Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to align Utah budgeting with actual receipts prompts lengthy House debate
Summary
Representative Farren proposed changing the Executive Appropriations Committee process to cap target budgets at current-year revenue forecasts, arguing the change would reduce structural deficits; the proposal drew extended debate, questions about forecasting methods, and procedural motions on the floor.
A proposal to change the timing and basis of Utah’s appropriations process drew extended floor debate as Representative Farren moved an amendment to HJR 1 to change effective dates and explained a plan to limit target budgets based on the current year’s best revenue forecast.
Farren told colleagues the state has struggled with recurring deficits and that forecasting revenue 5 to 17 months ahead leads to promises the state cannot reliably keep. He proposed setting an upper limit on the coming fiscal year’s target budget equal to the current year’s revenue forecast, plus only statutorily or constitutionally mandated increases. He said the effect would be larger surpluses when revenues exceed expectations and smaller deficits when revenues fall short.
Members questioned how the consensus revenue forecast is produced and whether the governor’s office and legislative fiscal analyst coordinate; Farren replied that forecasts are a consensus among the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, and the Tax Commission and that the bill governs the legislature’s administrative rules for the executive appropriations committee. Some members praised the proposal as a prudent, conservative approach to budgeting; others cautioned about short-term effects such as delayed salary increases and potential pressure to reallocate surpluses.
Several representatives attempted a procedural suspension of rules to change timing; that motion was withdrawn and debate continued. Representative Curtis moved the previous question to end debate. The transcript excerpt documents substantial floor discussion and procedural motions but does not contain a clear, final floor tally or final disposition of the measure in this excerpt.
