House adopts amendment to delay effective date of uniform-fees bill, circles measure pending fiscal note

The Utah House debated House Bill 5,001 on Dec. 1, 2006, a measure to standardize fees and assessments for personal property including boats and ATVs, and adopted an amendment to move the bill—s effective date to Dec. 30 to align with the Tax Commission—s software vendor contract. Lawmakers then circled the bill pending receipt of a formal fiscal note and recessed to caucus and lunch.

Representative Patrick Painter, the bill sponsor, said the measure extends the state—s earlier uniform-fee approach for cars and trucks to other types of tangible personal property and fixes classification problems that produced mismatched assessments. "We—d get a gentleman with a 15 foot canoe that would get the same assessed valuation tax notice as a guy with a same length cabin cruiser," Painter said, arguing the bill establishes different classifications by length and engine size to prevent such outcomes.

Painter moved Amendment No. 1, dated Dec. 1, 2006, which changes the bill—s effective date to Dec. 30. "What the Tax Commission has is a contract with the software vendors that sends out all of the assessment notices," Painter said, and the Dec. 30 date "coincides with the renewal date of the vendor contract to redo the programming so that when we send the assessment notices ... the commission's request on this" is implemented. Members adopted the amendment by voice vote.

Painter told colleagues the programming change and corrected notices should let county clerks and assessors identify and process refunds for any prior overcharges. He said a fiscal estimate suggested about a $60,000 refund possibility statewide to correct earlier assessment errors. Representative Hansen asked whether that estimate applied to each county or statewide; Painter replied the $60,000 figure was a total for the whole state.

Representative Julie Fisher asked whether university-developed or experimental craft used for engineering studies would be subject to assessment and whether counties could run reports to identify owners. Painter said state-owned craft would likely be exempt and that, after the Dec. 30 programming changes, the state database would carry the information and the new assessment notice would inform owners they may have been overcharged and could seek a refund from their county assessor.

Representative Bigelow raised a point of order, emphasizing the chamber—s practice of not passing bills without fiscal notes. "In our body, we do not pass bills that do not have a fiscal note," Bigelow said, and asked whether a fiscal note had been prepared; the sponsor said his understanding was that a fiscal note existed and was "on its way." In light of that procedural concern, Representative Mascaro moved to circle the bill; the House agreed by voice vote.

The House recessed to caucus and lunch and planned to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. to consider the bill further once the fiscal note was available. The immediate outcomes: (1) the House placed HB 5,001 on the third-reading calendar; (2) it adopted Amendment No. 1 to set a Dec. 30 effective date to match vendor programming; and (3) it circled the bill pending the fiscal note.

The next procedural step is for members to review the fiscal note when it is delivered after the recess; if the fiscal detail is available, the chamber indicated it could move quickly to consider the bill on the third-reading calendar.