Senate committee rejects 3% cap on political subdivision budgets, 4-2
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee voted 4-2 for a "do not pass" recommendation on Senate Bill 23-78, which would have limited political subdivision budgets to the consumer price index, citing concerns about restricting fee-for-service revenues and essential services.
The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee voted 4-2 on a do-not-pass recommendation for Senate Bill 23-78, a proposal to cap the budgets of political subdivisions at the consumer price index.
Senator Jason Rummel, a sponsor of the do-not-pass motion, warned the cap could force cities and other local authorities to reduce or eliminate essential services. "You would cause a very severe look at their entire budget, and they would have to, start reducing services to be able to stay within our 3% cap," Rummel said, citing recent double-digit inflation as an example of conditions that could make the cap unworkable.
Senator Patton agreed, saying fee-for-service operations (for example, water and wastewater utilities and garbage collection) often face cost drivers the state cannot control. "We don't know what the fuel costs are going to be," Patton said. "If we limit that, then we say we're either going to cut that service or we're going to have to find other resources to meet the demands."
Chairman Weber cast one of two no votes on the motion. The roll call recorded vice chair Romo, Senator Patton, Senator Powers and Senator Wallen voting for the do-not-pass recommendation; Chairman Weber and Senator Marsali voted against it. The committee announced the result as a 4-2 do-not-pass.
Committee members discussed competing legislation from the House that would address similar budget-cap concerns by a different method. Senator Rummel said he preferred waiting to compare approaches. "I think there's other methods that may work a little bit better coming our way," he said.
No formal amendments or follow-up actions were taken at that time; committee members said they would need a chamber carrier if the House did not pursue the same language.
The committee moved on to other business after the vote.
