Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Severance Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves proposal to phase-in severance-tax trust, sends constitutional question to Senate
Summary
The Utah House passed second substitute HJR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment to set aside a tiered portion of severance-tax revenue into a trust over a five‑year phase‑in; the measure passed 54–19 and will go to the Senate for its consideration and, if approved there, to voters.
The Utah House on Feb. 22 passed second substitute HJR 6, a joint resolution that would take a formulaic portion of state severance-tax receipts and put them into a dedicated trust fund over a five‑year phase‑in. Representative Nielsen, the sponsor, said the measure would protect revenues for "future generations" and proposed a tiered set‑aside formula: 25% of the first $50 million, 50% of the next $50 million and 75% of receipts above $100 million once fully phased in.
Nielsen told colleagues the change is intended to build a long-term fund rather than alter tax rates. "Today, I urge that we invest half of that for the future and for future generations," he said on the floor while outlining the proposal’s mechanics and its projected yield when fully implemented. He said the phase‑in would complete by fiscal 2017 and that emergency withdrawals would remain possible with a three‑quarter legislative vote.
Supporters pointed to larger trust funds in other western states as examples of long-term planning; opponents warned that embedding details of fiscal policy in the state constitution could limit future legislatures’ budget flexibility. Representative Litvak, while praising the sponsor’s effort, urged caution and suggested further review of placing statutory-style language into the constitution. Other members raised practical questions about revenue volatility and the effect of higher pump prices on households.
Representative Nielsen said the state treasurer was willing to work on legislative language to govern investment options should the measure go to voters. The House vote was 54 yes, 19 no — meeting the two‑thirds threshold required for constitutional measures — and the resolution will be transmitted to the Senate for its consideration.
The Senate will decide whether to concur; if it does so under the constitutional procedure, the proposed amendment would appear on a future ballot for voters to approve or reject.
