Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the House Bill 105 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House Approves Bill Reshaping State Building Contingency Funds, Boosting Maintenance Set‑asides
Summary
The Utah House on Feb. 19, 1993, passed House Bill 105 to split state building contingency reserves, set sliding‑scale contingency percentages, and increase funding for structural maintenance; the measure passed 52–16 after debate over administrative controls and borrowing costs.
The Utah House voted 52–16 on Feb. 19, 1993, to pass House Bill 105, a measure that restructures how the state manages contingency funds for capital building projects and directs more money toward structural maintenance of existing state facilities.
Proponents said the bill divides the current contingency pool into two separate accounts by source, establishes a sliding scale for contingency percentages tied to project size and complexity, and requires a larger allocation to capital improvements before new construction moves forward. The bill also mandates an annual transfer of $100,000 from contingency funds to the Division of Facilities, Construction and Management (DFCM) operating budget to cover change orders.
Supporters noted the change was modest compared with recent spending: the presenter said the state put about $18,000,000 into capital improvements the prior year and that the bill would increase that to roughly $22,000,000 under an initial 0.78 formula and approach about $29,000,000 under a later 1.0 calculation. "This bill separates those two funds" and prioritizes repairs such as new roofs and structural fixes before new construction, the sponsor told the chamber.
Opponents warned the sliding scale for contingency percentages could be manipulated by agencies, increasing borrowing and interest costs. Representative Short argued the scale (as discussed on the floor ranging from 4.5% to 6.5% for new construction and 6% to 9.5% for remodeling) did not specify how administrators would apply the scale and said he could not support the bill as written: "I'll have to vote against this bill at the moment because it's got some problems that I say that the legislature should control." (Representative Short)
Supporters replied that the bill includes statutory limits and annual legislative review: Representative Hunsaker pointed lawmakers to language requiring the legislature to "annually review the percentage and the amount held in the statewide contingency reserve" and to reappropriate excesses as appropriate. The sponsor and backers said projects must still be approved through the capital facilities committee and the bond bill, giving the legislature opportunity to reduce percentages or withdraw funds if necessary.
The House adopted floor amendments offered earlier in debate, including a one‑year delay in implementation to allow fiscal analysis and technical fixes (pink-sheet amendments moved by Representative Hunsaker) and an amendment inserting "Applied Technology Centers" in a related provision to preserve leasing/operational flexibility for those centers. The Johnson amendment to add Applied Technology Centers was adopted by voice vote.
The bill passed the House and will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
Details recorded on the floor: contingency sliding-scale ranges were discussed as 4.5%–6.5% (new construction) and 6%–9.5% (remodeling); sponsors cited prior audit work and fiscal-analyst input in crafting the measure. The bill also contemplates a $100,000 annual transfer from contingency to DFCM for change orders and includes delegation language allowing the State Building Board/DFCM to adopt rules allocating capital improvement funding to institutions, with reserves for emergencies.
The House debate centered on balancing stronger maintenance funding and administrative discretion with legislative oversight and borrowing costs. The chamber closed voting and certified the bill's passage 52 affirmative to 16 negative; the measure will move to the Senate.
