Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances SB46 after debate over rural revenue and hold‑harmless reimbursement
Summary
After extended debate about impacts on rural counties, the Senate moved Senate Bill 46 (remote-cabin property tax relief) to the third reading calendar; an amendment to delay the effective date failed and the bill advanced with a recorded favorable vote in the transcript.
Senators debated Senate Bill 46 at length on Feb. 11, 2003, centering on whether a property-tax break for remote mountain cabins would unfairly shift costs to rural counties.
Senator Maine, the bill sponsor, said the measure is aimed at ‘‘people on fixed incomes’’ losing family cabins because rising property valuations have made them unaffordable. He described the proposal as a capped tax break that would exempt a portion of remote cabins from local property tax, with a state reimbursement to counties so their budgets are not reduced: "It's a hold harmless to the counties." Maine also noted the proposal caps relief at a percentage of a capped valuation and that the effective date is set years out to reduce immediate fiscal pressure.
Opponents pressed concerns that the proposal would move revenue away from sparsely populated counties that rely on those assessments. Senator Hatch argued that in the large rural recreation areas he represents, local governments depend on revenues from second-home owners, and warned of “serious consequences” to those counties if the tax shift were enacted. Senator Hilliard and others echoed that some counties lack a tax base to absorb any shift without cutting services, saying a statewide change could be devastating for counties with small populations and limited sales tax base.
Senator Maine offered an amendment to delay the bill's effective date to Feb. 2005; the Senate voted on that amendment and, as recorded in the transcript, the amendment was defeated when show-of-hands and voice counts did not support delaying the effective date. The sponsor stressed the bill includes a hold‑harmless reimbursement to counties and asked for support.
The body then moved to a roll-call vote on whether SB46 should be read for a third time. The clerk announced in the transcript that "SB46 has received 69 votes, 10 no votes, 3 being absent passes to the third reading calendar." That tally is reported here exactly as recorded on the Senate floor in the transcript.
What happens next: SB46 was advanced to the third reading calendar; further floor action or amendment remains possible when the bill returns for final consideration.
