Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zap Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debates and amends ZAP tax reallocation; key changes and disputes over local control
Summary
House floor debate on House Bill 294 (county option funding/ZAP tax) focused on reallocation of funds among tiers, capping tier‑1 organizations at 23, city-level opt-in in second-class counties, and the administrative fee (debated 2% vs 1.5%); multiple amendments were proposed and several floor amendments passed, with continuing votes recorded on substitute motions.
Lawmakers engaged in extended floor debate on House Bill 294 on Feb. 27, a bill that would change how county-option sales tax money (commonly called the ZAP tax) is allocated among botanical, cultural, recreational and zoological organizations.
Representative Cheryl Allen, sponsor, described the bill as an effort to create predictable, stable allocations for the organizations that depend on ZAP funding. “This is a very, popular and successful option for counties,” she said, explaining tiers and the need for predictable support to allow groups to plan annual budgets.
The bill contains several substantive changes: it moves Tracy Aviary into the zoological category in Salt Lake County; it adjusts allocation percentages (for example, raising the tier‑2 share from 5% to 9%); and it places a numerical cap of 23 organizations in tier‑1 to preserve stability of funding for large cultural institutions. Representative Bridal moved a substitution to implement several technical changes and a minor percentage correction.
Several representatives opposed elements of the substitute. Representative Bennion and others asked why the bill limits the number of tier‑1 organizations to 23, warning the cap would close the door to new organizations. Representative Newbold and others argued that changing the allocation percentages without returning to voters would alter the bargain those voters approved when they adopted the ZAP tax; they urged that any reallocation should be submitted to voters in reauthorization.
Debate also focused on whether the bill ought to allow municipalities in second-class counties to adopt the tax independently. Sponsors said the change provides local choice in those counties; opponents warned it could disenfranchise residents in unincorporated areas who would not have a city vote.
Members also contested the administrative fee retained by counties to administer the tax. Representative Harper moved to reduce the administrative retention from 2% to 1.5% (to match other collection fees). Representative Curtis led substitute motions that set the fee at 1.5% and removed prescriptive language about where the retained amount must be taken from. Those changes were adopted on the floor after debate.
Floor amendments also deleted the words “cultural arts facility” from a line of the bill and removed the limiting word “private” in certain nonprofit classifications; those amendments were treated as friendly or accepted on the floor. Representatives argued the changes balance predictability for established organizations with opportunities for smaller or emerging groups; others said the cap and certain local opt-in provisions should be revisited in interim study.
Multiple substitute motions and technical amendments were offered and the transcript records several successful amendments and at least one failed substitute motion; the record in this excerpt ends during open voting on later amendments. The bill’s sponsors and opponents agreed on the need for further study and careful implementation, and some members recommended putting reauthorization issues on the interim calendar.
