Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revenue And Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduces bill to adjust TechEm congestion fund
Summary
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to introduce RS31953, a measure from Representative Joe Palmer that would change how the TechEm program allocates sales-tax-derived transportation dollars for state and local congestion projects. Committee members raised questions about corridor priorities and potential general-fund obligations.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Jan. 20 introduced RS31953, a bill that would modify the TechEm program’s distribution of sales-tax-derived transportation funds to boost state project allocations and set a fixed local share.
Representative Joe Palmer of Meridian (District 20), sponsor of RS31953, told the committee the proposal “adds on and splits out over the next 3 years adding 20 more each year to the 80, so that'll boost that 1 up by 60 at the end of it,” and changes the local share from a floating top of $60,000,000 to a hard set of $45,000,000 annually. Palmer said the state sales-tax fund that supports the program has grown since 2017, noting: “the sales tax fund since 2017 at inception this bill was at $1,700,000,000 is now at over $3,000,000,000.”
Why it matters: the TechEm program funds large, expensive freeway and highway congestion projects and is used for both statewide bonding and local projects. Under the current statutory structure, Palmer said $80,000,000 goes to state projects (bonding) and a variable local allocation has risen over time; RS31953 would increase the portion available for state-level projects while making the local share a predictable $45 million each year.
Committee members pressed for detail on where the money has been used and how the language directs project selection. Representative Brent Gannon asked whether language could target congestion on the Flying Y and on I-84 east of the Boise area toward Nampa and Micron. Palmer replied that “it does have to go through the board” and said current language already covers the Chinden campus and related pressure on the I-84 corridor, adding he did not believe additional targeting language was necessary.
Representative Birch raised a fiscal-policy concern tied to the bill’s statement of purpose, saying the draft “looks like this bill obligates another $63,000,000 out of the general fund for this particular purpose.” Birch asked that the committee consider RS31953 in the broader context of existing statutory obligations on the general fund and potential fiscal risk during economic downturns.
Procedure and votes: the committee first approved the minutes from its Jan. 13, 2025 meeting by voice vote. Later, Representative John Raybould moved to introduce RS31953 (“I move we introduce RS31953.”). The motion to introduce RS31953 carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript. Committee leadership said a fuller hearing with technical witnesses will follow, when staff and professionals can answer detailed funding and project questions.
What’s next: RS31953 was introduced for committee consideration; members said they expect a full hearing with technical testimony at a later date where allocations, corridor priorities and the bill’s fiscal impacts will be examined further.
