Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs SSUT change to count annexed populations sooner
Summary
The Senate Tax and Finance Committee gave SB107 a favorable report to let state sales-and-use tax (SSUT) shares reflect population annexations on a five-year rather than ten-year census look, aiming to speed local revenue recognition when cities annex large populations.
The Senate Tax and Finance Committee voted to give SB107 a favorable report after discussion on how to recognize population changes from municipal annexations for distribution of the state sales-and-use tax (SSUT).
SB107, presented by Senator Sessions, would permit the state to use the U.S. Census's five-year population estimates rather than waiting for the decennial census when determining SSUT shares for cities that annex populated areas. Sessions said the change would not affect normal growth but would speed recognition of large annexations "when they happen," such as cases where a city absorbs tens of thousands of residents between decennial counts.
Supporters said the Department of Revenue would rely on census-derived population reports to adjust allocations; Sessions said cities would notify the Department of Revenue of annexations and the population involved. Senator Gabbana asked whether the proposal could capture very rapid growth between annexation and the five-year estimate; Sessions acknowledged the wording could be clarified and said staff would follow up.
The committee used a roll call; the outcome was recorded as 14 ayes and 1 abstention. The chair announced SB107 had been given a favorable report.
No amendments were adopted during the committee's consideration of SB107, and committee members directed staff to clarify how the Department of Revenue would receive and validate annexation population counts.
The bill moves forward with the committee's favorable report; additional drafting clarifications on data sources and timing were discussed but no formal change to the bill text was recorded on the committee floor.
