Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House requires cities, counties to spend at least 10% of local beer tax on prevention programs
Summary
The House passed House Bill 40 on Feb. 6, 2014, requiring that at least 10% of beer excise tax revenue distributed to municipalities and counties be used for evidence‑based prevention programs; the bill does not raise the beer tax and passed 64–6.
Representative Draxler told the House that House Bill 40 is not a tax increase but a reallocation of existing local beer excise revenue to emphasize prevention of underage and binge drinking. “House bill 40 simply says that of the beer tax revenue that goes to cities and counties, we would require that at least 10% of that be used for prevention programs,” he said, calling for evidence‑based or evidence‑informed programs.
Supporters pointed to the small share currently used for prevention. Representative Green said the state collects about $13 million a year in beer tax, but only 40% goes to a dedicated account for local alcohol‑related programs and “of that 40%, only 4% had been being used to treat, or to address prevention, intervention, and things on the front end of the problem.” Representative Lisonbee cited Department of Corrections research that, in his view, shows more than 70% of inmates have treatment needs tied to drugs or alcohol and called the measure “money well spent.”
Members asked procedural questions about reporting and local plans. Representative Wilcox sought confirmation that the bill “doesn't raise taxes at all and essentially earmarks the money that we make from the beer tax for prevention,” and the sponsor replied, “Yes. There's no tax increase.” The sponsor said local governments already must submit plans and annual reports about their use of beer tax revenues and that the bill would “dovetail” with existing reporting rather than impose a new duplicative plan requirement. The bill allows municipalities or counties to count equivalent spending from other local or state funds toward the 10% minimum and exempts entities that receive $5,000 or less from the beer tax.
Representative Burton objected that the measure mandates how local jurisdictions must spend revenue, calling it a state overreach; the sponsor responded that local governing bodies retain discretion and could report other prevention spending as credit toward the 10% threshold. In summation, the sponsor said the goal is to refocus a small portion of revenue on prevention to reduce tragedies linked to underage and binge drinking.
Voting was opened and House Bill 40 passed the House with 64 yes votes and 6 no votes; the bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
