Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budgeting Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances SJR 2 to change budgeting process, setting aside surplus for roads and water
Summary
Sen. Mandy presented SJR 2 to restructure the Legislature’s budgeting process (a '3-2-1' approach); senators debated timing, transparency and what surplus amounts could be reserved for roads, water and bond retirement. The resolution was advanced and placed on the reading calendar by recorded vote.
Sen. Mandy proposed a joint rules resolution (SJR 2) to overhaul how the Legislature budgets and appropriates, asking colleagues to adopt a 3-2-1 budgeting framework that would combine a small, professional executive appropriations function with broad subcommittee involvement. The senate moved under suspension of the rules to consider the resolution for later reading and recorded a favorable vote.
Supporters framed SJR 2 as an efficiency and discipline measure. ‘‘It will significantly change the way the legislature budgets and appropriates,’’ Sen. Mandy said, and described a process in which the Executive Appropriations Committee would adopt revenue estimates, set funding levels and leave committees a defined pot for micro decisions. He described the previous ‘‘3-2-1’’ exercise as an attempt to prioritize and then pare back to a final 1 percent cut, and said the proposed structure would prevent gamesmanship and make the process more professional.
Opponents and questioners pressed on timing and member access. Several senators asked whether the executive committee would set a numerical ‘‘trigger’’—for example 1 or 2 percent—above which surplus funds would be restricted to roads, water and bond retirement. Sen. Mandy replied the specific percentage would be set by the Executive Appropriations Committee when it adopted the annual budget level and was not embedded as a fixed trigger in SJR 2 itself. He said only the amount exceeding that upper limit would be subject to the specified allocations.
Senators also disputed whether the committee should meet before the session begins or during the session so more members and caucus leaders could attend. Sen. Peterson and others argued for holding the meetings during session so more members and stakeholders are present; proponents said meeting earlier lets legislative fiscal analysts prepare numbers for the session.
The sponsor described safeguards: subcommittees would retain authority to make micro-allocations in their areas and the executive committee would set aside a special allocation pot to address unforeseen critical needs. After extended discussion and multiple questions on procedure and timing, the Senate advanced SJR 2 for further consideration under suspension of the rules by recorded vote.
What’s next: SJR 2 was advanced and placed on the reading calendar; sponsors said the Executive Appropriations Committee will define the annual upper-limit percentage and adopt revenue estimates before session work continues.
Source: Transcript of the Utah State Senate, Jan. 19, 1995 (discussion and recorded motion to advance SJR 2).
