Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiative Drafting Issues topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative staff presses proponents to fix timing, fiscal‑year and calculation ambiguities in conservation funding initiative
Summary
During a Feb. 19 initiative review hearing, staff raised technical drafting questions about transfer timing ('by' vs. 'on' July 1), association with the 2027–28 fiscal year, the order of forecasted reductions in subsections 4(d) and 4(e), and ambiguous percentage language; proponents agreed to clarify each point.
At a Feb. 19, 2026 Legislative Council initiative review, Office of Legislative Legal Services staff identified a series of technical drafting issues the proponents agreed to correct before the initiative is finalized.
Staff asked whether transfers required by proposed section 24‑77‑110(3)(c) must occur before July 1 or may occur "by July 1," warning that a transfer occurring before July 1 could be booked in a prior fiscal year and create budgeting problems. Proponents said they would consider changing the text to require transfers "on July 1" or otherwise make the intended fiscal‑year association explicit.
Staff also recommended the draft explicitly state the associated fiscal year in subsections where the linkage was omitted; proponents agreed to add language specifying the 2027–28 state fiscal year where appropriate. Legislative Council staff asked Legislative Council to specify the period for estimating the approximate sporting‑goods sales tax revenue (for example, the March 27 determination would be for FY2027–28), and proponents agreed that the March determination should relate to the next fiscal year and that clarifying language would be added.
Another drafting concern involved two separate reduction provisions (4(d) and 4(e)) that both reference the same December revenue forecast. Staff warned that if both reductions are evaluated in the same forecast without a declared order, calculations could become circular. Proponents said the intent is that the calculation in subsection 4(d) be applied first and that they would make that ordering explicit in the draft.
Finally, staff pointed out ambiguous phrasing in a distribution clause that reads "50% of the remaining money" after an initial 50% allocation; as written it could be interpreted in ways that would leave money undistributed. Proponents agreed to revise the text to read, for example, "50% of the remaining money after the distribution in subsection (b)," or other language that explicitly preserves the full distribution and order of operations.
Pierce Lively and Amanda Little advised that these kinds of drafting clarifications reduce implementation risk and help avoid unintended effects on budgeting and tax‑credit calculations. Proponents — including Brandon Witt and Aaron Citron — agreed to make the edits and the hearing was adjourned. No vote was taken at the session.
