Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the SB208 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate amends SB208 to remove fiscal impact language; sponsor inserts 'subject to available resources'

Utah State Senate · February 26, 1999
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

Sen. Spencer moved floor amendments to First Substitute SB208 inserting 'subject to available resources,' changing 'shall' to 'may' in multiple places, and updating a date; sponsors said the changes remove the bill's fiscal impact and the Senate passed the bill.

On Feb. 26, 1999, the Utah State Senate adopted floor amendments to First Substitute Senate Bill 208 intended to eliminate a fiscal impact and to clarify implementation discretion for courts.

Sponsor Sen. Spencer moved changes on page 8 (line 221) and elsewhere to add the phrase "subject to available resources" after the word "issued," and to replace several instances of "shall" with "may." He also proposed updating a year reference from 1999 to 2000. Spencer said the changes were drafted with assistance from Rick Schwermer in the court's office and that those changes would produce a fiscal note of zero.

Sen. Suazo sought clarification on whether the amendments altered the substance of the bill; Spencer and others replied that the amendments address the fiscal note and do not remove the ability to hold hearings. Sen. Steele asked for clarification about protective orders' temporary custody provisions; the sponsor explained the original statute's approach remained intact for the 20-day hearing after an ex parte order.

After debate, the amendment was placed under suspension of the rules and adopted. The clerk later announced Substitute Senate Bill 208 had 28 ayes, no nays, and one absent; the bill passed to the House of Representatives.

The floor exchange focused on technical and fiscal adjustments. Sponsors repeatedly characterized the changes as preserving existing substantive rights while avoiding an unanticipated fiscal impact.