Why voters Should Not vote for the Fuel Tax Shell Game

Why voters Should Not vote for the Fuel Tax Shell Game

Are we raising the Utah State fuel tax by 33% and somehow expecting it to go toward Public Education?

Op-Ed in SL Tribune

As you likely know by now a “Nonbinding Opinion Question #1” is on the ballot this fall which reads: "To provide additional funding for public education and local roads, should the state increase the state motor and special fuel tax rates by an equivalent of 10 cents per gallon?"   

Besides the 33% Utah State fuel tax increase being proposed, there are some other major problems with the proposal. While you can use state sales tax money in any of at least three state budget areas, Transportation, Public Education and Higher Education, Education money from Income Tax is limited by the Utah State Constitution to only Public Education and Higher Education.   

Fuel Tax money is limited by the Utah State Constitution to Transportation and Transportation items only, not public education.

To advertise that you are going to move taxpayer money around so you are using Transportation only money somewhere else violates at minimum the intent of the Utah Constitution.

The other issue with this proposed shell game is Transportation related sales tax should also go to Transportation - based on the same section in the Utah State Constitution. It is the sales tax going to Transportation that this “shell game” plans to use to make this whole scam “legal”.
With more Utah State Fuel Tax, the promoters of this tax increase think the State Legislature will reduce the amount of State Sales Tax being invested in Transportation and move that to Higher Education and then move more Higher Education money to Public Education.

By using Fuel Tax to increase the Education Fund, at some point you are either directly violating the Utah Constitution or at minimum violating the intent.
Is the idea of asking the voters to agree to this shell game scheme supposed to let the Utah Legislature and the Governor off the hook for not following the State Constitution?

Utah State Constitution, Art XXIII Sec. 5 https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleXIII/Article_XIII,_Section_5.html?v=UC_AXIII_S5_1800010118000101
   
Income Tax only for Public Education and Higher Education:
“5)    All revenue from taxes on intangible property or from a tax on income shall be used to support the systems of public education and higher education as defined in Article X, Section 2.
   
Fuel tax and Transportation related sales tax only for Transportation:
“6)    Proceeds from fees, taxes, and other charges related to the operation of motor vehicles on public highways and proceeds from an excise tax on liquid motor fuel used to propel those motor vehicles shall be used for: (a)    statutory refunds and adjustments and costs of collection and administration; (b)  the construction, maintenance, and repair of State and local roads, including payment for property taken for or damaged by rights-of-way and for associated administrative costs; (c)  driver education; (d)  enforcement of state motor vehicle and traffic laws; and (e)  the payment of the principal of and interest on any obligation of the State or a city or county, issued for any of the purposes set forth in Subsection (6)(b) and to which any of the fees, taxes, or other charges described in this Subsection (6) have been pledged, including any paid to the State or a city or county, as provided by statute. “

There is already a major issue with the Education Fund when the Board of Regents can raise Higher Education tuition without approval from the State Legislature, when they don’t get all the money they want. This increase in the Fuel Tax will not solve that issue.

Vote No on Question #1. We don’t need any more “shell games”.

[Update]

The most stable and most long term funding of roads in Utah is not the fuel tax. It is the transportation related sales tax. That includes electric cars and tires for any car. Based on the state constitution the transportation related sales tax also goes to transportation. Currently about $579 Million per year. The #utleg has been using the number 17% of the overall sales tax as the approx. value that is transportation related. Based on the 17% number there is currently approx. $18 Million extra money from sales tax going into Transportation. Question 1 proposes to move approx. $125 Million from the sales tax to Education Fund. That means it is in violation of the state constitution. That doesn't even get into that the fuel Tax can't be used for education, with the exception of drivers education.

2018 SB 87 School Security Locks

[Update: The bill was amended to remove the ADA concern for the bill, but it still has a major life safety concern as stated below]

In 2011, during my first session as a new legislator, I heard the phrase, Dead kids make bad laws. I asked for more information and found that legislators, wanting to protect kids, have sometimes over reacted when a child dies in creating new laws. The goal was good, but they didn't take take to look at the different ramifications of the proposed law. In some cases it has taken years to undo the damage of the bad rushed bill.

Yesterday I became aware of a new such bill.

S.B. 87 School Security Locks

What does the bill do? 

This bill: amends the International Building Code and International Fire Code regarding: hardware height on a door for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill; and door operations provisions for locks and bolt locks, and latching and unlatching, for certain occupancies in lockdown or during a lockdown drill.

But there are dead kids, so the bill has to pass to make parents feel safer.

If the bill were to pass, is there a simple amendment that would save lives?

Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.
What will that do?

It will allow children to get out of a classroom faster during an emergency and could save lives.

Won't that gut the bill?

No, there are already countless existing building code approved "barricade classroom function" locks on the market and many of the existing classroom looks can be field modified to allow the door to be locked from the inside of the room and not just the outside.

There is only one lock manufacturer that makes an aftermarket barricade classroom lock that can be opened from the outside with a special key that is the target of the bill. If the bill is amended, that lock won't be installed in schools, but other building code approved locks can be installed.

Won't that cost the school district more money? Not necessarily. The more expensive "Mortise" type locks, can be field modified saving money, providing the security and safety. The less expensive "Cylinder" type locks can be replaced with less expensive locks that allow the door to be locked from either the inside or the outside with a key, but allow the children on the inside to get out without a key or slowing them down.

Is there any other problems with the bill? Yes

for decades, the US Department of Justice has determined that the combination of the current International Building Code and the Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities ICC A117.1 is equivalent  to the building design requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAG) without dragging the architect into a civil rights law for liability.

As currently written, I believe SB 87 violates both ICC A117.1 and ADAAG and would NOT allow someone in a wheelchair to lock the door, but more importantly unlock the door to get out of the classroom.

Are you saying that in your opinion that SB 87 as currently drafted violates ADA and could open architects, district and the state to lawsuits re: ADA? Yes

So is the bill as originally drafted worse that than passing nothing? Yes

Is any related bill needed? Good question.

Any classroom I have ever seen has a lock on it that can be secured to protect the occupants, but the traditional "Classroom Function" lock requires a key to be used to lock the door from the outside (protects the teacher from being locked out and protects students from being dragged into a classroom and locked in and harmed. That isn't bad, but in the new age of shootings, it doesn't allow the door to be locked from the inside. The door always opens from the inside without a key in one operation.

The newer building code complaint "barricade classroom function" locks are the same as the old ones, but also allow someone on the inside to lock the door with a key. In a shooting situation, this is quicker and safer, but still allows someone on the inside (including in a wheelchair) to open the door with one operation and no key.

IF the Utah legislature wants to require certain new school classrooms to have the barricade classroom function locks, the ones that meet current code and allow only one operation to get out of the room and requires no key to get out of the room, they could substitute or amend the bill to require that.

Should the current bill pass? No

Can it be amended? Lines 48 and 102. Change the words "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines.

Is there a better option? Yes, debate whether or not it is good policy to require certain new classrooms to have the newer code complient locks that allow locking from both sides of the door.

What about the State Fire Marshall's office? If you go to the Governor's office, you limit what the state fire marshall's office can say and do, and they can not create policy. I personally met yesterday with the person in the office that gave the sponsor the language to change the building code. If Lines 48 and 102 were changed from "two operations" to "one operation" on both lines., he would not be personally opposed to the bill.

Disclaimer. I am an architect who has be using the building codes and has been designing to meet ADA and ICC A117 for decades.

Clean Air

At one of my Town Hall meetings, I was given this document. It was used to raise the question as if small users, such as wood burning, are being asked to take a bigger hit on clean air requirements because larger users are getting away with more.

See:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2536928

Draper Prison to move or not to move

Representatives and Senators, [PRC members]

re: the Draper Prison, Uinta Five Reception and Orientation building along with the Oquirrh Five Annex and almost all of Wasatch.

Based on information provided to me by constituents in my area that work at the Draper Prison, I believe at minimum, the listed Draper buildings need to be replaced. They could be replaced on site, as there seems to be enough room to double or triple the number of beds at Draper, or possibly targeted to be replaced off site, at a new prison location, such as near the Wal-Mart Distribution Center near Stansbury Mountain, in Tooele County. Based on the report, there is enough room for Gunnison to match Draper in beds as it is currently. An alternate or 3rd site is not required.

I was wondering if we have a specific cost for constructing each of these 3 complexes and if the Draper Prison can function in place without any or all of these 3 buildings. Clearly, the buildings can be built on site and then these specific existing buildings can be demolished.

It is the opinion of many that the majority of the buildings at the Draper Prison, other than these, can function for many years, if not decades.

Any new cell complex should at least have the safety of layout of the 192 bed pods at Gunnison. From an aerial photo, it appears a large percentage of the beds at Draper are in the pod or super pod type layout with the central control station.

I have stood in Wasatch, in one of the active cell block common areas with my wife. I don't like that layout. We spent two years as volunteers at the Draper Prison. It was interesting to use the non-denominational chapel that I had worked on the drawings for many years ago.

While it has been many years since I worked on construction drawings for jails and prisons, I helped with the construction drawings for a Salt Lake County Jail expansion/remodel down town (later demolished), Oxbow, Gunnison, and using the 192 bed pod system, perhaps a dozen potential 1920 bed complexes around the country. At one point, I perhaps had drawn more parking spaces and jail/prison cells than anyone I knew in the State.

Based on the information I have now, I [still] would not have voted to move the prison when [others] voted on [it] last year. I realize Draper City is tired of having the prison and the property around it is getting worth more and so the State may want to move it sometime in the next few decades.

What I said in February 2014: 
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2014/02/do-not-move-prison.html

Since the timeline for moving has not be agreed to by the legislature, finding out from the Prison or your consultant the cost of replacing only the 3 complexes mentioned would be helpful for direction and discussion. 

For many years, anyone moving near the Draper Prison has known it was there. It would be wise if the prison is to be moved, for residents to have many years to know it is moving and where it is moving to, long before it does.

Fred C. Cox,
Rep. Elect, House 30
West Valley City, UT 84120

PS, based on me being at the West Jordan school where they had as many as 2,500 people show up opposed to the prison moving near there, and other similar reports, I don't believe any of the current 6 sites will work.

They may be close for employees, visitors, volunteers, schools, courts, and medical, but the Draper location has those already. Those items are more important than the cost of the land in Draper, as the people involved are worth more than the buildings and the land. Again, the majority of the buildings at Draper are fine, with no rush to replace. We do need to target replacing particularly the Wasatch block cells for prison officer and inmate safety, in my opinion.

Utah's Common Core

I don't mind having access to a national grassroots standard, as long as we have the flexibility to amend/modify/add/delete anything to make it better.

Math teachers I have talked to believe the standard will do 2 things, help ACT scores rise and decrease the number of students taking remedial math when they reach college.

Many do not like the no text books and wants other options.

There are those that would have taken 8th grade Algebra that would take Calculus their senior year that should not have to waste their 8th grade and could move faster and those that are not understanding the concepts, and may not understand, that have traditionally been taught by rote.

The standard, a is a one size fits all approach, which will only work with the middle students.

The race to the top funding competition provided little time for the states to adopt common core, so almost no legislatures were involved in the adoption nationally. With the National Governors Association behind it, I am not surprised it was signed in the approx. 2 months the states were given initially. Federal Funds are the only enforcement tool, and we haven't got any of them over this yet.

I believe it was Governor Huntsman in 2009 who signed up for this direction along with the state school board who was acting constitutionally: "The general control and supervision of the public education system shall be vested in a State Board of Education. ", were within their duties. Saying the Feds are outside their constitutional powers is one thing, which I agree with, but saying the state school board was outside theirs is an argument that would be lost.

The only thing the legislature has done so far is raise concerns and provide some barrier to federal control, calling it Utah's Common Core in the Statewide Adaptive Testing request for proposal. The feds have lowered the student privacy laws and so we have tied Utah's student privacy laws to any Statewide Adaptive Testing system funding. See 2012 HB 15 and 2012 SB 97.

2012 SCR 13 passed the senate, but ran out of time in the House. I am not sure it would have passed and the house killed a move to bump it to the top of a short list at the end.

The schools have spent the last 2 summers gearing up for this, and changing their books, etc. If the legislature is going to now get further involved, it should be very limited.

Support for Traditional Marriage

I periodically am asked what I think about possible nondiscrimination bills. That is an easy question. The answer is not as easy.

I support Traditional Marriage. I believe local, state, and national governments should protect and encourage traditional marriage.

I am not alone.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765577174/Editorial-Take-heart-and-stand-for-traditional-marriage.html

I personally support "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"

Now back to the original question:

I have been supportive of individual rights and attended the discussion this last year about a proposed nondiscrimination bill. The bill never made it to the House and I do not know if I would have voted for what would have been eventually presented or not.

In 2011, I fought against a few bills that I felt were unfair to individuals in nontraditional families. One of the bills even defined a family so narrow that two people, a married husband and wife, would not constitute a family. I proposed a public substitute to that bill. Another bill I opposed would have voided many existing private agreements. That group of bills were pulled by the sponsor from any agenda.

Several years ago, while not in the legislature, I felt 1 of 4 "common ground" bills should have passed with only a couple of words being changed. I wrote to my Representative, Senator and the Governor at the time expressing my support and the proposed minor amendment.

I have several friends in the LGBT community. I also have friends of many different faiths. I work to treat everyone with different beliefs with respect. You might ask what do these two things have to do with each other. I believe they are both important.

I believe nondiscrimination laws have to walk a narrow path, and my support will depend on several factors:

Do they hurt traditional marriage?

Do they follow the State of Utah Constitution,
including the rights of conscience and the marriage definition. See:

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleI/Article_I,_Section_4.html?v=UC_AI_S4_1800010118000101
and
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/ArticleI/Article_I,_Section_29.html?v=UC_AI_S29_1800010118000101

Not all proposals will work, but I would be interested in helping protect people with different beliefs be treated with respect as fellow human beings with the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

There is a balance between protecting against discrimination and attacking someone else's right to believe what is right or wrong.

I have said I would be willing and interested in providing drafting feedback for a nondiscrimination bill and that I am not opposed to voting for a nondiscrimination bill that would include helping to make sure someone has a fair opportunity to work and live, subject to what is written in the bill.

I hope this answer helps,

Fred C. Cox, Representing House District 32 and Running for the new Utah House District 30.


Update:, I didn't win the election, and so I am not longer a representative. I did have someone ask me about the 2013 SB 262, and the following had my brief comments about this years bill:

http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2013/03/problems-with-2013-sb-262.html

Update 2: Same comments, slightly different line numbers for this year:
http://fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2014/01/problems-with-2014-sb-100.html

Update 3: A new bill was proposed in 2015 with my concerns answered. I voted for the bill and it did pass.
http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/SB0296.html