Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances constitutional amendment to allow debate on taxing government enterprises
Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 6 (SJR6) moved to the third-reading calendar after floor debate over whether the state constitution should be changed to permit legislative action on government-owned enterprises that compete with private business; senators debated risks to local services and the need for narrower study.
Get email alerts on the Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utah Senate voted on Jan. 28, 2002 to advance Senate Joint Resolution 6, a proposed constitutional amendment intended to give legislators the ability to consider taxation or other measures when government-owned enterprises compete with private business.
Sponsor Senator Waddupps said the resolution's purpose is limited: "The issue is, should we be able to discuss them?" He framed the measure as a vehicle to permit public debate and later targeted statutory fixes rather than an immediate tax change. The sponsor cited examples raised in committee — municipal rec centers, municipal utilities and other government-owned services — and said the amendment would permit policymakers to examine whether some government enterprises are receiving an unfair advantage.
Several senators responded with caution. Senator Stevenson said the subject is "long overdue" for discussion but urged narrower study and, if support is uncertain, an amendment to send the issue to the tax review commission for study before third reading. Other senators warned of retroactive impacts, the potential harm to rural communities that rely on locally provided services, and the difficulty of drafting bright-line rules that work statewide. Senator Blackham and others urged statutory clarifications rather than a sweeping constitutional change.
After extended floor debate and multiple requests for study and narrower language, the Senate advanced SJR6 to the third-reading calendar by roll-call vote; the floor tally recorded 22 aye votes and 6 nays with one senator absent. Sponsors framed the vote as a request for future legislative consideration rather than immediate taxation or blanket policy change.
