Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrows eligibility for Rural Fast Track under Industrial Assistance Fund; bill passes after amendment division
Summary
Lawmakers debated and divided an amendment to SB10 that would have expanded rural eligibility from communities under 30,000 to 60,000 population; the House voted to retain the 30,000 threshold (36–34 on the first divided vote) and later passed SB10 (reported 58–10).
On Jan. 17 the Utah House considered amendments to SB10, which creates a Rural Fast Track component within the Industrial Assistance Fund to help small, rural communities access economic incentives. Representative Mascaro offered Amendment #2 to increase the population threshold for eligible communities from 30,000 to 60,000, a change he said would add four counties (Box Elder, Summit, Iron and Tooele) to eligibility.
Representative Ferry objected and successfully requested the amendment be divided so members could vote separately on the population threshold. In the first divided vote, members voted to set the population threshold at less than 30,000, a motion that passed 36–34. Representative Mascaro argued the overall program would help small rural communities access incentives and noted the Industrial Assistance Fund's limited balance for rural allocations: "this industrial assistance fund fast track program only has about $1,000,000 to divide among the rural communities," he said, adding that several rural counties would otherwise lose the chance to compete for the limited funds.
Debate included data references about previous awards; Representative Mascaro said Box Elder County had previously received over $4,000,000 in incentives. After the divided votes and further floor action, the bill ultimately passed the House, reported as passing with a count of 58 yes and 10 opposed. The bill will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.
Members who opposed the expansion said including larger counties would dilute limited funds intended for the smallest rural communities.
