H.B. 282 Transportation Earmark Amendments: transcript

House Revenue and Taxation Committee, Jan 29, 2026

1. Committee chair2:04:58

   Okay, uh, to our last two items on the agenda. Uh, representative Provo, this is item six and seven. Um, the first item, uh, or item number six is HB 2 82 for substitute transportation earmark amendments. The time is yours.

2. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost2:05:22

   Thank you, Mr. Chair. My other chair on the diocese is more comfortable. Sorry. All right. Thank you all. So, um, representatives HB 2 82, um, is the result of a conversation that I had, um, during the interim with our legislative fiscal analyst office. And I wanna just revisit, um, one of the bills that we passed out a committee earlier today, and that's truth and taxation. And part of the reason that I, I wanted to present this legislation is to, to have an important conversation about the way we fund, um, our state government. As we all know, we're going through this grinding, horrible process of digging through our appropriation subcommittee budgets to find cuts because we find ourselves in uncertain financial times. First of all, um, some structural deficits due to the passage of HR one last July. Um, which basically amounts to a tax cut that the state has got to figure out how to manage. And that was a cut that was made through no decision of the state legislature. And also we're having conversations about cutting income taxes further. Um, also of note, just in, um, social services, which is the committee that I sit on, um, in a conversation that we had at Executive Appropriations earlier this week due to HR one, our state budget just for the Department of Health and Human Services starting in 2027, we'll see a almost $1 billion reduction in funds per year going forward. And so I think that we need to have hard conversations about just how, how close to the margins we're cutting in our state budget. And, um, so what the transportation Earmark Amendments does is it recognizes that there is an earmark within our code that moves 25, I'm sorry, 24% of four specific line items in the budget that are in the general fund, straight into transportation funding. Now, I am aware that transportation funding is critical in this state, and that there is a lot of essential infrastructure that is funded. What I don't like about earmarks is that this is our state's way to basically bypass truth and taxation. We move tax money around within the general fund without having those essential conversations with our constituents that we, by statute insist that our cities and counties have. And so I know that, you know, there is a, a robust discussion, philosophical discussion about earmarks, but what the bill does essentially is it takes that earmark, which moves 24% of those four line items in the budget from the general fund into transportation. It changes that number to 17%. So it doesn't move all of it, but it does move a portion of it back into the general fund. It just keeps it in the general fund, which is the fund that we as a legislature manage directly. Um, that movement amounts to, if you look at the fiscal note, about $353 million back into the general fund and back into the control of the legislature. Um, with that, Mr. Mr. Chair, I am open to questions.

3. Committee chair2:08:58

   Okay. Thank you, uh, to the committee for discussion. Um, seeing no lights, oh, I see a light Representative, Kyle,

4. Rep. Kyle2:09:10

   I, I, uh, I, I worry about this bill. I feel like transportation is one of the core things that our state does, and we see people all around the state screaming to get these projects done. I, I don't feel like moving transportation money out is, is good policy right now with the growth that we're seeing in our state. And we have people that are, we, we have, we have so many needs in this area as well. I, I get that we have other needs, but I, I feel like this is one of our core responsibilities to, to take care of. So I, I, I, I'm not, I'm not there. So May I respond to that, Mr. Chair? Was that a question? Not really, but I'll, I'll, I'll You'll get a respond.

5. Committee chair2:09:54

   Okay. Okay. Representative, uh, e listen, uh, happy birthday by the way. Uh, time is yours.

6. Rep. Kyle2:10:01

   Thank you. Uh, yeah. So a question would be, you know, we've, I say we, I've only been here a very short time, so it's a whole bunch of people that came here before me, but I get a claimant now 'cause I'm here, right? Um, we are in a really good spot as a state with our transportation funds, with our ability to get out of debt, pay for road projects with cash, et cetera. How is that gonna affect that? Um, is that mean, you know, 'cause our bond rating's awesome as a state. So if we have to, if we move that fund, those funds over, how does that look in terms of our ability to fund those projects? And is that going to cause us to have to borrow money in the not two distant future because of how we're doing it now?

7. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost2:10:43

   Um, so I would argue that those funds could absolutely be allocated back to transportation. I just think that it should be done through the appropriations process and through committees, the way that we fund everything else in the state. So one could make an argument that that should still be, that should still go to transportation projects. But I, you know, I want to also point out that we've got over $2 billion in tiff. We, we tax people to pay for transportation. There is money that is taxed that doesn't go through the general fund, that goes right to the transportation infrastructure fund. And then we take, and then we, we tax people through sales tax and we build the general fund, and then we take some of that money and we roll it into tiff. But we're not telling people that when we collect that sales tax, that it's for transportation. And so I think that this just creates that, um, that transparency. And if there is a funding shortfall, then maybe we need to have a conversation about what is statutorily funds tiff, and that's, you know, road taxes and gas taxes instead of pretending that our TIFF is lower and then backfilling it with general funds, which is kind of a backdoor funding mechanism. And I don't believe is transparent or honest. I, I think that if we're gonna, if we're gonna fund tiff, we should fund Tiff and be honest about how we're funding it, reduce the earmark. And if you still want that money to pay for transportation, go through the general appropriations process that we do for every single, um, budget, um, process, all the other budget committees that we're going through, um, facing right now.

8. Rep. Kyle2:12:20

   Thank you. Have one follow up if I could. How did you come up with the 7%? Can you explain the idea behind that?

9. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost2:12:27

   Um, seemed like a good start. I had to come up with something. So it, it would go from 24 to 17.

10. Committee chair2:12:38

    Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, we'll now go to the public for testimony. Uh, who here would like to comment on this? Bill? Anybody online? Okay. We will close public comment and, oh, I'm sorry. Oh, well, we're still closing public comment. So Representative Christofferson?

11. Rep. Chris Christofferson2:13:02

    Yeah, I'd like to move an amendment, uh, a verbal amendment. Okay. If it's a certain length that will be, okay. It's one, one digit on line three 20. The change, the one two A two. So it reads 29.24%.

12. Committee chair2:13:25

    Okay. Do you wanna speak to that?

13. Rep. Chris Christofferson2:13:29

    That's pretty sly. So kind of just trying to make a point here that, you know, you know, we're all, we're in a growth state. We're making, uh, we're having a tough time meeting the needs of a lot of people. Maybe not something, but in, in, uh, South Salt Lake and North Utah County, St. George, we've got a lot of needs and I just think we need to have something we can depend on that we can, uh, count on for the transportation needs. So, so having said that, I, uh, you know, I'll withdraw my amendment, but, uh, but, uh, I'm not in favor of the bill.

14. Committee chair2:14:20

    Okay. The staff just breathed the sigh of relief as they were trying to pull up the amendment system. So, okay. Now they were happy to do it for the record, but, okay. All right. Um, the bill then is before us for further dis discussion or action by the committee. Okay. Representative Kyle? Yes.

15. Rep. Kyle2:14:42

    Uh, move that we move to the next item on the agenda.

16. Committee chair2:14:45

    Would you like to speak to that? Uh, no. Okay.

17. Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost2:14:49

    We will go to the sponsor. I actually support that motion, but wanna just express to the committee that I am grateful to have had the opportunity to have this discussion and shed some light on some, some structural things that I think is the legislature we need to continue to talk about.

18. Committee chair2:15:05

    Okay. Uh, thank you. Back to the maker of the motion, represent Kyle. Waive. Waive. Okay. Alright. The motion is to hold. All in favor, say, oh, I'm, well move to the next, I'm sorry. Move to the next agenda item. Same thing. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.