Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes capital facilities bonding package after swapping House language into bill
Summary
The Utah Senate approved a capital facilities bonding package on third reading, adopting House substitute language and sending the combined bill back to the House for further action. Lawmakers debated project lists and funding allocations, including roads and water projects, before final votes.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah State Senate voted to approve a capital facilities bonding package on third reading on March 1, 1994, sending the measure to the House after substituting House language into the Senate bill.
Senator Steven J. Reese, who introduced the bonding bill, walked senators through the measure’s project list and sums, including allocations for roads, interchanges and studies. He said the bill included funding lines such as a roughly $10.25 million road allocation that would support match programs and specific projects including the Bangerter Highway work and Provo South interchange improvements. After debate and roll-call votes across several stages of substitution and amendment, the Senate recorded that the bill passed on third reading with a recorded vote of 23 ayes, 5 nays and 1 absence.
“Everyone should have it in their books,” Reese said as he guided senators to the bill’s project list and urged members to raise technical questions now so the measure could move forward to the House. Senators asked for clarifications on totals and whether the bill exceeded earlier target parameters; Reese said the committee had trimmed and arrived at a recommendation of roughly $93 million in total project authority when roads and other listed items were included.
Senators also moved to replace the Senate version with the House substitute (House Bill 442) and directed staff to prepare a second substitute to send to the House. The motion to adopt House language into Senate Bill 312 carried, and a subsequent roll-call recorded the combined bill’s passage and transmission back to the House for further action.
Supporters said the package was necessary to move critical capital work forward and to provide an official Senate position to bring into conference with House negotiators. Opponents raised procedural concerns about making multiple late changes and urged caution before committing future-year revenues.
The Senate’s action means the bonding language will now be reconciled with the House version; leadership said they anticipated assigning a conference committee to work out differences once both bodies' texts were formally exchanged.
Outcome and next steps: The measure was passed by the Senate and sent to the House. Senate leaders said they expected conference committee work to follow once the House’s final text was available.
