Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects amended 1996 bond bill after marathon floor fight
Summary
After hours of debate and multiple substitute amendments over which local projects to include, the Utah House on Feb. 27, 1996 rejected House Bill 410 — a corrections-focused bond package — on a final vote of 24–46. Lawmakers sparred over fairness to rural districts, tax‑exempt bond eligibility, and whether to add projects such as domestic violence shelters.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives rejected House Bill 410, a largely corrections-oriented bond package, on Feb. 27 after a daylong floor fight over which projects to include and how to structure the debt. The clerk announced the final tally as 24 yes and 46 no, causing the bill to fail.
Sponsor Representative Beverly Evans had presented HB410 as a package that would fund a 192‑bed corrections facility in Gunnison ($13,000,009.70), a 44‑bed women’s facility at Draper ($8,680,000) and design funds for a 200‑bed forensic unit at the State Hospital in Provo, among other capital projects. Evans and backers argued the amendment she offered restored “balance” by including projects from across the state that had been omitted in the executive appropriations version of the bill.
The bill’s critics said the amendment amounted to a ‘Christmas‑tree’ approach that added projects to secure votes and would increase costs to taxpayers. Representative Waters called the argument to expand the bill “preposterous,” saying the move appeared designed to broaden support rather than reflect prioritized need.
A first attempt to adopt Evans’s broader amendment produced a 38–36 tally but failed to meet the two‑thirds constitutional threshold required for certain motions near the end of session. Floor counsel then flagged a technical fiscal problem: one newly added project (domestic violence shelters) might not qualify as a tax‑exempt recipient, which could jeopardize the bond package’s tax‑exempt status and raise borrowing costs for the whole issue. Members delayed action while substitute language was prepared.
Later in the day the House adopted a substitute amendment that narrowed changes and adjusted the bond float amount (announced 42 yes, 29 no). Even after that revision, the full bill failed on third reading when members recorded 24 votes in favor and 46 opposed.
Supporters urged lawmakers to weigh rising construction costs and the difficulty of delaying needed facilities. Representative Greg Olsen, speaking in favor of targeted additions, said the committee “works long and hard” to identify worthy projects and that postponing them would drive up costs. Opponents, including Representative Allen, urged fiscal restraint and said taxpayers should not be saddled with more debt.
The House’s failure to pass HB410 leaves the executive appropriations committee’s earlier bond priorities in place for now; sponsors said they would continue discussions about alternative funding or revised proposals. The House did not adopt the larger package as the session entered the final days.
What’s next: the sponsor and supporters indicated they would consider circling and reworking the bill or preparing substitute language for a future floor action, but no new final date was set on the floor record.
