the City’s reply by July 1, and a remote hearing on a preliminary injunction is set for July 2 at 11 a.m. The court did not require the City to post a bond, finding it unlikely the state would incur costs while the order is in effect.
The City presses ahead in the meantime
While the case proceeds, the City has kept moving through the Truth in Taxation process on its own. On June 18, Mayor Wampler sent the Property Tax Division the City’s certified tax rate form and required notices directly by letter, after the City said it lacked the online system access other taxing entities use. The City said the submission continues a consistent record of compliance and does not affect its position in the pending case.