This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The Utah Senate fired the first round Friday in a tussle with the House over whether to raise the state's gasoline tax, and how.

Sen. Kevin Van Tassell, R-Vernal, proposed raising the gasoline tax by 10 cents a gallon. His SB160, introduced Friday, would also raise taxes on diesel fuel by 5 cents a gallon.

The state's current 24.5-cent-a-gallon tax has not been raised since 1997, and officials say it has lost 40 percent of its buying power since then to inflation.

Meanwhile, the House is trying to avoid directly raising the gas tax.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Johnny Anderson, R-Taylorsville, said Friday he soon will introduce a bill that would do away with charging a cents-per-gallon tax, and convert it to a percentage of the price of gasoline instead, similar to a sales tax.

The percentage initially would be set to produce the same revenue as the current tax.

House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper, has said revenue from that percentage tax would increase as gas prices rise — but still allow lawmakers to say they themselves did not increase taxes.

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, has said that could lead to a huge jump if gas prices start rising again. He also said such a percentage tax is too volatile, and revenues would rise and drop often with gas prices — making it difficult to budget for road projects. Van Tassell and Niederhauser say the Senate prefers to keep the stability of a cents-per-gallon tax and directly face the political challenge of raising it.

Van Tassell said he initially set the tax hike at 10 cents a gallon because "it's a lot easier to go down than up" as debates proceed.

Both House and Senate leaders said they have not discussed compromises much yet, and are still staking out initial positions.

Van Tassell said some in the Senate also are seeking to keep the current cents-per-gallon tax, but index it so that it would rise automatically with inflation. He said members are debating whether to do that — and whether to do it with a tax increase.

Anderson said his soon-to-come legislation also would allow cities, counties and transit agencies to ask voters to approve a sales-tax hike for their projects.

He said a quarter-cent hike per $1 purchase has been discussed, but a final figure has not yet been settled. He said cities, counties and transit agencies are still discussing how that should be split.

Meanwhile, lawmakers also have decided to reject a proposal by Gov. Gary Herbert to shift $94.2 million a year in transportation money to education.

"Our committee has taken the position that we need to maintain that $94.2 million [in transportation] unless the governor comes up with a proposal to replace it," Rep. Gage Froerer, R-Huntsville, co-chairman of a legislative budget committee, said Friday.

A gas-tax increase could make up that money. But supporters say that boost would be needed instead to cover a projected $11.3 billion long-term shortfall for high-priority projects in the state's 2040 unified transportation plan.

Van Tassell's bill, for example, requires money from his proposed gas-tax hike be used on road and bridge maintenance.

As revenue from sales tax rose in recent years, the state earmarked some of the increase every year for transportation projects.

"That fund was put in place for a purpose, which was to look to the future to build the roads. If we cut that off, five to 10 years from now we're going to be behind the curve," Froerer said. "That basically delays our transportation projects up to 10 years" eventually.

Herbert has said shifting the money to education would not delay any ongoing transportation projects.

But, in an earlier hearing, Froerer pushed Utah Department of Transportation officials to explain how they could lose that much money without it affecting projects.

Carlos Braceras, UDOT executive director, said the state received lower-than-expected bids for many projects in recent years and was able to set aside money for cost overruns or other problems.

The resulting fund balances, he said, would allow the transfer of money to education funds without delaying the transportation projects scheduled during the next four years.

He conceded under Froerer's questioning that after four years, the loss of money would slow projects.

"With less money," Braceras acknowledged, "we will do fewer projects."