H.B. 545 Budgetary Modifications: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So each year we like to run a bill, which strengthens our fiscal practices and improves transparency. The bill before you is, uh, this year's, um, revisions. So first of all, there's some changes that are technical in nature and bring us in line with GASB requirements. For example, we were changing the name of two funds to make them more accurate and clarify the use of dedicated credits across different fund types. This bill also, um, deletes five, um, obsolete accounts, and there is some funds in those, but we are making sure that the divisions still get those funds. There's been a lot of concern that we're gonna sweep those accounts, and we're just putting those funds into different accounts. It also, uh, further improves direct award grant oversight by prohibiting the use of grant funds for administrative costs unless we approve that. And then, uh, this bill also strengthens the oversight of the industrial assistance account by setting aside funds for the account. Uh, we will have to do that manually instead of automatically, which has been the way it's been in the past. And it also makes it, uh, subject to recommendations of the GO EO board. So the division director just can't approve those, uh, on their signature. This, uh, bill also creates a revolving loan fund to reallocate money that we've appropriated to DNR, um, for Operation Gigawatt so that DNR can loan the money for energy projects. So, as you know, there's some projects that we have, um, camp Williams would be an example, um, where, uh, we want to do a industrial manufacturing facility. And, uh, this allows that to create a revolving loan fund. This, uh, bill also reaffirms the state auditor's responsibilities and the Constitution. It also, uh, deletes a line which says that, uh, um, determination of reasonable and necessary expenses of the state auditor's office. This is reaffirming the legislature's responsibility for appropriations and the budgeting process that we have been given constitutionally. And then finally, the first substitute includes a coordinating clause between House Bill 4 73, and that's what the bill does, Mr. Chair. And that's my presentation.

On, uh, looking at the first sub, uh, line 5 55, you just spoke to this, that typically, especially in the academic, uh, world, you take the admin costs out of a, out of a grant. But you're saying we're not going to allow that. Is is that a significant change in policy, or is this just a clarification? 'cause I thought usually the admin costs come out of those.

So it's a clarification. Uh, typically, um, everybody wants to take their admin costs out of these grants. Uh, in this case, uh, we've been trying to get away from that, that the funds that we're allocating would go directly to the projects that they're requesting 'em for.

So, and this would be across the board all state agencies business

Well, for the grant processes that we're, that we're responsible for at this point.

Thank you. And then on, um, So in, in other words, they can still have administrative costs, but they have to specifically ask for them and we have to specifically grant those and if They forget to include the admin costs in the grant request, then they can't spend it on advent costs?

That's correct. Okay.

And online, uh, 6 26, you, you were, and you I think spoke to this. I don't, could you explain again, the, uh, the dedicated credits revenue? I don't quite understand, um, this, this section, uh, where it says, an agency can expend a hundred percent of the excess. Can you just talk about that when there's excess and dedicated credits versus, uh, versus non-dedicated credits, I guess?

Well, typically on dedicated credits, we have to allocate that back through the budgeting process, right? And so, like tuition, for example, at the institution, we actually, um, they take that in as dedicated credits and we actually allocate that back through. The appropriations process

Has to come in first and then be reallocate out. That's

Correct. And

so this is across what, what this is saying is, uh, when he says excess of the amount, uh, what, what is that? So the excess of the amount that we've appropriated back?

Correct. So the educated dedicated credit revenue represents over 90% of the budget of the line item, which the dedicated credit was collected. So, um, um, so they can, they can expend a hundred percent of the, of the amount appropriated if it meets these criteria.

And, and Yeah, I I, I just can't picture it, but I, I trust your judgment. I just don't quite understand. Doesn't mean if, if the credits are only 90% of the allocated amount, Then they can't expend a hundred percent.

If they haven't collected it, they can't. Even though we might have allocated, if they haven't collected it, they can't. Okay. That Expend it. Alright. That,

that, does that make sense? That makes sense. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Yep. So is it a question of cash flow then?

Well, we don't want anybody spending more than what we've Right. Okay. Budgeted. And so, right. If they don't, haven't collected the revenue, they, we don't want 'em deficit spending. Right. Does that make sense?

That makes sense, yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, and, and I apologize, I can't ask about line number because my laptop chose right now to, to add a bunch of updates, so I now have a black screen of death, but looking at my little tiny cell phone that I can almost read stupid thing. Uh, okay, thanks. It says, uh, in the description, and, and you mentioned it in your presentation about the energy development infrastructure fund to make loans to public entities finance infrastructure development. Correct. You mentioned in your presentation operation gigawatt here in the description it mentions specifically nuclear power generation. Um, which, and any notion about which public entities and which nuclear power generation or in general, and are there other energy related projects in this particular,

Um, obviously Operation Gigawatt ideas mainly focused on nuclear energy. Correct. And so, um, I know one of the main projects that they're looking at is the project at Camp Williams, um, that, uh, manufacturing, uh, production plant for uranium. That's, that's, uh, one of the ones that they're specifically targeted.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we go back to the dedicated, uh, credits question? Can you explain, um, more so around allowing agencies to spend excess fee revenue without additional legislative approval in certain cases? Can you, can you just explain that? I'm just trying to wrap my head around that.

Um, so my understanding of that is if they have collected additional fee revenue above the a hundred percent, then we're saying that they can expend those resources before we've actually allocated it.

Is there a reason why we would allow them to do that?

Um, so in cases of instances, they've, um, got money that they, uh, have collected for different services so that they can continue those services.

Okay. Um, I, I have another question around the, the energy development infrastructure fund. Okay. If one of these projects fail, who eats the loss? Is it the company or taxpayers?

Well, obviously if we're structuring a loan, a loan account, we would have to make sure that, uh, the resources are, uh, protected, right? And so that's been one of the, the big things in discussion is making sure that those are properly vetted and that at the end of the day, um, uh, any assets would belong to us. So I guess there's always some risk when you start loaning money, but we wanna make sure that those assets belong to us at the end of the day.

Okay. Another section I had a question was around the county rollback taxes. Um, I, I guess by taking counties unspent money after 10 years, are we pushing them to spend fast instead of wisely? Like, I guess, can you, can you just talk through that piece and

Which lines that?

3 33. 3 33? It's in the original.

Oh, that might be in the original. Let's see what I Was gonna say. I don't, it's in the original, but I don't think that's in the substitute.

Okay. I apologize. Maybe I was looking at, I, I read the original last night, so I'm just getting updated. Maybe I have one more question. Can, can you just talk through just the, the auditor's authority and, and just address some of those concerns? I, I just want to understand kind of what, what's being changed here in the bill.

Uh, the basic thing that we're changing is the making sure that we're responsible for the auditor's budget. So, um, just as we do with every other constitutional officer, we're responsible for the auditor's budget. I mean, for the constitutional officers. We're making sure that we're also the one that's responsible for the auditor's budget as well.

Would there be any case where it would make sense to have the auditor independent and separate?

Well, that's what the auditor's gonna come up and say to you here in a minute. That, uh, this threatens, uh, her Independence. Uh, I guess in, in my mind, it doesn't threaten the, the auditor's Independence. I mean, we do the courts, we do other individuals and entities that have independent authority, but the purse strings belong to the legislature. And that is very clear in our, um, constitutional authorities.

Okay. Thank you. Thank,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I've, I've got a a couple of questions that can, can you explain, uh, explain the physical note, because it doesn't to me seem to add up to what the actual money is. Line line 41 appropriates 5 million, and then line 43 appropriates 5 million. So there's 10, but the physical note, I, I think I remember it as being somewhere around one and a half. And I think one and a half is reflected in the 27.

The 1.6, is that what you're referring to? No,

No. The physical note on the bill.

Right. If you look at the fiscal note in fiscal year 27, it costs 1.6. So you have the, the 5 million that you're talking about. So we, we have some balances. Obviously, the Colorado River Authority restricted account has a balance of 5,258,000. And so, um, you see that in the FY 2026 on the fiscal note. And then you see, uh, the general fund one time of the 5.7. And, uh, so the total revenues are 5 million. Um, so it, it balances out to what you're saying.

Okay. Yeah, I, I guess I don't connect that. But, uh, so on, on line 62 is the first reference I see to converting it from a fund to an account. And, uh, and so I just, I just did some search. And, and a fund is specific to how the legislature allocates the money. The account is kind of a, a bulk account that, that the committee could choose from. Why, why, what, what's the reason to change it from a fund to an account?

You talking about Colorado River Fund?

N No. All, all through the whole document. It changes from, from referring to a fund to referring to an account. The first would be on line 1 62. That's the first place where I see the reference.

So I think this is, um, uh, this is cleanup language so that it's consistent across, uh, the code. So it's, we've, we've already got account listed in other places in the code. We're trying to bring consistency to the code.

Yeah. I, So this is just cleanup language. I, I see that. But the, the fundamental difference is when it's, when it's a fund, it's specified exactly how that money would be spent. And if we move it from that fund to an account, it seems like it, it, and, and as I read through the document, then it, it falls under a, uh, a board, which the, uh, the Lee Ray McAllister fund basically creates a board that is not under legis. I, I don't think it's under legislative oversight, but

Well, the Lee Ray McAllister fund is, um, under legislative oversight, and we do allocate money to that.

Yes. But then once the money's in there, I don't think the legislature at that point, from what I read in the bill, it doesn't look like the legislature at that point, um, can determine how those funds are spent.

And that's correct. Yeah. Oh, okay.

So that's, that's my concern. Um, line two 19. Well, let's see. I think that's, that's one we talked about. So, so then does the Lee Ray McAllister, once they get these funds, do they now become the bonding institution and the granting institution rather than the legislature?

So the Leray McAllister fund is a conservation easement fund. And so it's, um, created to purchase, um, lands or things that, uh, the state wants to use for open conservation. So for example, a, a wetland or something like that. So it's very specific what those funds can be used for.

Would you just look, look at line 2 27 and just maybe walk me through that, would you?

2, 2, 7. See, the board shall give priority to working agricultural land. And obviously this is all existing code. The only thing it's all we're doing is cleaning up that language between fund and account, right? So I'm not, we are not in here changing the nature of what the board can do that's already existing. Does that make sense? Representative?

Uh, sorry. And I don't mean to get caught. I'm just trying to really understand it because it, it, it seems strange to me that we're, that we have this Leray McAllister fund that now becomes the, the agency that determines where money is spent.

That's taxpayer money That we've allocated like we do for every department

Agency in the right. But, but generally, when we allocate, we say this is the specific purpose for it, but this doesn't give it a specific purpose. This leaves it up to board.

So the purpose says, the board and I is, after giving priority to working with agricultural land requests from the Department of Natural Resources for up to 20% of each annual increase in the amount of the money in the account, if the money is used for the protection of wildlife or watershed. So this is specifically for conservation easements in wildlife or watersheds. And so DNR is who we have given the authority to make sure that they are managing our, um, natural resources. So,

And I guess I'm back to the same thing as Right, not DNR, it's the leader in McAllister now.

Well, the board is made up of different individuals who have to follow this specific language that we find within the bill. And, and we're not changing that language. All we're doing is switching from fund to account.

Okay. Um, and, uh, as Representative Fiefia brought up line 3 33, I know you're not changing that. Um, but, but I would recommend a change. 'cause 'cause what this does is, uh, is it takes the rollback taxes from the counties with the, uh, you know, the, the counties who have the most rural areas are generally the ones with the highest rollback taxes. And, and the county auditor or assessor has to collect those rollback taxes. And then if the county decides here's what we want to do with them, if they can't reallocate them within 10 years, then that money gets swept out of the county's account and moved up to the Leray McAllister. I, I have a very fundamental problem with that. Um, and, you know, maybe, maybe we can work on a sub with that. I, I don't know. I just, it,

It doesn't seem right, as you noted, and as you noted that we're not changing that language. That's existing language.

I, I see that. But, uh, but it's still a problem. It's, it's, you know, why, why are we having the rural counties collect the tax? And if they want to, to plan out how they want to use that money, and then looking down in the future, um, they've got 10 years to execute some project, and if they don't do it, then the Lee Ray McAllister and I, and I looked at which projects that Lee Ray McAllister fund has, has funded, and none of them have been in central Utah. None of them primarily are down in the south area at all. They're, they're pretty much in the northern part of the state. So it's, it's taking where, where, and, you know, I mean, I, I don't plead poverty, but I'm, I'm saying that we don't have the economic strength that you have in the northern part of the state, and it's sweeping that any, anyway. So I, I have fundamental problems with that. I, I have a whole list of questions, but I guess I'll be done. Thank you.

Good morning. Good Morning. Good morning. Members of the committee, um, as the representative is illustrated as, um, commented on, we strenuously disagree on the impacts of line 9 33 to 9 37 of this bill. It is a tagline in my emails and has been since I've been involved in government Federalist Paper 51. It was written by James Madison, and it talks about the separation of powers. And it states that the great difficulty in forming a government that is men over men is first you must enable the government to control the governed. And in this next place, oblige it to control itself. In designing our, our federal system and also our state system, our founders kept that structure in statute as well as in the constitution. They designed a structure to protect the Independence of each branch. The job of the independent state auditor is to seek out and find waste, fraud and abuse, and then to certify the honesty and integrity of the financial affairs of the state of governments across the state of Utah. As we have seen in the last year, this can and does create conflict. This is the same situation that existed in 1943 when this statute was created in this particular format. At that point in time, there was an outcry from the executive branch for the auditor to, um, using this, their, their job to point out and to find problems in the financial affairs across the state. The legislature came together and unanimously passed this statute that protects both the legislature and the auditor's office. The wording is, thus, the state auditor is not limited in the selection of personnel or in the determination of the reasonable and necessary expenses of the state auditor's office. I do not see this as a change. Um, that is not without impact. I see it as a culmination of the pressure I have faced over the last three months and the phone calls I received for the state auditor to not follow national governmental accounting standards.

Me, let me just summarize with this. Regardless of the vote today, I will assure the public that regardless of what happens, the state auditor will continue to follow national governmental accounting standards, regardless of the pressure placed and the form that pressure comes in.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, auditor, I'm looking at this, this line that you referred to 9 33 to 37. And I'm also mindful of the sponsor's, uh, comment that we're, his, the effort is to bring the normal constitutional role to bear that the legislature appropriate funds. So when I read the old language, the existing language dating from the forties, the state auditor's not limited in the selection of personnel that's maintained with the, with the amendment. But then it says, or maybe you can speak to that if that's not correct. And then, but the way I read it, it is, and then it says, the part that's really changing is the deletion of or in the determination of the reasonable and necessary expenses. Normally, an agency does not determine its own reasonable and necessary expenses. And I'm trying to understand, does that, how does this curtail your spending authority? If you get the same amount of dollars this year as you got last year, where does your discretion change If, um, if this language gets changed in this bill? Sorry, if it remains as the, the, uh, sponsor wants to change it, how does your, how does that affect your discretion if you,

Well, that's the interesting part to me is in the 83 years that this statute has existed to protect the Independence of the auditor, the auditor has never had to implement this. They have, they never has the auditor gone over their, their budget as allocated. This is an emergency valve that allows the auditor to use it in the reasonable and necessary expenses when they occur. And then you can go to the public that we both represent to explain why that reasonable and necessary expense is there. The auditor is different than the other constitutional officers in their, in their role is oversight of all of the other branches. I'm independent of every branch of government for that very reason. And I would argue that the wording is not limited in the selection of personnel is very specific for a reason. When you are selecting personnel, you select them based on their expertise. And in audit, there are many different types of audit and different types of expertise that come into play. As the state's, finances have increased in complexity. The type of personnel and the cost of that personnel also increases. And that's why it's not limited in the selection, because there are special circumstances where certain expertise is needed.

Well, if I could follow up, please.

Particular case? No, not in the normal course of business. This statute, in reading the history behind it, is designed to be a safety and a protection so that the auditor cannot be limited and is allowed that reasonable and necessary expenses in situations where conflict arises with the other parts of government who may control that it protects the Independence of the auditor, but it also protects the legislature in their statutory and constitutional authority to set the bus budget by, by the phrase, reasonable and necessary. And that's why the statute has survived 83 years. The only change that we can find in the history was in 2008. And it is interesting to note 2008, because it was part of the great recession when budgets were tight at the, and the only change made then was in changing it from his office to their office.

It has never happened. And I, I pray that it never has to happen.

It allows, if I may just expand, it allows that protection so that there cannot be threats and intimidation used in the budgeting for the state auditor. Thank

I, I think our good state auditor answered my first question, which was gonna be do you believe the state all, for all of our agencies and constitutional offices, the legislature is obligated to set a budget? Correct. Uh, it f from your first answer, I gather you believe the state auditor should be different in, in, in our approach than other state constitutional offices. Is that

No, I'm saying that you, you have, and you do continue to set the state auditor's budget, and we have never exceeded that. What this wording allows is that safety valve, if there is a problem and a conflict. And I, as I said before, I pray that conflict never exists, but this is a protection of the Independence of the auditor. There's been much discussion with the sponsor over the difference between internal audit and external audit. We are not internal auditors. We are external auditors. And in every case of an independent external auditor, they determine the reasonable costs of that audit.

Could, could you go over how this emergency valve would work in, in practice? Because in practice agencies can't withdraw more than, than they've been allocated. How would this logistically work if you were to hit this emergency valve someday?

I do believe that we would be announcing it because I am independently elected constitutionally statewide. And that means that I answer to the public statewide. And if there is conflict, I have to go to the public that I represent. And this allows me to go forward and explain to the public and to the legislature at the same time why it is reasonable and necessary to incur an additional cost. It's never had to happen. I pray that it never does, but this allows the auditor to not be threatened or intimidated in the, in the changing of the statute and the limitation of a budget. It's one of the key ways that an auditor can be influenced and intimidated is by the setting of a budget.

Thanks. It's very helpful to understand your thinking there.

Thank you, chair. One quick question, if I may. Yep. So just try and understand what I'm hearing, um, in the history of the auditor's existence here in Utah, you've existed within the budget, you've been fine with the budget, um, that that's completely different, not fine with the budget, you've made it work. You guys, the auditor It work, the Auditor's office has always Made it work. We've made it work, But I imagine, and there's, there've been this fund out there, this relief valve, right? Mm-hmm. But the auditor's office has always made it work within the budget, but I imagine there's been friction points at time. Mm-hmm. There's been Yeah. Conflict within the auditor's office and the other agencies as mm-hmm. You reach out and you do stuff. And so, I mean, that's part of the job, right? Is you reach out and you're reviewing these different agencies. There's been conflict, but we've made it work within the existing budget. We've never used that relief valve because we've always made it work, even with the existence of tension and conflict, and mm-hmm. That's what we do. We make it work tight years, you know, surplus years, whatever, we make it work. Mm-hmm. So is that what I'm understanding? Is that a correct? Yes. And so my question would be why the change now? What's different in the last 83 years or the last 25 state auditors to this one? Well, that was my question. That's the purpose of the bill, right? So thank you.

Good morning. I'm gonna read this to try to stay within the minute and a half. Um, okay. My name is Brett Stewart, president of Utah, OHV Advocates. About eight to 10 years ago, the off highway vehicle program received very little funding from the restricted account to maintain and protect access. We reached out to Representative Noel and Senator Vickers with an idea, and they ran HB 1 43 and was successful at getting it passed. Now, the OHB restricted account has done very well. We've been able to fund many categories, including search and rescue, access protection, trail trail maintenance, and staff. We found a lot of the rural counties and nonprofits struggled with coming up with cash match. So in 2025, Representative Chew and Senator Darren Owens ran HB 4 39. It made it so that the rural counties and nonprofits can receive a hundred percent upfront funding in quarterly increments or larger if they qualify. What HB 5 45 will do is completely demolish what we've accomplished over the years by calling it a reimbursement grant. The purpose of the OHB grant is we don't have the upfront cash, so we depend on the grant to better our trail systems and program and fund what's needed related to off highway vehicles. We are a hundred percent user funded through the restricted account, no general fund dollars and are, and none are needed. And we believe we have one of the greatest programs in the state. With that, I ask the sponsor if he would consider amending this bill and consider line 4 49 through 4 76 and scratching the proposed lines 4 96 through 5 29. If not, we would completely oppose HB 5 45. Thank you committee.

My name's BJ Griffin, and I'm coming as a Davis County rep, uh, citizen at this time. I love the idea of the pressure valve and the use of the word pressure valve regarding the auditor's statute that is being affected in line, uh, 9 33. But I see it more as a check and balance. It's a check and balance that has never been used, but it's a check and balance that shows the people that the, of Utah, that we prioritize transparency and accountability in our government because we, me, as a taxpayer, give my money willingly to the government to, and I hope that it's used appropriately. And just because a check and balance has never been used before, doesn't mean we remove it just because we, it's never been used before. There seems to be no reason to do it. There's no logic to do it. And anyone who's taken any civic sees a reasonable check and balance in statute shouldn't be removed just because at this moment we want to. That That's it. Thanks.

I have a question for the presenter, if I may. Just one quick question. Yeah. Two quick questions. Uh, do you work in the auditor's office?

Yes, I am, but I am not coming as, in fact, I might hear about it later, but I come because, uh, I have eight kids and I want them to have a good state that's run well like it has been. And I don't see if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If I may, what role do you do in the auditor's office?

I'm the chief of staff. Okay.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Uh, before action. I wonder if I could ask another question of, uh, of the sponsor around the, uh, the question. The OHV fund from Mr. Stewart in line 4 96, uh, except as otherwise, provided the grant appropriation administration, administering agency may disperse grant funds only as a reimbursement of an expense, uh, is could, uh, first of all, would you, would you, could you comment on that situation and could, uh, a grant or a program ask when they go for their appropriation to, uh, keep working the way they way it works today as an exception? Or, or are you completely changing the policy? Could,

Uh, absolutely. Um, this is, uh, something that we want to continue to work on. We don't want to gut his program. So I thought we had fixed that in the substitute. Which line were you referring

To? Well, I, I was, uh, referring to 4 96 in the substitute. I'm not sure if that was the same line he was referring to. Oh, oh, maybe I'm not in the substitute. You

Yeah, it's not in the, I say, I think I feel like a substitute. You see that that's been fixed. I Keep going the wrong back and forth. Yep. That was a concern that was across the board, and so I, I wanted to make sure we had that fixed in the substitute.

So I don't see it in the substitute. So must have been fixed. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

I, yes. I, I, I think that could, could we allow, uh,

It, it, it wasn't, but could I ask Mr. Stewart to, to me, this seems like Mr. Stewart, this resolves your concern.

It is 4 96 line 4 96 before the sub of the, of the,

Before the sub. But it looks like that's gone in the, in the Substitute If it is gone.

I haven't seen the SEC or the first sub, so I apologize for that. No worries. But this was prior. Okay. So if it's in there and, and we are protected, we could support whatever the majority of the people do. If not,

Yeah, it's, I don't see it in the sub, so, okay. Thank

You. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could just ask the sponsor just one more question on lines 9 57 through nine 60. Um, I, I just wanna make sure what this change is doing is, is the auditor's authority here limited to how state grant funds are used? Or does this language allow, uh, review of the, the entity's overall financial practices beyond the grant?

Uh, I think what this says is in a manner that complies with the applicable legal requirements as identified in connection with the audit. So, um,

It's, it's strictly, or, or the intent of it is just to be on the state grant funds, not the entire budget of these nonprofits and such. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Oops. Sorry. I, there we go. I'd like to make a motion to Adopt first sub.

Uh, I support the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to hear the, if we could ask the sponsor what the, to comment on, on the auditor's concern about losing that safety valve. On the one hand, it seems like an odd safety valve. 'cause you don't, agencies typically don't get to just go draw funds. On the other hand, she, the, the descendants above on line 9 22, or I may not be getting the line right, but above that change language, 'cause I may be looking at the old version, but it, the, the state auditor is independent of any executive or administrative officer. So I can see that, you know, 80 years ago, maybe they thought there was a need for that safety valve, and if it hasn't been used, that's a good and healthy sign, but maybe we should leave the valve in place. But on the other hand, it's a weird physical thing. Could you, could you give us your opinions about that?

Well, I think, I think there's a couple things at play here. One is, is, uh, what is reasonable and necessary? Can you define that for me? Um, and, and so, uh, what we do know is, is that we as a legislature have the constitutional responsibility to fund, uh, and budget, uh, our state's government. And, uh, all this is, is doing is bringing in line with what we do with all of our other constitutional officers and agencies. And, and the fact that she's supposed to be, uh, the auditor is supposed to be independent of any executive or administrative officers.

Do you feel like that diminishes her ability to be independent? If we take away this,

I, I don't feel like it does. Obviously the courts are supposed to be independent as well in a coequal branch of government, but we still have responsibility to create their budgets. And so, uh, what this is really about is the, uh, that the legislature, um, is the appropriators. And if you, uh, if you look at the Federalist papers, the overall point of the Federalist Papers is that the legislative branch has command of the purse.

I'd like to make a motion to favorably recommend this bill, our committee.

Yeah, I, I really appreciate, uh, state auditor cannon's, uh, presence or comments or his role of the office here. Uh, I recognize that an independent, there's the checks and balances that she brings her office is bringing to our state government. Uh, as we look at the checks and balances across the government, the legislative branch, executive branch, the judicial branch, we have the auditor, uh, we have the treasurer's office. This is the only branch that has this really valve language in there out of all the branches, but they're all checks and balances of each other. And as, uh, the good sponsor of the bill pointed out, um, we believe that the purse strings belong in the legislative branch, and we all work together. There's checks and balances. This doesn't necessar necessarily change that. I appreciate everyone's comments though, today. And there we go.

Yeah, I'd like to make a, I'd like to make a substitute motion, um, just because it seems controversial and I don't know that, uh, time is of the essence to make an immediate change. Can we just, uns strike lines number 24 and 25.

Uh, well, I'm actually talking on the bill 'cause I don't know how to find it in the sub since it's, uh, it's not numbered.

Well, there's the funds

Lines 9 24 and 9 25 are struck out. I don't, I don't see that this is like an emergency to get this done right now. So if we just uns strike it, that probably resolves that issue.

It says the state auditor, and then it struck out that says it's not limited to the selection of personnel. Okay.

Yes. A verbal amendment.

No, I, I think, uh, I think that resolves the issue. You know, I, I don't see that this is an emergency to hurry and change it. It's never been abused, so you just un strike. And I think that resolves the concern, at least from the auditor's office. It appears to me like,

Yeah, I'd oppose a motion. I think that what we're trying to do here is just bring everything in line and be consistent across, uh, our state government.

This is, uh, this has been a interesting conversation and I, I read it in the bill last night. Um, it, it seems like a non-trivial change, but then after hearing the auditor's comments, I think it's worth a larger conversation. I, I don't feel comfortable changing this language right now when it feels like a big change, at least to the, the state auditor. And so I, I just feel an easy moving forward with this language in there without having a larger discussion. Um, and so I, I, I would be voting for the substitute motion.

Uh, Just asking for clarification on the substitute motion. Is the motion fundamentally to uns strike what's stricken here? And are we considering the new language here on line 9 36 and 9 37? Or is that not to be considered?

It would not, it would, it would basically delete the new language and keep the old language. Okay.

That clarifies it for me. Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna take the church prerogative and, and, uh, talk to the substitute motion. I don't like the substitute motion. Um, um, I do believe that the sponsor has done, um, the work necessary over, uh, the time that he's been working on this bill to make, um, the auditor's office as a constitutional office, the same as every other constitutional office that we have budgetary authority over. And so I am gonna vote no on the substitute motion.

Thank you. I also wanted to speak to the motion. I think this is an important policy question, and by leaving it in and allowing it to go to the full house, that allows more people to participate in the discussion and, and give their opinion on, on whether this is an appropriate policy change to have all the constitutional, uh, offices align, or whether there should be an, an exception. So, I'll, I'll also be voting against the substitute motion and, and, uh, appreciate the, uh, the discussion we've had today. I think it's an important one, and I was unaware of it before today, So, yeah.

Representative Fiefia? Yes. Representative Hansen? Yes. Representative Jack? Yes. Representative Maga? Yes. Representative Miller? Yes. Representative Owens? Yes. Representative Shallenberger? No. Representative Shelley? Yes. Vice Chair Cutler? No. Chair Hawkins? No.

Uh, I'll waive. I'm good With it. Okay.

Motion to pass out the revised bill.

Um, yeah, I appreciate the motion.

Representative FIA FIA. Yes. Representative Hansen. No. Representative Jack? Yes. Representative Mauga? Yes. Representative Owens? Yes. Representative Shallenberger? Yes. Representative Shelley? Yes. Vice Chair Cutler? Yes. Chair Hawkins?

So this is our budgetary modifications cleanup bill for the year. Uh, basically it, uh, does, uh, uh, a number of things. First of all, it uh, changes the names of some funds and accounts so that they align with GASB requirements. It repeals five obsolete accounts. It ensures that grant awards are only used for their purposes and not for administrative costs unless the legislature actually approves that in advance. It also creates a revolving loan fund to facilitate, uh, DNR loans for energy projects using the funds appropriated last year from Operation Gigawatt. It also, uh, tightens, uh, oversight, uh, on the industrial assistance account by, um, making sure that we have, um, a recommendation from the Goyo board and, uh, making the account subject to appropriations for additional funds that go into it. It, uh, has additional oversight for the Energy council by making those funds in energy development infrastructure funds subject to appropriation. And then it, uh, changes some language in the, uh, language towards the auditor's office and, uh, makes it subject to, um, the budgetary Act and for also to the Board of Examiners. Along with that, it also changes some language in the Board of Examiners that if one of the members, uh, has an item that is over expenditure, that, uh, that individual would step off of the Board of examiners and the treasurer or another member would be on that board. Um, it also, uh, adds some language for the permissible uses of radioactive waste. Uh, so, uh, first of all, it takes $3 million and it, uh, allocates that to, uh, DEQ to for permitting and those processes. And then the other $27 million is deposited into the Electrical Energy Development Investment Fund. And, uh, it also makes that fund non lapsing, and that's what the third substitute does. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. On the, no, I should have kept this up in front of me. The, um, oh, electrical Energy Development Investment Fund. Uh, does that, so it talks about nuclear energy and transmission loans for, for those, uh, sorts of projects. Is it, I'm just trying to get the language here, right? Is it, is it, uh, transmission specifically related to nuclear energy or any, any, any sort of transmission that we are building? Like are those two connected? Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Yeah, so no, this is, this is for the development of nuclear energy projects, uh, in the state. So for the development of those, and it also makes it subject to appropriation from the legislature. So for the transmission piece, it would only be for transmission that is supporting nuclear energy. Um, we would, it's mixed. Everybody's telling me, so. Okay. Yep. It's for both. You can't separate the two 'cause you have to have transmission lines from the plant, So, right. Well, I guess, yeah, the, the question is like, is it, is it, you know, only for lines physically interconnected to a, a nuclear power plant Or something? There's gonna have to be some additional lines that are put in, for example, just the, the, the new one that's gonna go into San Rafael. Sure. You're gonna have to have a way to take that energy and take it somewhere.

On? Yeah, sure.

Make a motion that we delete entitled and body second substitute house Bill 5 45 and replace with third substitute Discussion to that.

Hello, Mr. Chair. My name is Casey Hill. I represent Energy Solutions and, um, just wanted to, uh, take the opportunity to, to, um, thank the sponsor actually in, in this case. The third sub actually does something that, um, we think is, is very helpful, which it, it directs, um, an opportunity for some funding to go to the Department of Environmental Quality to improve their systems for permitting. Um, not only do we anticipate that this will help our current, uh, permitting processes that, uh, deal with our facility at Clive, but, um, clearly I, I think the, the intent here is, is to prepare the state for new nuclear, um, development as well, which, um, our permitting is significant. Uh, our current permitting, significant, significant, it's a significant effort on behalf of DEQ. There are certainly things that we hope will improve, uh, with, with the efforts that we have there, but, um, it's been said to me that the amount of permitting and the effort, uh, that is in that entails new nuclear permitting is 10 x what the permitting process is for our current processes. So, um, I think it's wise that there is, uh, an effort made to help, uh, our DEQ prepare for, uh, the effort that, uh, is in front of them in terms of hopefully speeding along the, uh, the process of, of permitting and making sure that we're in a place as a state to, to, uh, really take advantage of, of the growth that's happening in the nuclear industry.

I would move that we favorably recommend from this committee, third substitute house Bill 5 45.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I think it's, uh, there's some very important things in here as far as the revolving loan fund and, and the permitting process for DEQ. So I appreciate your support.

You. I would just say that, um, I believe we have a generational opportunity here to develop, uh, nuclear, which I believe has, uh, has proven itself to be, uh, incredibly valuable and safe, uh, across our communities. Uh, I think the military is especially shown us over the last 50 years what they can do, and I think it's time that we move the move, uh, that effort into the civilian community. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate your, uh, miss the committee.

First substitute house Bill 5 45, budgetary modifications by Representative Peterson. This bill was heard in Economic Development and Workforce Services with the vote of 8 1 1

Motion to circle. Motion to circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So, uh, this is the budgetary modifications bill. Uh, probably the piece that most people are most interested in is, uh, the piece where we worked with the state auditor to come up with, uh, some consensus language that, uh, make sure that, uh, we are doing things in accordance with the Budgetary Act and the Board of Examiners Act. And so we, as we worked on that language, we've strengthened it. Uh, we came to an agreement on it. And then basically it says is that, uh, the state auditor is not limited in the selection of personnel or in the determination of, and it may determine the reasonable and necessary expenses of the state auditor's office and may select personnel in accordance with Title 63 J. The Budgetary Procedures Act and subject to, uh, title 60 3G, chapter nine, review of Claims. Uh, along with that, uh, in the examiner's board portion, we had to add a line, which is line 26, and it provides that a member of the board of examiners is disqualified from reviewing a line item over expenditure report if the line item is part of the member's office's budget. And so, Oh yes. Um, so that, uh, that, uh, line item is part of the member office's budget. And so what happens there is the, uh, if, depending on who it is, the treasurer then would, uh, substitute on that board. And with that, uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd phone a friend, uh, to amend this with the second substitute. With the first substitute.

I would. So, so what I had presented previously was, uh, the second substitute, just a reminder that this bill also has some other things in it. Uh, it changes the names of funds and accounts to align with GASB requirements. It repeals five obsolete accounts. It ensures that grants awarded are only used for their for, um, they can only use them for admin costs if the legislature authorizes it. It creates a revolving loan fund to facilitate DNR loans for energy projects using funds appropriated last year for Operation Gigawatt. And it increases oversight in the industrial assistance account by making it that we have to deposit money by appropriation and, uh, get required recommendations from the GO EO board. And, uh, that's what the second substitute does. Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the second sub adopting the second substitute. It, um, for those of you who are aware, it, there were some very important conversations that happened and I appreciate the sponsor allowing me to be part of that. And, um, I would encourage us to do that. I, I think the second substitute gets us to a point where the law is clear as to how the various participants, the various executive branch agencies participate in the budgetary process. And it's very important that we have that clarity so that we all know what the rules are and there's no misunderstanding. So thank you Mr. Speaker. Adopt. I I encourage the adoption of the second sub.

You Mr. Speaker. I appreciate our colleagues. Great work on this bill and look forward to supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I just appreciate all the support and work that's gone into this bill. I'd especially like to thank, uh, the good representative from Provo and the good representative from Kearns for, for their work and, uh, uh, being able to to work with the state auditor to make this section of code better. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I would. So, so what I had presented previously was, uh, the second substitute, just a reminder that this bill also has some other things in it. Uh, it changes the names of funds and accounts to align with GASB requirements. It repeals five obsolete accounts. It ensures that grants awarded are only used for their for, um, they can only use them for admin costs if the legislature authorizes it. It creates a revolving loan fund to facilitate DNR loans for energy projects using funds appropriated last year for Operation Gigawatt. And it increases oversight in the industrial assistance account by making it that we have to deposit money by appropriation and, uh, get required recommendations from the GO EO board. And, uh, that's what the second substitute does. Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the second sub adopting the second substitute. It, um, for those of you who are aware, it, there were some very important conversations that happened and I appreciate the sponsor allowing me to be part of that. And, um, I would encourage us to do that. I, I think the second substitute gets us to a point where the law is clear as to how the various participants, the various executive branch agencies participate in the budgetary process. And it's very important that we have that clarity so that we all know what the rules are and there's no misunderstanding. So thank you Mr. Speaker. Adopt. I I encourage the adoption of the second sub.

You Mr. Speaker. I appreciate our colleagues. Great work on this bill and look forward to supporting it. Thank you Representative Pucci.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I just appreciate all the support and work that's gone into this bill. I'd especially like to thank, uh, the good representative from Provo and the good representative from Kearns for, for their work and, uh, uh, being able to to work with the state auditor to make this section of code better. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Speaker motion to, to substitute house bill five 13 with first substitute house bill five 13 Representative oh. Motion to Uncer House bill five 13, Withdraw that motion and place the other motion. I'd like to withdraw the previous motion and, and make a motion to encircle house bill five 13.

It repeals, uh, five obsolete accounts. It ensures, uh, it ensures Grant, uh, rewards will only be used for alternative costs of the legislature, uh, authorized, uh, through the intent language. It creates a revolving loan fund to facilitate DNR loans for energy projects using funds appropriated, uh, last year through Operation Gigawatt. It tightens the oversight of government of the Governor's office by requiring industrial assistance account by making funds in that account subject to appropriation and requiring recommendations from goo board. It, it tightens the oversight of the Energy Council for making, uh, funds in the energy development infrastructure funds subject to appropriation. And then, as I mentioned, it allows money in the Department of Public Safety, um, account to be appropriated to pay for the costs, uh, county, excuse me, costs associated with the enforcement training facilities. It tightens oversight in the auditor's office by removing the provision that, uh, that implied that the auditor has unlimited budget. The old language states that the auditor is not limited to the selection of personnel for the, for the determination of reasonable and necessary expenses in this in state auditor's office. And then you go, the new language on line 26 says that it provides for a member of the board of examiners is disqualified from reviewing a line item over over expenditure report if the line item is part of the member's office budget. And then it goes down, uh, farther and explains that as the auditor determines its necessary conduct. And, uh, the audits, uh, is determined compliance with the law whether the, uh, entity responsible for the audit, audit, fund or account has engaged in financial practices, uh, used public funds or manage public property. That concludes what this does. This comes to us, uh, from uh, LFA and uh, through, uh, Mike. Mike, uh, co-sponsor over in the house of Representative Peterson.

I'll take a motion. I would move that, uh, under suspension of the rules that four substitute, uh, house Bill 5 45 pass.

Senator Vickers. Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer bus? Aye. Comore Esca Aye. Fillmore Aye. Rover. Aye. Harper Kins Ipson. Senator Ipson, we gonna read Johnson Juab Do communications before Mikel Aye. Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum. Senator Plumb? Aye. Rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson? Aye. Stratton Aye. Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye.

Senator McKell. Okay. Okay. Thank you Mr. President. Um, we, we are likely to read two lists, but the second one is still to come. Mr. President, I move the following bills be lifted from rules and placed at the bottom of the second reading calendar and the following order. House bill 4 45 substitute two house bill 2 47 substitute two house bill 1 45 substitute one house bill 5 36 substitute two house bill 5 82 substitute one house bill 2 65 substitute two house bill 3 28 substitute one house bill 360 1 substitute four house bill 1 79 substitute three house bill four 20, substitute one house bill 94 substitute three house bill two 19 substitute one house bill one 13 substitute two house bill 54. Substitute one house bill 4 67 substitute four. And house bill 4 81 substitute two. That is my motion.

You. Motion on circle HB 2 0 5. We have a motion on Circle House bill 2 0 5 2 0 5 for substitute. Yep. First substitute House bill 2 0 5 substance use intervention amendments.

Thank you. So what this bill is about is keeping people

Thank you Mr. Speaker Motion to concur with the Senate amendments.

Yes, Mr. Speaker that this changes the Electrical Energy Development Investment Fund from an expendable special revenue fund to a special revenue fund and makes appropriations from the fund non lapsing. It also modifies the permissible uses of the Electrical Energy Development Investment Fund and it, uh, includes a coordinating clause to make net technical changes for the Colorado River Authority Amendments. And that's what the changes were in the Senate.