Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects measure to move state lease-revenue bond authority to State Bonding Commission
Summary
First substitute Senate Bill 101 would have given the State Bonding Commission authority to issue lease-revenue bonds now issued by the State Building Board. Representative Snow argued centralization protects bond ratings; opponents warned of concentrating power. The House defeated the measure and returned it to the Senate (19 yes, 53 no).
On Feb. 10, 2000, the Utah House debated first substitute Senate Bill 101, a measure to transfer authority to issue certain lease-revenue bonds from the State Building Board to the State Bonding Commission. Representative Snow, sponsor of the House consideration, told members centralizing bond sales with the State Bonding Commission would protect the state's bond ratings and consolidate expertise.
"All of the other bonds . . . are all centralized with what's known as the State Bonding Commission," Representative Snow said while explaining the change. "It only makes good sense to me that maybe that centralization occurs so that our bond ratings can be protected."
Members raised concerns about removing the State Building Board's role and concentrating bond authority in a smaller commission. Representative Short described it as "kinda like the fox watching the henhouse" and urged caution. Representative Sidaway moved a technical amendment to correct language on line 77 (deleting an extra "a" and the word "to"); the amendment passed and the bill was then debated further.
Questions focused on whether the change would diminish legislative oversight through the Capital Facilities Committee, whether the building board concurred with the change, and whether the proposal would allow agencies to bypass the building board or the legislature. Representative Snow and other proponents said the proposal was administrative in nature and did not remove the State Building Board's role in prioritization or the legislature's oversight on bond issuance decisions.
After debate and amendment, the House voted to reject the first substitute; the clerk announced the bill would be returned to the Senate with a tally of 19 yes and 53 no.
Representative Snow and others said the proposal aimed to preserve the state's AAA ratings on lease-revenue bonds by placing bond sales with the commission that regularly handles such transactions. Opponents worried about oversight and the appearance of concentrated authority; the House's vote left the measure to be reconsidered in the Senate or further revised by sponsors.
