Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House circles House Bill 147 after debate over 10% surplus allocation to water revolving funds
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 147, which would appropriate 10% of an annual surplus (after rainy‑day requirements) into a restricted water/wastewater revolving account with a $10 million cap to loan funds to municipalities; sponsors agreed to circle the bill to clarify statutory language about coordination with the rainy‑day fund.
House Bill 147, presented Feb. 17 in the Utah House, proposes a new mechanism to channel part of any state general‑fund surplus into four revolving funds for water and wastewater projects.
Sponsor Representative Olsen explained that federal changes have constrained the state's ability to issue bonds for water infrastructure. HB147 would direct 10% of any surplus (after satisfying rainy‑day fund transfers) into a restricted account capped at $10,000,000; funds from that account could be appropriated to four named revolving funds that loan to cities, towns and counties for culinary water, wastewater and related construction projects. The sponsor said the money remains in revolving accounts and is paid back with interest.
Several members pressed the sponsor on safeguards and priorities. Lawmakers voiced concern that the fund should prioritize smaller and rural communities rather than be competed away by better‑resourced urban systems. Representative Olsen said boards that oversee the revolving funds will evaluate needs, ability to pay and distribute funds statewide, and read a list of municipalities (Moroni, Enoch, Springdale, Snyderville, Snowville, Jordanelle, St. George, Mapleton) to illustrate distribution across counties.
Members also questioned the mechanical interaction between HB147 and the statutory rainy‑day reserve (cited as section 63‑38‑2.5 during floor discussion). Representatives asked whether the 10% is of the surplus remaining after rainy‑day transfers, and sought language to reference the 'balance of any untransferred amount' more precisely. The sponsor acknowledged ambiguity and the House voted to circle the bill so staff could prepare clarifying language.
Supporters argued the mechanism creates an ongoing source of low‑cost loans for critical infrastructure in communities that cannot easily bond. Detractors warned that earmarking a fixed percentage of future surpluses could lock funds away from other one‑time priorities and reduce legislative flexibility.
Next steps: the bill was circled for technical edits to its statutory language about coordination with the rainy‑day fund. Lawmakers will consider a revised draft before returning it to the floor.
