Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts amendment directing five‑year education budgeting; Senate Bill 212 passes House after heated debate
Summary
After extended floor debate, the Utah House adopted an amendment instructing the State Board of Education and fiscal analysts to prepare five‑year budgets that fund enrollment growth and increase per‑pupil funding by cost‑of‑living plus 2%; Senate Bill 212 passed the House 55–17 and returns to the Senate for action.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives adopted new intent language and passed Senate Bill 212, a wide‑ranging update to the state’s minimum school program, after an extended floor debate on Feb. 26, 1992.
Representative Bradford, the bill’s floor sponsor, opened debate by describing the size of the education appropriation and the bill’s priorities for special education, technology and the weighted pupil unit. “This year, Senate Bill 212 reflects again an additional substantial growth in the amount of money that we’re spending in public education,” Bradford said on the floor.
The most contested change was a floor amendment, offered by Representative Atkinson, that directs the State Board of Education, the governor and the legislative fiscal analysts to prepare five‑year budgets that (1) fully fund student enrollment growth and (2) increase per‑pupil funding by an amount equal to 2 percentage points in addition to the prior year’s cost‑of‑living adjustment. Atkinson told colleagues the amendment is intended to “put teeth into the appropriation act … so that we will develop in next year’s budget a state strategic plan with specific goals and a way to fund that.”
Opponents warned the language could bind future legislatures and that it amounts to a policy decision that may not be affordable in every year. Representative Lisonbee and others argued that while the goal is laudable, revenues do not always track cost of living and the amendment risks promising funds that may not exist. The sponsor and backers said the change is primarily a requirement for budget preparation rather than an immediate cash appropriation.
After substitute motions, a roll call and several brief divisions on the floor, the House adopted the amendment and then voted on the bill as amended. The House recorded 55 votes in favor and 17 opposed and referred the amended Senate Bill 212 back to the Senate for further action because of the changes made on the floor.
The bill’s passage moves a mix of funding and policy changes forward, including a 4 percent increase on the weighted pupil unit referenced by Bradford and new adjustments to funding for special education and growth in career/technology centers. Lawmakers also described a reauthorized strategic planning task force that will study funding mechanisms and return funding recommendations to the Legislature.
The House’s next procedural step is to return the amended bill to the Senate, which must concur with the floor changes before the measure becomes final.
The House debate was carried out under the body’s five‑minute speaking rule and included multiple procedural motions to extend time and to table substitute motions. Voting on Senate Bill 212 concluded on Feb. 26, 1992.
