Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wine Industry Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House advances winery tax-relief measure after full debate on sunset rules
Summary
After extended debate over investment uncertainty and potential out-of-state benefits, the Utah House passed House Bill 2 (winery amendment), adopting amendments requiring review and a delayed sunset; the measure clears the House and is sent to the Senate.
Representative David Adams, sponsor of House Bill 2, told the House that the bill aims to ease a business-markup burden on small wineries by reducing the Liquor Control Commission markup from 61% to 30% for producers making less than 20,000 gallons a year and marketing those products in Utah. Adams said many of the industry’s sales ("80% is sold on-site") make the current markup effectively a state-imposed administrative cost the businesses are bearing.
The central dispute on the floor centered on a sunset date in the amendment. Representative Martin R. Stevens proposed an amendment that would delay effective review to allow two growing seasons and two legislative sessions for study. Early language would have moved a deadline from 12/31/1993 to 03/31/1994; following floor discussion Stevens agreed to extend that proposed sunset to 03/31/1995 to give the industry sufficient time for data and fiscal assessment.
Opponents warned that short, temporary sunsets can deter capital investment. Representative Adams and other supporters argued sunsets are routine for tax exemptions, would force periodic review, and guard against unintentionally subsidizing out-of-state producers. Representative Adams framed the change as relief, not a subsidy: "They're not asking for a subsidy from the state. They're asking to be relieved from this service that they're providing to the state, but the state's not reimbursing them for them." Representative Adams also described the bill’s retrospective operation back to March 1 to capture the 1992 spring sales season.
The House endured several procedural interruptions (locked roll-call board, revotes) during the winery debate. An early roll call recorded a 48–23 outcome; after motions to reconsider and further amendment the House recorded a final vote on the amended bill of 50 affirmative and 12 negative votes, and the bill was sent to the Senate for further consideration. Later communications report the Senate adopted the winery amendment under suspension of rules and returned the bill for the Speaker’s signature.
What happens next: Because the bill includes a sunset and a legislative-study requirement (sponsors added language requiring the Economic Development Interim Committee to review the measure in 1994 and report to the 1995 session), the House’s changes create a schedule for monitoring the measure’s fiscal and economic impacts.
