Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate yields amendment to study sales‑tax exemptions; higher‑ed distribution language contested
Summary
Representatives adopted Amendment #2 to HB 6,001 to insert intent language directing the next general session to "consider and evaluate" sales‑tax exemptions (with language later clarified by a 'but not limited to' insertion). Lawmakers sparred over whether to prescribe criteria for a $4 million Board of Regents distribution, citing constitutional-delegation concerns.
Lawmakers in the Utah House debated and then adopted intent language in the supplemental appropriations bill (House Bill 6,001) directing the next general session to consider and evaluate sales‑tax exemptions.
Representative Becker, sponsor of the amendment, told colleagues the language was intended to be a notice to the next Legislature, not an immediate repeal. “This is a proposal to insert intent language in the supplemental appropriations bill… that we look during the next general session… that we look at sales tax exemptions as part of our deliberations,” Becker said.
Representative Bryson rose in opposition, urging caution because of the stressed economy. “We are struggling here in Utah. We have reached a point where we are at almost 6% unemployment,” Bryson said, warning that removing exemptions could harm economic development.
Representative Pace moved an editorial clarification to add the phrase “but not limited to” to the lines that direct the Legislature to “consider and evaluate restoring” certain cuts; Pace said that without the phrase the amendment might be read as limiting future review to the two listed line items. The change was accepted and incorporated into the amendment.
Members also debated numeric adjustments to several line items, including Representative Alexander’s revisions to item 14 (raising the amount to $2,525,800) and item 15 (adjusted to $1,501,000 as presented on the floor). A separate dispute focused on item 17, language that had originally required the Board of Regents to evaluate institutions’ ability to absorb cuts, reserve funds, and nonbudget revenue when distributing $4 million. Supporters of removing those criteria argued it would allow the regents flexibility; opponents warned removing the language could be an unconstitutional delegation of appropriation without any legislative criteria.
After debate and procedural votes, the House moved to circle House Bill 6,001 as amended for further action.
