Utah House Rejects Substitute Bonding Plan, Debates Capitol Restoration and Rainy Day Fund

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives on May 22 debated whether to borrow now to pay for capital projects or to draw down the state's rainy day fund, ultimately rejecting a floor substitute that would have expanded bonding and preserved reserve cash.

Lawmakers debated House Bill 4,001 and a proposed "first substitute" that Representative Becker described as a way to "bond for the full amount of buildings" the state had committed to while keeping "$70,000,000 in the rainy day fund" for the next fiscal year. Becker told colleagues that the "purpose of the rainy day fund is to deal with deficit situations" and argued that bonding now could spur the economy while leaving the reserve for a projected shortfall.

Opponents said borrowing to keep reserves made little sense if cash was available. "The problem is we're going to borrow money so that we can have money in our savings account," Representative Alexander said, arguing that borrowing would increase long‑term costs through interest payments. Several members also warned about enlarging the state's debt burden and urged using existing funds instead of issuing new bonds.

The floor exchanges ranged from technical explanations of fiscal‑note line items to sharp policy contrasts over education funding and construction priorities. Representative McDair noted how part of the Olympic revenue had been used for capital work and described the bonding plan for that piece as a six‑year bond with "a rate between 3.2 and 3.5 percent." Members referenced transfers of ‘‘$25,000,000’’ from Centennial Highway allocations and described a residual rainy day requirement of roughly ‘‘$7,600,000’’ under the substitute's structure.

The House voted on the motion to delete and substitute the bill; the Chair announced, "So motion fails. Motion fails." After that defeat, the Senate transmitted its own substituted first substitute Senate Bill 4,001 (bonding for capital projects by Senator Evans) for the House to consider.

While considering the Senate bill, Representative Johnson offered an amendment that would adjust multiple line items and strike a parking structure line item (identified in debate as an $8,000,000 project). Supporters of keeping the parking structure said stopping construction midstream would raise later costs and complicate work already underway; supporters of the amendment said the current fiscal situation demanded economizing and delaying nonessential elements.

Members ultimately moved to consider the first substitute Senate bill "under suspension of the rules" and to place it at the top of the third‑reading calendar. The House called the previous question on the amendment and proceeded by voice vote; a prolonged sequence of "Aye" and "No" responses followed. The House Clerk then opened voting on the first substitute Senate bill 4,001 "as amended," after which the body recessed for a 10‑minute break with voting still open.

The session also recorded a supplemental proclamation read by Lieutenant Governor Olin S. Walker adding an item to the special session agenda: "to consider whether and to what extent an electric utility may look to its rate base to cover the cost of new industrial electrical infrastructure intended for a particular industrial customer." The proclamation is dated May 22, 2002 and signed by Governor Michael O. Leavitt.

What happened next: voting on the amended Senate bonding bill remained open when the House recessed; the outcome of that roll call and any final enrolled text will determine whether the Capitol restoration plan and associated line items (including the parking structure) proceed under bond financing or are altered further.