While tax reform is dead in the 2020 Legislature, some of its distant cousins are surfacing as bills.
Rep. Robert Spendlove, R-Sandy, has introduced HB357, a very short bill that could have some big effects down the road.
The bill simply says school districts can use their property tax revenue for “other needs for the support of the school district.”
The idea behind it arose during public hearings/studies of the now-defunct Tax Reform Task Force — which came up with the tax reform package passed in a December special session, and repealed the second day of the 2020 Legislature.
Spendlove was on that task force, and learned about “flexibility problems” that some school districts are experiencing in their revenue flow.
For example, a study found out that over the last three years, the Legislature has increased public school funding by around 30 percent, but, on average, the individual 41 school districts have increased their funding by 11 percent.
In addition, another study found that some districts are constructing new schools — especially high schools — that cost 40 percent more than the national average.
All this brought the ire of House Majority Whip Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, a homebuilder, who was also on the task force. He said local districts need to step up and either raise their property taxes or cut back on expensive schools to put more money into classroom education.
Spendlove told UtahPolicy.com that some school district officials complain that they can’t spend all their property taxes as they wish, and they need more flexibility in use of their revenues.
Thus HB357.
What is ironic, of course, is that some districts, and especially teacher unions, oppose changing the Utah Constitution’s earmarking of all personal and corporate income tax for higher and public education.
GOP legislative leaders have shelved any effort this session to amend the Constitution taking away those earmarks.
And it is the current “inflexibility” that is behind tax reform in the first place — there is an abundance of income tax revenue for the state Education Fund, but not enough sales tax revenue for the General Fund and the non-education programs in state government.
So what is good for the goose — the school districts — on flexibility in their property tax use may not be good for the gander — state government and GOP lawmakers, who are struggling to fund program demands in the General Fund.
