Six million dollars may seem like a drop in the state's $4.5 billion budget bucket. But when it comes to taking it away from the state's institutions of higher learning and giving it to rural counties, "I expect there will be a few fireworks," says Sen. Leonard Black-ham, R-Moroni.
Bolstered by an audit by the legislative auditor general, rural lawmakers are plotting ways to get higher education to cough up about $6 million it has been spending that was supposed to have been earmarked for communities impacted by mining."There is a tremendous need for that money in rural counties, and that is where it was intended to go in the first place," Blackham said. "Sure, it's a real impact to yank $6 million out of a budget. But with prosperity of the state being what it is, we have a chance to replace it (with money from other sources)."
What rural lawmakers and higher education officials agree on is that the money is and always has been intended to benefit rural counties impacted by mining. Where the two sides part ways is over what "benefit" actually means to the impacted communities.
All of the haggling is over mineral-lease monies, which are paid by mining companies who operate on federal land. The federal government returns a portion of those payments to the states with the requirement they be spent to offset the social and economic impacts of mining. Last year, the federal government returned $30.2 million to Utah.
Of that total, the Legislature gave higher education $5,924,700. But, as the legislative audit noted, there is a real question whether spending the money on higher education fulfills the intent of the law that states the money is for the benefit of impacted counties.
Under the state's current formula, 88 percent of the $6 million goes to benefit students from Wasatch Front counties, which are not significantly impacted by mining activities.
State Higher Education Commissioner Cecelia H. Foxley addressed the legislative audit subcommittee about the mineral- leasing funds audit, telling lawmakers they are working for changes and ways to move funds around to "ease the transition."
Higher education might phase out some research projects "where they can't show a direct impact (to the affected counties), and they're close to completing the research," she said.
Several years ago, lawmakers feeling the pinch of tight budgets began the practice of diverting mineral-lease monies to higher education with the rationalization that rural counties benefit from research projects and outreach programs and from the fact that rural Utahns attend colleges throughout the state. But the legislative auditor general's report indicated that though the practice is not illegal, it probably violates the spirit of the law.
"When times were tough, the Legislature chose to use those funds to keep education viable," said Steve Snow, a member of the State Board of Regents and himself a rural Utahn. "With the brighter economic outlook, those funds should now be replaced with ongoing appropriations by the Legislature. The point they (rural lawmakers) are trying to make is very valid."
Education officials sympathize with the rural lawmakers, but they are also emphatic: If lawmakers choose to give the money back to rural Utah then lawmakers should replace the $6 million with other tax revenue. "That'll be the hard part," Blackham said.
Blackham would like to use the $6 million for rural economic development. "We lack a spirit of entrepreneurship in these rural communities," Blackham said. "We have to establish a way to get local people to see opportunities and step up with their resources and then go after it. And we need to have greater training in how to go about it."
There is also talk that rural Utah should have a revolving loan fund for start-up companies willing to locate there.
If lawmakers choose to let higher education continue to spend the mineral-lease monies, Blackham said, there are ways universities could provide direct benefits to impacted communities.