Becky Edwards

As you know the Utah State Legislature is mandated to achieve a balanced budget. In the past few years this has required a lot of difficult decisions and cuts to programs. This year is no exception. The entire Republican caucus meeting today was spent discussing the budget options for FY 2011. Each Appropriations committee has already made their recommendations based on a proposed 5% cut within their committees. The Executive Appropriations Committee has compiled all these committee decisions and put together a proposed general FY 2011 budget.

This proposal includes $473M deficit. Here is how it will be made up:
$80M from the Rainy Day fund
$103M cut from Public Ed student growth funding
$115M represents the 5% cuts in all committees, except Public Ed
$86M all non-Public and Higher Education Committee cuts
$46M Higher Ed cuts
$43M revenue from one time sources

For specifics, Public Education will receive no additional cuts over last year’s budget. However, we are not funding student growth, which has the effect of lowering the WPU around $90 per student. Funding for the expected student growth of 11,000 new students would require an additional $75M. Higher Ed will be cut 5% on top of last years’ cuts. However, they will receive a $20M backfill from remaining stimulus money.

These budget numbers assume there will be no additional revenue coming in, Tobacco Tax, Vendor Discounts, reinstate Sales tax on Food, etc. If we see additional revenue through one of these mechanisms or things turn around, as a body we will create a list of priorities to be funded first, second, and so on. That should be very interesting as the end of today’s caucus was already full of Representatives lobbying on issues or line items they feel strongly about.

As an aside, the stream access bills were heard yesterday and today, with debate lasting several hours on each bill. I voted yes on HB80 and no on HB141. HB80 failed and HB141 passed. In the end I was not comfortable that HB141 adequately addressed property rights and left too many questions about the implementation of the statute. It probably is good to have passed something so the issue, at least the debate portion of it, can be put to rest, and the living of it can begin. Undoubtedly there will be growing pains, unintended consequences etc. We can deal with them then and HB141 does provide an adequate framework to move forward with.

I’ll bet that title got your attention. It’s not a description of the legislature today….although it could be. My husband and I went to see “12 Angry Men” at PMT at the UofU tonight. It was an amazing performance and actually did have implications for the legislature as it discussed the nature of facts, the process of arriving at truth, and how perception and prejudices affect dialogue. Also, the courage it takes to be a dissenter and the power that has in affecting change in others.

Every day we discuss and form opinions on bills that we have read, possibly have background or have done research on, and listen to discussions on the floor. I try to be judicious and open minded in my analysis, but sometimes the issues are complex enough that the task is really challenging. One example is the stream access debate and the two bills the address that issue: HB 80 and HB 141. The two sponsors, Rep. Lorie Fowlke and Rep. Kay McIff, are two of the finest minds in the House and I respect both of them immensely. This is a classic case of property rights vs. public access to waterways.  One is backed up by language in statute of the Utah Code (bills passed by the legislature) and the other relies on language in the Utah State Constitution.  Both bills are set to be heard Monday afternoon on the time certain calendar for 2:30 and 2:35. Someone asked if that meant the debate on the first bill would only last 5 minutes. Ha! I will be spending a lot of time this weekend examining this issue, reading the Utah Constitution, the section of the Utah Code that the Utah Supreme Court used as their basis for the Conatser ruling. Last year a different stream access bill failed on the floor, and I voted against it, but these two bills have a very different approach and deserve a thorough and thoughtful analysis.

Rep. Paul Ray’s HB 196, “Tobacco Tax Revisions,” passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor. I am inclined to support this bill. As background, the tobacco tax is now 69 cents and this bill would increase it to $1.70. It is expected that as a result of that price increase 19,000 people will either quit smoking or not begin smoking. The tax will increase revenue $25-30 million and will also realize a significant amount in health care savings. So, maybe you’re wondering where the funds will go? It will go to the Department of Health who will distribute:

$250,000 to a targeted “Gold Medal Schools” program

22% of remaining revenue to go to tobacco prevention and cessation

15% to go the University of Utah Health Sciences Center for the Huntsman Cancer Institute for cancer research

21% to go for medical education at the University of Utah School of Medicine

Amendments are proposed that would appropriate $527,000 of the tobacco tax revenue for the National Guard tuition assistance program and $4 million for the Department of Public Safety. It seems everyone is getting their pet issue a piece of this tobacco tax revenue pie. If wishes were fishes I’d set aside a chunk of the money to fund children’s mental health through the Division of Child and Family Services.

Also, HB 113 failed today. It was a bill to amend the child restraint law that passed several years ago. It would provide exceptions to the booster law for ages 5-8 if you are driving under 45 mph and are within 4 miles of home, going to or from school, church, or recreational activity. I spoke and voted against the bill. As a former ER Trauma Social Worker I am all too familiar with the types of injuries sustained by children not properly restrained by seat belts or boosters. Consider this data: 57% of accidents occur within 10 minutes of home, no children ages 4-7 secured in booster seats have been killed in Utah in the last 5 years, and unrestrained children are 3.29 times more likely than children in booster seats to sustain injuries to the thorax, spine, or abdomen. I firmly believe public safety should not be a matter of convenience for parents or car pooling, and that we should not be in the business of creating selective safety measures for our children. This bill failed 24-47.

HJR 24 “House Joint Resolution on Equal Treatment by Government”

While at face value this resolution appears to simply promote equality, the reality is more complex than that. More time is needed to analyze the impact this would have on our state. An appropriate evaluative study on the need for this measure, complete with data quantifying the reverse discrimination this is intended to squelch, as well as a thorough examination of the unintended consequences are both necessary. For example, how will this affect a health department’s ability to provide funds for healthy lifestyle campaigns targeted at specific minority populations. Would this be considered “preferential treatment” with respect to public education for a group based on ethnicity?

Further, will this create barriers and further divides between communities? As the demographics of our state and our District continue to become more diverse I am concerned that this resolution may, despite the intentions, make access even more difficult for diverse communities. As it stands now the gap of participation in higher education between whites and Latinos in Utah widened to the nation’s largest, as per the Measuring Up report (2008) conducted by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Better educational opportunities grow into more robust economic opportunities and that benefits us all. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the impact this resolution may have on outreach, recruitment, and retention of minority students.

While equality is valued by us all, HJR 24 leaves me with too many questions. Is this a problem right now in our state? If so, how and where does that play out? Is this the right mechanism to achieve the goal for equal treatment for all? Does this very important issue deserve our best thinking and analysis before we rush to change our state’s constitution? Until I feel these questions are satisfied I will not be supporting HJR 24.

By 2030, population and employment are projected to increase substantially in South Davis County, resulting in an almost 200% increase in total daily transit trips. The highest demand for travel will be between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, and Bountiful.

A major transportation investment in the South Davis Transit Corridor is needed to respond to increased travel demand, to provide transportation options for travelers to avoid congestion at key intersections within the corridor, to provide an increase in transit reliability and improve east-west connectivity as well as north-south service, and to improve land use and transportation integration. In addition, this is an investment that will reduce the transportation related impact on the air quality in South Davis County.

The UTA has prepared a Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the South Davis Transit Corridor project that defines the purpose and need for the project, alternatives considered and potential for environmental impact etc. A 30-day public comment period for this Draft ESR will occur from Feb. 15, 2010 to March 16, 2010.

A consideration of wise transportation expansion in South Davis County can have a tremendous effect on the air quality in our area. I encourage you to check out the following link where you can read the Executive Summary which provides a good analysis of the process and need.

http://www.rideuta.com/projects/southDavisTransitStudy/overview.aspx

Also on that site are the ways to provide public comment and details on how to participate in the public meeting which will be held March 2 at the Centerville Junior High from 4:00 – 7:00 pm.

Join me in celebration of the 90 year anniversary of the League of Women Voters of Utah.  I applaud their consistent efforts to encourage people to be active and informed citizens participating in their government. They have a great website with lots of resources and links to additional information. They also provide one of the most thorough and well researched legislative updates out there. Their website is: http://www.lwvutah.org/
Check it out and wish them many more years of their good advocacy for political involvement.

Congressman Jim Matheson visited the House chamber yesterday and began his comments to us with the line, “I’m from the Federal Government and I’m here to help.” That garnered a lot of laughter as his visit followed an intense debate we had just been having over the past several days about the appropriate level of intervention for the federal government to impose on the states. As you can imagine the skew is heavily towards states rights in the House right now with many issues being examined under that lense: health care reform, climate change policy, gun rights, women’s reproductive rights, and on and on.

Congressman Matheson also stated we have a long list of serious challenges right now. What he is hoping happens is that instead of people at every level trying to leverage every issue for political gain that we will emulate what happened in 1983, Tip O’Neil met with Ronald Reagan and a few hours later they came back with a solution to the federal medicare issues. They locked arms across the aisle and committed to solve an issue that was too important to get mired in partisanship.

It is my feeling that at the end of the day what people want is to have legislators roll up their sleeves and make progress on the issues.  To face the challenges and make good decisions.  Whether you represent and serve 30,000 people as I do or 900,000 people as Congressman Matheson does, this should be our shared goal as well. I know it is mine.

I am the House sponsor of SB 85, “Utah Construction Trade Licensing Act Amendments,” by Sen. Scott Jenkins. It came to the floor of the House this morning and I had a chance to present the bill. Immediately prior to the bill coming up on the Senate calendar I was approached by several House members who were interested in making an amendment to the bill, which would basically negate one entire aspect of the bill. I told them I didn’t see it as a friendly amendment and we went out in the hall to discuss it further with one of the advocates for the bill. While out in the hall I got talking to a constituent visiting the Capitol from our District and when I returned to the original conversation the SB 85 advocate told me everything was smoothed over and there would be no amendment proposed by my colleagues. I was relieved as I returned to the chamber and almost immediately was called upon to present the bill. After my initial presentation of the bill, and within five minutes of reassuring the bill advocate and me that he would not be running an amendment, the same Representative stood to present his original amendment to the bill. What a difference five minutes makes! So I had an opportunity to field questions from several on the floor before a motion was made to circle the bill. This in effect says we don’t want to kill the bill, but it isn’t in good enough shape right now to garner the votes to pass.  It indicates we need to take another look at it and see if we can’t work together to achieve some compromise everyone is comfortable with. So later this afternoon Sen. Jenkins, the bill advocate, several members of the House and Senate who oppose the bill, and I met together to try to achieve some compromise. At one point Sen. Jenkins said, “What we have here are complaints, not compromise. I’ve got five minutes so let’s get this done!” I think we were able to clarify some things for both parties and hopefully will be able to amend the bill tomorrow in a fashion that will keep the original policy objectives of the SB 85 intact. I am curious to see if there will be some unexpected action on it when I uncircle the bill. It is so interesting to see how this process works. For the most part I trust it to be an effective (albeit frustrating and slow moving at times) framework for creating good policy. We’ll see if that holds true tomorrow!

In consideration of the President’s Day holiday weekend coming up we will not be holding a “Bagels and Briefings” this Saturday.  Somehow the holiday entirely slipped my mind.  Enjoy spending some time with your family, stimulating the economy by spending some time on the slopes, or cozy up by the fireplace with some good legislative reading.

We will be on course for our next “Bagels and Briefings” on Saturday, Feb. 20, 10:30 am, at my home: 1121 Eaglewood Loop, North Salt Lake. Senator Dan Liljenquist will be our guest and Utah’s Retirement System will be our topic.

Work continues to be go forward on the following bills of mine. It is a process of compromise and not sacrificing good for perfect. I feel good about the direction all of these are heading. To read the text or track these bills go to http://le.utah.gov

HB 153, Recycling of Electronic Items
Creates a mechanism for the recycling of electronic devices such as computers, televisions etc. The metals in these products are hazardous in landfills, but can be profitable when recycled.

HB 169, Refinery Amendments
Creates structure for municipalities and counties regarding land use and zoning as related to refineries.

HB 327, Autism Awareness Support Special Group License Plate
Creates a Autism special license plate whose proceeds would go to promote education and outreach for families.

HB 162, Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor
Changes the offense of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor to apply to a defendant who is four or more years older than the victim, rather than the current provision of
ten or more years older than the victim.

HB 456, Amendments to Department of Environmental Quality
Expands the Air Quality Board to include two additional members representing Transportation and Public Health.

HB 416, Motor Vehicle Emissions Amendments
This bill may need work during the interim because I didn’t get started on it soon enough. It is an examination of the emissions testing throughout the state and how to utilize that as a tool to protect and improve the air quality in the non-attainment areas in the Wasatch Front.

SB 85, Utah Construction Trade Licensing Act Amendments, I am the House sponsor of this bill for Senator Scott Jenkins
Allows plumbing and electrical licensing boards to determine the definition of direct supervision through administrative rule.

If you have any input on the bills above please let me know.