Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Reserve topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects bill to create federal-funds reserve account after debate on lockbox and program restrictions
Summary
Senate consideration of SB160, which would have created a Federal Funds Budget Reserve (a ‘third rainy day’ fund funded by 11% of general-fund surpluses up to 8% of total federal funds), ended in defeat after senators questioned ceilings, whether program-dedicated federal dollars could be held, and effects on current services.
Senate debate on SB160 focused on whether Utah should create a third rainy-day account specifically for federal funds and how that account would interact with program-specific federal dollars.
Senator Harper, the bill sponsor, said the measure "creates a third rainy day account at Federal Funds Budget Reserve account," specifying revenue sources and triggers for withdrawals when federal funds decline by 5 percent. Harper explained the mechanism would transfer 11 percent of general-fund surpluses into the account until it reached an amount equal to 8 percent of total federal funds received by the state.
Other senators pressed on practical limits and consequences. One senator asked whether the proposal would ‘‘rob the general fund’’ in prosperous years and whether it would limit spending on current programs. Senators also questioned whether time-limited or earmarked federal grants could legally be held in the reserve without federal penalties. The sponsor acknowledged many federal funds are program-specific and said the bill would not draw on funds that are legally restricted.
Senators also sought an estimate of the ceiling the 8 percent cap would represent; a floor exchange produced an illustrative computation (8 percent of an example $6.6 billion figure yields roughly $480 million). Another senator raised whether reserve money might be used as a state match to draw down federal funds; the sponsor said intent could include bridging program shortfalls but that the bill did not explicitly call out use as state-match money.
On roll call, the clerk reported SB160 failed, having received 14 yea votes, 10 nay votes, and 5 absent. The measure therefore did not advance to third reading.
