Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House concurs with substitute on property‑tax/AMAX package; sponsor says impacts modest per household
Summary
The House concurred with the third substitute of House Bill 397, a package that adjusts in‑lieu vehicle fees, temporarily increases the homeowner exemption for 1991, and modifies treatment of special districts; sponsor estimated a $6 average homeowner impact this year and $7 in 1992.
The Utah House voted to concur with the third substitute to House Bill 397 — legislation addressing property tax assessments and the so‑called AMAX shifting among taxpayer groups — after an extended floor explanation and questions from members. The substitute passed the House 52–20.
Representative Valentine, explaining the third substitute, described a mix of technical corrections and substantive changes: the in‑lieu automobile fee will be implemented January 1, 1992 (delayed one year), the 1991 constitutional homeowner exemption will be increased by a quarter of one percent to provide transitional mitigation, and special service district freezes were softened to allow emergency adjustments tied to truth‑in‑taxation provisions.
"What this really does is this. It says that our vehicle rates are gonna stay the same, so we'll have no actual decline in the vehicle revenue statewide," Valentine said, summarizing the revenue mechanics and their effect on other tax classes.
The sponsor told members the net household effect is small: approximately a $6 average increase for homeowners in the first year and about $7 the following year. For locally assessed businesses the sponsor estimated an average effect around $31 (example provided for a $100,000 assessed value). Representatives pressed the sponsor on distributional effects and whether companion mitigation taxes were forthcoming; Valentine said mitigation bills exist but lacked the votes to run and urged local governments not to raise rates beyond the scheme.
After floor debate the House concurred in the substitute and recorded the vote, sending the measure onward for the prescribed steps in legislative processing.
Next steps: the substitute was forwarded per chamber rules; members and local governments were urged to monitor implementation and any subsequent mitigation proposals.
