Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Loan Restructuring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House substitutes and extends $25 million disaster loan for Washington County, adopts first substitute to change repayment terms
Summary
The House adopted a first substitute to House Bill 87 to extend repayment terms and seek relief on interest for a $25 million disaster loan tied to January 2005 floods in Washington County. The substitute passed and the first substitute bill passed the House by recorded vote 71-0.
The Utah House on the floor adopted a first substitute to House Bill 87, extending and restructuring a $25 million promissory note used to help communities recover from January 2005 floods in Washington County. Sponsor Representative David Clark described widespread damage, community fundraising and federal involvement, and asked the House for a one-year extension of the note due date and to reduce the interest rate from 2 percent toward 0 percent.
Clark recounted the scale of local response: more than 6,000 volunteers, community-raised donations he estimated at roughly $3,000,000, and infrastructure repair work that federal and state partners were still reconciling. He told the House the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) had a roughly $66 million allocation for channel repair and that FEMA had contributed approximately $6 million to $7 million to date, adding that federal reimbursements and reconciliation were still pending.
Representative Wyeth (who introduced the substitute) argued the substitute would move the policy language into statute to guide future disaster responses and extend the repayment term for the loan—an action some members said would help communities unable to repay within the original 12 months. Members asked whether prior emergency assistance had been grants or loans in past events; the sponsor said historical responses included grants in some past flood recoveries, but today's proposal operates as a loan and its forgiveness remains a subject for future debate.
Concerns raised on the floor included the state's stewardship of public funds, whether local governments had bonded for repayment, and the timing of federal reconciliation. Representative Mascaro and Representative Hardy both voiced support for restructuring the promissory note but emphasized the expectation that public money should be repaid where appropriate.
The House adopted the substitute by voice and then passed the first substitute House Bill 87 by recorded vote, 71-0. The bill will be referred to the Senate for further consideration.
The House resumed other business after the vote; announcements and adjournment followed.
