Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Permitting Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House moves to dedicate concealed-weapon fees, sets July 1 effective date

Utah House of Representatives · January 26, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House members amended and passed House Bill 39 to dedicate concealed-weapons permit fees to cover processing costs, set the effective date to July 1 to match the fiscal year, and clarified renewal and revocation processes during floor Q&A.

Representative Oda presented amendment number 2 to House Bill 39, which makes the measure effective July 1 to align with the state's fiscal year and directs that fees collected for concealed-weapon permits be used to cover issuance costs. The sponsor said roughly 16,000 permits existed (as of Feb. 2006) and estimated revenues at about $605,000, while past appropriations back to the issuing agency had been only $88–$90,000; estimated program costs were in the $550–$600,000 range, though the sponsor noted exact figures were unclear due to internal accounting practices.

Representative Baskowski questioned whether a $10 renewal every five years would cover background-check costs; Representative Oda replied that a background check for a firearm purchase currently costs about $7.50 and that the $10 renewal mainly covers processing a one-page form. On revocation, the sponsor said revoked permit holders would need to reapply and pay new fees if revocation were upheld.

Vote: The House voted and House Bill 39 received 70 yes votes and 0 no votes; the bill passed as amended and will be referred to the Senate.

Next steps: The bill's administrative effects will require the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) to account for, monitor and use the dedicated fees for permit issuance and related program costs; the sponsor said the bill is intended to make the fee flow transparent and sufficient to cover program operations.