S.B. 164 School Construction Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would move oversight of public school construction, including plan reviews and inspections, from the State Board of Education to the state's Division of Facilities Construction and Management. It would set a fee schedule for those services, let districts with qualified staff or certified inspectors proceed without state approval, and create a cost database and reports to lawmakers.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 5 yes, 2 noSenate Education Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 26, 2026Who voted how
• 18 yes, 9 no, 2 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 17, 2026Who voted how
• 20 yes, 9 noFinal Senate vote · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 4 no, 5 absentHouse Education Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 60 yes, 13 no, 2 absentFinal House vote · Feb 26, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 26, 2026 Senate Education Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (50 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:31:54

     Um, we're going to move to number seven. Uh, the item number seven on the agenda. Senate bill 1 64 School Construction Amendments by Senator Wilson. And would you like to present from, from there or from a, from the chair From here, I'm gonna have, uh,

  2. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:32:15

     Excellent. Sounds good. Thank you. Oh, oh, sorry. Let me turn on your mic. Ben Dodge and Jim Russell and Andy Mark, come on up to the, if you might have, bring one chair up, if that's okay. If you wanna share a chair, uh, that might get awkward. Um, also, Madam Chair, I, I've got a handout, uh, first of all with the list of audit recommendations and secondly, with my talking points, this is quite a, uh, a complicated bill. And so if I, if it's okay, I'd like to hand it out to all the committee members.

  3. Committee chair1:32:47

     Yes, please. Uh, feel free to distribute them. Thank you.

  4. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:33:12

     Yeah, ma Madam Chair, if I could, I'd like to first start off, as many of us who are in the interim committee knows, they, they came and presented this public schools construction standards and efficiency audit to the interim committee. I believe it was probably in May or June. And, um, I just wanted to go through the recommendations from the audit. Um, recommendation 1.1, the Utah State Board of Education should develop sufficient internal controls to functionally verify and enforce compliance with its pre-construction and inspection verification requirements. The second requirement, Utah State recommendation, sorry, the second, uh, the second Utah State Board of Education should develop or procure an online document management system or portal to maintain all the state required construction and inspection documentation to enable verification of compliance with statute administrative rule. The third one recommendation. Utah State Board of Education should provide training for local education agencies so that they understand their responsibility and are aware of the state board's code compliance requirements. The fourth recommendation, the Utah State Board of Education should implement a standardized cost reporting system, require construction managers at local education agencies to report all associated construction project costs, according to standard criteria, make it available to relevant state agencies and local education agency officials. Of course, that's a collaboration, which I think will help reduce costs, local education agencies. The 2.1, uh, local education agencies should comply with state adopted building codes and state requirements for K through 12 construction and inspection. Did you get a couple? Okay. Um, 2.2. The Utah State Board of Education should, should create a functional oversight system to review and enforce compliance with state requirements. The Utah State Board of Education should outline clear expectations according to building code requirements for local education agency officials and professionals conducting code reviews and inspections. Utah State Board of Education should communicate expectations for required plan reviews, types of inspections, the frequency of inspections and reporting requirements for functional verification. The legislature should consider the restructuring options laid out in this report to implement, implement legislative audit recommendations and improve and to improve local education, agency construction and inspection oversight. Should the legislature give another state agency the responsibility for school construction oversight, the agency should address the recommendations in this audit rather than the Utah State Board of Education. And last, the last of education is this leg. The leg legislature should consider prioritizing additional audits of local education agency practices for procurement of construction and related services. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, as we know, one of the best, uh, run states in the country, and one of the reasons why is, I believe, is 'cause our, our legislative auditors, um, we, we give them a problem and they go out and audit that problem and then make recommendations. Uh, after this audit was completed, um, I was, uh, approached to, to run a bill to see what we can do about number one, uh, reducing our school construction costs, making sure that we are able to share those costs amongst districts, which would help reduce the costs of certain materials. And, um, I, I, I think all of us have, have received a number of, uh, constituent complaints always around property tax time, about increases in property tax or bonding. And I believe this is a great way for us with help from the state, uh, to help reduce those costs. Now, as this recommendation as Utah State Board of Education, as we got together as a working group, we started talking about what kind of funding we would need one time to start a whole department, if you will, in the Utah State Board of Education. I think currently that the Utah State Board of Education does not, uh, as far as my, my talks, and we'll be presenting to them on Thursday during their meeting, uh, for a recommendation. All early indications are, as the Utah State Board of Education is very pleased with this bill that they are not going to be the oversight. Uh, to me. We've got the Department of Facilities and Construction Management that this is their expertise. This is what they do. They manage and have built 3000 currently buildings K through 12 is basically a thousand buildings. So this, the K through 12 is only a third of what they are already managing. So if I could, the next handout is, is just go through quickly and I apologize. I, I wish there was some quicker way to do this, but I just wanna make sure that the, you know, the, the committee members are up to date on, you know, what this bill does. The school construction amendments transfers oversight of public school construction from the State Board of Education to the Division of Facilities Construction and Management. Just the oversight as the recommendations, uh, on, on the audit. SB 1 64 would comprehensively restructure public school construction oversight in Utah, the bill transfers primary authority over school construction projects from the State Board of Education to DFCM within the Department of Government Ops. Additionally, the bill establishes new regulatory frameworks covering, permitting, inspection, cost oversight, and compliance requirements for local education agencies, including both school districts and charter schools. Under the new framework, DFCM gains, exclusive permitting authority for public school construction, superseding local authority, municipal and county building permits. The bill establishes detailed requirements for construction delivery methods architect cost oversight plan review procedures, and mandatory inspections. Uh, I guess it's back to Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. Um, I, if I could continue on through these lines. Let's, let's just, let me just highlight, um, DFCM to oversee school construction in lines 5 98 to 6 39 requires DFCM to make rules establishing comprehensive standards for public school construction. They did find in their audit, they found buildings that were not, uh, following, um, safety protocols with buildings. And if anybody's aware the state of Utah, uh, is liable, we hold the liable insurance on these schools. So if they are not following, uh, the standard safety rules on construction, then it's the, the people of the state of Utah that are going to be liable. Mandatory cost controls requires all projects to fit within DFCM, established cost matrices before approval. The LEAs required to justify any cost exceeding benchmarks by more than 10%, and a paid and obtain BFCM approval for contracts over a million dollars. Construction oversight fee imposes a 1.2% fee on total project costs for all public school construction projects to fund DFCS oversight activities paid in a quarterly installment throughout the project. Centralized permitting and inspections establishes DFCM as exclusive permitting authority requires use of DFCM approval inspectors from a qualified roster with International Code Council certifications, eliminating local inspection authority. The legislation prohibits DFCM from overriding local zoning, uh, ordinances or land use regulations, except as is specifically authorized by statute architect cost caps. It sets maximum allowable fees for architect and design professional services based on project size and complexity requiring DFCM, verification of all contracts before execution. Um, if an LEA believes a project requires fee fees, exce exceeding DFC m's maximum allowable fees, the LEA may submit a detailed written request to DFCM before soliciting the proposals. Provide documentation of unique pro project circumstances requiring specialized expertise. Demonstrate that the project cannot be completed without the fee schedule and obtain written approval from DFCM before proceeding. Construction delivery re restrictions, limits use of construction manager or general contract delivery methods to projects, meeting specific criteria with DFCM approval while encouraging design built approaches. Mandatory reporting systems requires standardized cost reporting using construction specification Institute categories, annual deferred maintenance reports begin in 2029 and submission of all documentation through a new online management system. Again, that'll help us as we looked at standardizing costs, trying to help by sharing information on, uh, construction materials, on, um, plans, and any information that can help, uh, other districts on what current or previous districts has built. Grants. The, uh, enforcement mechanism grants the DFCM authority to impose administrative penalties up to 25,000. Suspend construction permits require mandatory compliance audits for 10% of projects annually. And mandate DFCM managed services for LEAs with repeated violations, and then also created a three man appeals proper. A three member appeals panel creates an appeals panel consisting of the executive director of the Department of gov ops, the school construction liaison, and a jointly selected expert with relevant expertise to resolve disputes between LEAs and DFCM regarding construction permits, delivery methods, costs determinations, architect fees, enforcement actions, DFCM, managed construction services, contract or registry decisions, design prototypes, plan reviews, occupancy certificates, or any other decision made by DFCM that substantially affects an LEA a's ability to complete a construction project in accordance with Utah Code. Um, Mr. Chair, I could continue. Um, uh, response be of DFCM. Um, let's just start this first part. Minimum of maximum real property requirements, cost per square foot parameters, building material quality standards, parking and access requirements, standardized cost reporting requirements, other construction related requirements. Um, establish mandatory plan review and approval procedures before construction can begin with. Review timelines within 10 business days for standard projects. Create and maintain cost matrices that projects must fit with them before receiving approval with required justification for any cost exceeding benchmarks by more than 10%. Develop and publish maximum allowable fees for architect and design professional services based on project size complexity, regional market conditions and industry standards. Review LEA requests for fees exceeding maximums. Evaluate documentation of unique project needs. Determine whether the fee schedule is insufficient. Issue written approval before project proceed. Respond within the 15 days with explanations for a new card changes and update cost benchmarks annually. Develop and maintain standardized school design templates and prototypes that provoke pre-approval options for common school types. Reduce architectural costs through standardization and reduce design scope, and accelerate approvals through pre-approved systems and streamlined reviews. These designs may be modified for site specific needs and must be updated every five years to reflect current educational needs and building standards. Here again, that's being able to, uh, share, uh, past information that will help to, I think lower costs. Maintain a prequalification registry that sets uniform contractor standards, tracks performance supports, cost comparisons, and enable efficiencies such as volume purchasing while preserving competitive procurement requirements. Contractors must register meet qualifications, licensing insurance evaluation, train requirements to bid on school projects over 500,000 and LEAs must still select contractors through standard procurement processes, is still be the LEAs choice made, established, um, established preferred contractor programs towards strong performance and ensure statewide coverage. And both LEAs and contractors may appeal re registry rescissions through the established appeals process. Set construction delivery method criteria and approval procedures with specific restrictions on the use of a construction manager or general contractor delivery methods. Create qualified inspector and plan review or rosters within International Code Council certification requirements. Develop standardized cost reporting requirements and maintain a comprehensive construction cost database. Establish an online document management system for construction document and compliance tracking, and provide training and technical support for LEAs require building commissioners for all new construction and major innovations, exceeding $5 million. Uh, require facility con condition assessments every five years for all facilities over 20 years old. Consult with the state fire marshal and State Security chief on mandatory safety and security standards. Uh, additionally, DFCM has granted authority to provide fee-based construction management services to LEAs with administrative fees, not exceeding 3% of total project cost. DFCM may require such services for LEAs with repeated compliance failures, DFCA, may contract with the state fire marshal, state security chief, or local government as to explain plans, verify inspections, and perform other functions necessary to ensure compliance. Um, lemme just finish with this one. DFCA must report annually to the Education Interim Committee and the transportation infrastructure appropriation subcommittee on items including implementation, progress, cost, database development, construction cost trends, deferred maintenance trends, compliance, audit results, construction oversight fee revenue, and expenditures. Um, Mr. Chair, I would be happy to continue to read the responsibilities of the local LEAs, the Utah State Board of Education responsibilities, uh, charter school, alternate compliance, and then the appeals panel enforcement penalties. Uh, don't know how much time the we have here on the committee today, Mr. Chair. Um, be happy to do whatever that would you would like me to do.

  5. Unknown speaker1:48:06speaker not certain

     Is it, how much time do you have left in the We only have four, five Days, yeah. Plus questions, right? I, I mean, I think I, you know, I think it's important for you to explain what's going on in the bill. This is, this is an extensive bill and I, yeah, it, it is.

  6. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:48:26

     Last way. We have had a number of meetings. Um, we have had feedback from the, um, uh, from, or the, uh, superintendents and also the local S Association on, on, uh, you know, some different things. We, we've changed, uh, some of the language. So the responsibilities of a local LEAs submit pre-construction applications to DFCM before beginning any public school construction project, demonstrating that the project fits within the cost matrix established by DFCM rule before approving any construction contract over a million dollars. Submit costs for benchmark review, justify costs exceeding benchmarks by more than 10%, and follow standardized procurement procedures. Final DFCM approval is required before the contract can be executed. Obtain construction permits exclusively from DFCM as municipalities and counties may not require separate permits for public school construction. Use only inspectors and plan reviewers from DFCS approved roster, which in which requires International Code Council certification and DFCM approved training. Submit all required documentation through the online document management system system, including inspection reports, cost data, and project milestones. Pay a construction oversight fee equal to 1.25% of total project costs for all public school construction projects, paid in quarterly installments throughout the project. Comply with standardized cost reporting requirements using construction specification Institute master format categories. Submit annual deferred maintenance reports beginning July 1st, 2029, identifying all maintenance items exceeding 25,000 that were deferred during the physical year. Use construction delivery methods authorized under the section with specific restrictions on construction manager or general contractor methods requiring DFC approval. Select contractors only from the qualified contractor registry for projects exceeding 500,000. Provide written notice to municipalities, counties affected utility companies, relevant transportation authorities and local fire authorities at least 30 days before purchasing property or entering into lease agreements for school construction or school use. Upon written requests from DFCM provide historical project documentation information regarding past construction projects, including those completed before the ineffective, before the effective date of the bill. The Utah State Board of Education responsibilities. The state board shall designate a school construction liaison who serves as the primary point of contact between the state board and DFCM on school construction matters coordinates educational programming requirements that may affect construction standards. Participates in administration rule, administrative rule development and review process. Provides input on educational facility needs and trends, assist with training programs for LEA officials and facilitates the resolution of construction related issues affecting educational programs. The school construction liaison must be an employee of the state board with expertise in school construction education facilities or related fields, participating in relevant DFCM meetings and committees. Maintain regular communication with the DFCM staff and report to the state board on construction oversight activities and related issues. The State Board of DFCM are required to establish a memorandum of understanding that defined roles and responsibilities for school construction oversight establishes communication protocols and meeting schedules, addresses coordination on PO policy development and implementation provides for information sharing and joint training activities, and includes dispute resolution, resolution procedures. Uh, here's a little charter school alternative compliance. SB 1 64 provides charter schools with alternative compliance options for projects under 5 million charter schools with projects exceeding 5 million must comply with all requirements applicable to LEAs. Charter schools may elect to comply through full compliance with all sections applicable to LEAs or through alternative compliance with reduced requirements under alternative compliance. Charter schools must comply with architect cost oversight requirements, submit to standardized cost reporting, use qualified certified inspectors from DFCS approved roster, comply with all safety and PR security, uh, standards, notify affected entities for any construction or major alteration project and receive DFCM approval for plan compliance verification. Charter schools using alternative compliance are exempt from mandatory use of the online document management system. Detailed monthly construction reporting requirements and mandatory compliance audits. Unless the charter school has demonstrated repeated violations, the project cost exceeds 3 billion, or the charter school has violated safety standards for projects under 500,000. Charter schools pay reduced construction oversight fee of 0.75% of total total project cost. The appeals panel, I think I've talked about that of appeals panel to resolve disputes between LEA and the DFCM regarding decisions made by DFCM in relation to school construction. And the appeals panel consists, again, of the three members, uh, may appealed various D-F-S-E-M decisions, including there's a list there of, uh, denial or conditional approval, denial, alternative delivery, and so forth, enforcement of penalties. There are some penalties there a little bit. We, we've, we've learned here up on the hill that we need to have a little bit of teeth. Uh, but it's my understanding that these are for, um, uh, granted enforcement authority, uh, for violations. Uh, but these are gonna be, I think the word here is, is ongoing. Um, violations, imple, uh, SB 1 64 establishes a phased implementation timeline before January 1st, 2027. DFCM must adopt comprehensive rules implementing the provisions of the bill, establish the online document management system, develop standardized forms and procedures, create training programs for LEA officials, and coordinate with the State Board of Education to repeal or substantially revise the State Board of Education. Administrative rules related to school construction. All projects begin construction after January 1st. Must comply fully with the provisions of the bill. DFCM must conduct remedial audits of projections completed projects completed in 24 25 26 to identify systemic, uh, issues requiring immediate attention. Um, there also creates a restricted account within the general fund, known as the Public School Construction Oversight restricted account. This account will be funded by construction Oversight Fees collected from LEAs administrative fees collected for DFCM, managed construction services, and any penalties collected under enforcement provisions. Many in that account is to be used exclusively for public school construction oversight activities. And Mr. Chair, I know this sounds a little complicated. These are mainly the same procedures we're using for our state buildings, and I've got three experts here to be with me first, um, and I'll let them introduce themselves. This started a few years ago when, when Jim Russell was the director of the Department of Facilities and Construction Management. So I brought him along. Um, as we, we talked contemplating having this audit, uh, we had concerns. I had a number of, uh, construction owners come to me with a, a real concern about the process. There was accusations. In fact, when I, one accusation of fraud, there's one accusation of the good old boys club, um, uh, uh, bidding processes that were basically, um, uh, set up to where the same contractor would win the bid every time, um, or multiple bids, uh, for, for a number of different contract, uh, construction projects. So, um, if I, if I could, Mr. Chair, I'd like to have each introduce themselves and talk a little bit. I wanna make something perfectly clear. Uh, DFCM did not come to me. I just felt like rather than have the Utah State Board of Education have oversight over something that they know nothing about, the upfront cost of trying to hire, uh, the expertise that DFCM already has with engineers, with people that are managing, uh, these, these construction projects, uh, I felt it would save the state a lot of money. And I, I have, I do know that there's a lot of districts that have, do not have construction managers, and I know that this will help them. 'cause a lot of these projects are managed by the general contractor or by the architect. And I truly believe having DFCM manage these projects will help lower costs. And I'll let them talk about their cost of state buildings compared to the K through 12. And so, let's start off with you, uh, Jim, if you'd like to go ahead and go ahead, State your name for the record, and then go ahead.

  7. Jim Russell, former DFCM Director1:57:21

     Is my microphone on? Yep. Jim Russell, um, the former director of DFCM as was mentioned, I currently, uh, um, my current position is the Associate Vice President of Facilities for the University of Utah. I wanna make it clear, I don't represent the University of Utah today. I'm speaking as a former DFCM Director and a concerned citizen. So I want to get that out there first. So, as the senator mentioned, this is, it's, it's been quite a long process. I think about six or seven years ago, um, an audit of K through 12 was called for by, uh, in, uh, the, in the budget session by, uh, governor Herbert, and then again by Governor Cox. And in his first, um, year in office, we actually started to, and conducted an audit. Um, I didn't se didn't audit all of the school districts 13 that were selected by the Board of Education. The audit that I performed was with DFCM, with the Board of Education, um, involved. And, uh, and so it was largely around the process, um, all of their processes for construction to maintenance. And, uh, so we received information for them on all of their programs, how they run and manage their facilities and their, and their construction programs. Um, and then we did a review internal with our staff, and then we, um, took the review back and we, uh, we gave it to the districts that were, um, that were being audited, let them see our responses. And then I met individually with each of those districts to be able to get their input, um, how they saw, you know, did they think that we didn't see things properly, and how that went. Um, that was a, it was a pretty good process, I would say. You know, I just wanna say that I think all of the folks in K through 12 are good people. They're really trying to do a good job. And I, and I, that came through, but there was definitely some things that needed to be done. And as Senator Wilson identified, there's a difference in all of the DI districts. Some of the larger districts were kind of like, yeah, we've got this, don't bother us. But some of the smaller districts and medium sized districts were like, yeah, we really need help, and we could really use some stronger processes, help, expertise and oversight. So I don't wanna lose fact, uh, lose sight of that, that not all these districts are probably coming from the same place. Um, so really this, uh, and then from that audit, it led to future the audit from, um, the legislative auditors. And then we're here where we are right now. Over the years, as A-D-F-C-M director, um, met members of the legislature, sent people to me that were concerned over K 12. We had members of, of unions and so forth coming and talking to me. And I was like, I can't really do much about it. I don't have a lot to do with that. But there's a lot of, lot of concern, um, over the years for, for things that are happening as Senator Wilson, um, highlighted. But I, I think that, uh, um, you know, the question really is, should there be oversight, um, com right now, it's really decentralized. Every district is their own. They do their own things. And so the first question is, should that be the way it is? And should there be some oversight? Right now, each district does not have oversight. Um, the Board of Education does not have the ability to do that. Um, and they would admit that themselves. Um, so the question is, do they need stronger oversight? Tech colleges, higher ed state agencies all have oversight. They're all public dollars. They do have, uh, consistent processes and procedures. They're statutorily bound to those they's, uh, you know, processes that are really good in place. Um, so the question is, should K through 12 also have such oversight, which I strongly believe they should going through with my years of experience. Um, and then the second question, really the secondary question is, if they need oversight and they should have that, and that's appropriate, then who should do it? And the, and, uh, you can either have the Board of Education set up a new entity, um, the Board of Education's not really a construction designing construction or facility maintenance entity. You could have them set up another government bureaucracy, or you could, um, put that responsibility to DFCM, who is the state building expert. And I believe that that's a good dish decision to do that. I think there's a lot of discontent in the LEA community that this is a takeover from DFCM. Um, this bill really has, uh, gives DFCM less control over K 12 projects than they currently have for state agencies, tech colleges, and higher ed. It's not a takeover bill. It is an oversight and, and, uh, regulation and process improvement. But, um, but that's, um, that in the essence is what this bill is. I think it's a good bill and I would support it. Thank you. Andy, would you mind Introducing? Yep. Thank

  8. Andy Marr, Division Director, DFCM2:02:27

     You. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andy Barham. I'm the division Director of DFCM. I'm following in Jim's footsteps. Um, as Jim mentioned so eloquently, he's really put the pieces together here. Um, and I can speak to how DFCM has, has, uh, worked with Senator Wilson. In this process of developing this bill, we really looked at how does our current processes apply to fitting the needs, uh, of over, of oversight for K 12 construction. Secondly, we wanted to see how other states were doing this. Uh, Wyoming is our closest neighbor that's doing this in many capacities. Um, so we've been working closely with them, especially in regards to their standards, some of their processes, and some of the, the things to avoid, um, moving forward. Um, so really what we've done is just taken a look at our design standards, our processes, our capacity in the division currently to absorb an oversight role. Um, and we, we feel comfortable that we're, we're in that position. That being said, um, especially in rule making and looking at standards for new K 12 construction, we know it's gonna be a very collaborative process, and we're gonna need the, the state board. We're gonna need each LEA, uh, the AE community and contractors involved in all those discussions, um, as we develop those. Um, so we'll be using roadmaps for our own design standards for state buildings and higher education, and also looking at how other states, primarily Wyoming has done theirs and seeing how that best fits to Utah model. So, um, with that, I'll pass it on to Marv. Thank you.

  9. Marvin Dodge, Executive Director, Utah Department of Government Operations2:03:54

     In light of the time, I will keep my comments brief. I'm Marvin Dodge, the executive director of the State Department of Government Operations. Um, thi this is really what we do. Um, this is a government agency and in virtually all the customers I have are other government entities, be it state, local, uh, or even school districts. We have worked for years through risk management, as Senator Wilson indicated, uh, providing insurance for our, our K through 12 partners. We work through the division of purchasing, which is one of my divisions, uh, has all sorts of state contracts and cooperative contracts that school districts use to try to get the best pricing when they're purchasing items, a division of technology services. We're currently working with UTEN on cybersecurity issues with, uh, the public education school district. So we have a long history of serving our fellow government entities and helping out where we can to try to streamline costs, uh, and, and make things more efficient. And, uh, so this partnership is really an expansion of what Gov Ops has done for many years. And, uh, we appreciate the partnership we have with our school districts and, and welcome this opportunity, uh, that Senator Wilson has proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if I, I go back to what they comment about. I know there's been some school boards thinking that we're, you know, we're taking control away from them, but ultimately, they're still gonna decide, um, the plans that they're gonna adopt, just like you do with state buildings and also higher ed. Um, all those types of things will still be their, um, their decision, their choice. You're just there to help them, uh, with what materials might they might be able to use. Uh, and I know you have relationships with a number of, of, um, providers of materials that you use currently with, uh, state buildings. I know you have relationships that could help lower costs and talk about certain building materials. So, um, boy, with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I think that will conclude. I looking forward to some, some, uh, questions. And like I said, there's no question that we've still gotta continue. We've, we've, we've met with, uh, a number of stakeholders. I know I've, I've had a few more that have reached out to me, and we're, we're happy to continue working on this bill as it goes through the process. Ultimately, I think that this bill will help lower costs, um, for our taxpayers and especially hopefully control our property tax, uh, uh, increases. And again, I know a lot of school districts are looking for the help, especially those that don't have a lot of our smaller rural, um, districts, I think can really use the help with a lack of construction experts in their, in their, uh, districts. So with that, I'll, I'll conclude my remarks.

  10. Committee chair2:06:48

      Thanks, Senator Wilson.

  11. Unknown speaker2:06:49speaker not certain

      I know, I, I, I really appreciate you working on this bill, because I, you know, this is really in response to an audit we had of, uh, the State Board of Education with respect to these issues. And I think that's important that, that we help to respond to that. And I appreciate you guys coming because I, you know, I, I really like the idea in the bill where you, uh, where we have a chance to come up with plans for different, you know, when you're talking about elementary schools, you know, it seems like to me we really could find efficiencies by building them all the same way, right? And take advantage of, of scale that way, but still give them flexibility if there are additional things in there, especially at the high school level. But, you know, one of, one of the things I've been frustrated, uh, about across the state is that some of our buildings have just gotten outta control. And, and, you know, there's, there's no reason why a school really has to be an architectural masterpiece. And, and wealthy districts have a, a, a better ability to, to be able to, to do that. But we have to have some type of oversight over that. I, I, I really appreciate, this is an extensive bill. You've spent a long time with it, so I appreciate you bringing it.

  12. Committee chair2:08:15

      Senator Riebe, you have a comment, you had a light on, so

  13. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:08:19

      Yes, I have numerous questions, but I'm just gonna ask like two or three right now. Um, so there's no fiscal note on this bill yet, so we don't know much it's gonna cost us. Um, but there is a fee that is opposed, um, 1.25% of a total cost for all public school construction. So, um, where would that, that fee would go into a fund that DFCM administers, where would that fee go to? So the fee would cover all of the oversight provisions in the bill include with the most of it being plan review, the initial process, we were looking at plans, issuing a permit, and then to cover the cost of inspections. Thank you. Um, I, I think that when I look at the recommendations that came out of the audit, uh, there's 11 recommendations, and we could do all of these without losing control of our schools. So when I think about this bill, I think about my own personal house and, um, being absorbed into an HOA, and I'm like, I don't wanna be a part of an OOAI, uh, wanna keep my house. I wanna keep control over my house. I want to be in control of what my house looks like. And so, I, I, I struggle with this as a taxpayer. Um, my property tax should yield what I want in my community. And to have this statement saying that every school needs to be efficient and the same takes away all of our ability to be innovative. We have created a, um, a competitive K through 12 experience by creating charter schools and choice. And parents get to choose what kind of experience they want their kids to have. And our school districts have responded aggressively by creating different experiences and competing for kids. And I think that's good for our kids. And you all say that all the time as well. Um, so, uh, I'm curious about the feedback that you received from the working group and where the working group was, because, um, I've talked to many different districts, and so I was wondering who was on that working group. If I, again, basically, uh, the, the three of us myself, who else was there? Early on in May and June, we had, um, It was myself and our capital development team at DFCM. Mm-hmm. And other stakeholders like school districts, superintendents, school boards, anybody else from outside of your four people? We did receive a list of, of concerns by the superintendents and the state school boards. We went through and altered many things out of the bill, but we, when they wanted to take the complete oversight away from DFCM, we did not. But I don't know how many, we did change a number of their require or their concerns. We did alter in the bill. Thank you. Uh, those are my two pressing, those are my few pressing questions. Um, I would love to hear what the public has to say about this, but, uh, I, I don't believe that's, um, that working group really represents what the people of Utah want. So, uh, thank you.

  14. Committee chair2:11:30

      Thanks. Senator Riebe. Uh, Senator Fillmore?

  15. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:11:35

      I, no, my mic was, oh, yeah, I did have a question. It was about that fee. You know, golly, some schools cost like a hundred million bucks. Now, you know, if you're building a big high school, uh, is DFCS fee really gonna be $1.25 million to oversee such a project?

  16. Sen. Chris H. Wilson2:11:52

      I think that represents a ceiling, and it's, and it's congruent right now with what we're doing with state agencies and higher education for project management oversight.

  17. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:12:01

      I guess maybe my struggle with that is a lot of school districts are, I mean, I shouldn't say a lot, but the larger school districts in this state, I think, are doing this on their own with qualified professionals. Wouldn't this just add to the cost? Or are you anticipating that they would just lay off all of their, their own facilities managers?

  18. Sen. Chris H. Wilson2:12:21

      Uh, no, I'm not expecting them to lay off any of their facilities. I, this is just, uh, you know, added resources to try and help them well, and, and also trying to share. But they're, they're not gonna go in and tell them which plans or how to build or what. They're going to give them suggestions and ideas and, uh, with materials, making sure they're, um, they're, they're, the, the building is safe.

  19. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:12:44

      Okay. You know, so it's, I think you're reading more into it that it's going to be more of overtaking, it's just, it's gonna be just more oversight to make sure that, uh, uh, the buildings are safe. And ultimately it's the, at the LEAs will make the, make the determination and decide which building they or plans they want to build. And, and I appreciate that. My question is more a sense of can schools really afford an extra million dollars on a high school project, um, to, in order to pay that, uh, I guess to the sponsor, I would just say, uh, I've worked with this and I know there are some inefficiencies, and I appreciate the, that this is responding to an audit. And I think that having DFCM manage this is better in general than having the state board do it. I, they have construction management staff, but I, I don't think that construction management is tip, you know, is really like in the state board of education's wheelhouse. Right. And it is right in DFCM, so like, that makes sense to me. Um, you know, I've gotten a lot of emails on this raising some concerns and questions. I know the sponsor has gotten those to Mr. Chair, and, uh, you know, he's made assurances to me. And as I've talked with schools, like, you know, I, I don't think they like the bill where it currently is, but they also have a list of things where they felt like, I, it seems to me those seem like reasonable things that can be negotiated. And I think this has the potential to get to a consensus point. And I think the sponsor does too. And I've received his commitment, uh, to be working on those. So I, I'll be happy to make a motion, or I guess it's his own bill, he'll probably make the motion, but I'll support, you know, moving this forward. 'cause I think this is an important issue. Um, and I think we can, you know, some of those finer details, I, I, I feel pretty confident that when we get the right players in the, in, in the room and really work at it, that we can come to, to really a, a good solid policy on, on this. But, uh, I just raised that fee. 'cause I think that fee seems awfully high. I'm guess I'm glad to know it's a ceiling. Let's make sure that that's reflected in the legislation.

  20. Committee chair2:14:47

      Senator Hankins,

  21. Sen. David P. Hinkins2:14:49

      Uh, thank you. I, uh, have several questions. And the main thing is we have a hard time bonding for schools in rural areas anyway, you know, and, and, uh, be able to bond and then have o oversight, have Big Brother come and tell us how we're gonna build our buildings and what we're gonna do. And, you know, I can see on Wasatch front, they've got a high potential for earthquakes, but, you know, down in Blanding, Utah, they're one of the more, it's been said that was one of the most, uh, safest for natural disasters. So why are they gonna have to build with the same standards that we have on the Wasatch front? You know? And I'm kind of in, you know, insulted by, you know, US country bumpkins, don't have a clue of what we're doing, and so Big Brother needs to come down and tell us how to do it, how much it's gonna do, and everything else. I think it's a, you know, that's a terrible attitude towards rural Utah that we don't know what the hell's going on. And it's an insult to me. You know, that's where your power plant's at, that's where your power comes from, is Southern Utah and southeastern Utah. And, and then things have been built by US Country bumpkins and the coldest mines by US Country bumpkins. You know, I think that to have a big brother come and tell us, you know, and add more costs to the, you know, we have a hard time, like I said, getting people to bond for these schools anyway. Sure. And then you say, well, we got, we get major contracts. I remember when they done the windshields in cars. Okay? You get a company up here that's a nationwide company, but they don't have a place down in, uh, Monticello or in Emery County or Carbon County. So we gotta drive up to Salt Lake or to, to Provo to get a windshield put in a damn car. And down at the prison, it's Gunnison, okay? You get, you buy everything from Home Depot. So you gotta have a send a guy up because either to Richfield or to Spanish Fork or Provo to get a screw, you know, and in Home Depot, down in Blanding, what are we gonna do? Go over to Cortez and buy all our products for the school and in Moab, go to Grand Junction and buy everything. I mean, it's, you know, let you know, let us have some, uh, rural discretion and let us, you know, do it ourselves. I mean, we've been so, you know, we may not get by the way you guys do, but we do get by, and it's used probably for half the price that you guys get it for 'em. And why don't, why don't we let our little, uh, local contractors do some work instead of having the, you know, just the big ones up here in Salt Lake, uh, Wasatch Front, get all the, you know, everything, you know, we, we have construction companies down there that builds roads the same as they do in Salt Lake. And, uh, I just think that it's, uh, I, I'm tired of Big Brother telling us what the hell we're gonna do on everything we do. And so I'm opposed to this, Mr. Sheriff, I can, uh, obviously don't want to, you know, insult the good Senator.

  22. Sen. Chris H. Wilson2:17:26

      Um, this is only trying to help, uh, with the process. I don't think we're gonna try and tell them what kind of schools they have to build. Not gonna tell 'em which construction companies they need to use. They're just there to try and help. Um, with, with helping them know which materials, which designs, they might be able to save money, I would think that would help the bonding system if the, if the, uh, citizens knew that they had an oversight to make sure that costs are controlled.

  23. Committee chair2:17:58speaker not certain

      Mr. Mr. Chairman, this is, go ahead.

  24. Sen. David P. Hinkins2:18:01

      In my opinion, this is just the camel's nose under the tent, and it's just gonna escalate from here. Everything we do, we escalate from here. And I think I'm gonna put a stop to it if I can right now.

  25. Committee chair2:18:13

      Senator Balder, go ahead.

  26. Sen. Stephanie Balderree2:18:16

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to, um, share with the committee some concerns from my local school board. Uh, I tend to agree with Senator Fillmore that this bill has some merit, but there are definitely some things that need to be to, um, worked out. And I wanna give you some examples of how this is problematic for high growth areas such as mine, which is the, the fastest growing, um, district in the state. And, uh, for those of you that dunno, that's Lehi, Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, and a small part of Draper. Um, and so I'm just gonna read straight from an email because she said it best. Um, she said, while individual construction projects can involve higher costs due to unique local conditions, those decisions are often driven by necessity in long-term fiscal stewardship. For example, a new high school currently under construction in our district, this is where I live, um, required approximately 3000 aggregate piers to address soil stability and unavoidable costs that would not apply in many other regions. At the same time, we intentionally make design choices that reduce long-term operating expenses. And I've been to this school and observed this such as tiling the bathroom walls to the ceiling to minimize maintenance and labor costs, and using rock and native landscaping in lieu of grass to significantly reduce water usage over time. And local school boards are accountable to the communities and taxpayers and are best positioned to balance up front construction costs with long-term savings. So more than just the short term, um, price tag, this bill would limit that ability. In particular, uh, I would ask the, the good sponsor to review lines 551 to 564, and consider how that would impede our capacity to respond to growth in a timely manner. Line 564 is especially problematic as transportation routes cannot be finalized until school boundaries are established. Boundaries are set close to school openings to ensure the most accurate enrollment projections and approach that is critical, and districts experiencing rapid growth where projections can change dramatically during that three year high school construction timeline. And again, um, I look forward to working with you on this bill to address some of those concerns. Thank you.

  27. Committee chair2:20:39

      Seeing no other lights, we're gonna go to members of the public for comment there. Anyone from the public that wants to comment on this? Bill, state your name for the record and, and go ahead.

  28. Lexi Cunningham, Utah School Boards Association2:20:59

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Lexi Cunningham, representing the Utah School Boards Association and Utah Superintendents Association. We appreciate Senator Wilson's willingness to engage with stakeholders, solicit feedback, and make revisions to hb, I mean SB 1 64 in response to those concerns. While these changes have, these changes represent progress, we continue to have three primary concerns. First, cost oversight and fees. Significant concerns remain regarding the cost oversight function and the amount of oversight fees and which costs are appropriately included in that fee. In addition, the facilities assessment and deferred maintenance requirements continue to be extremely costly for our large district. Second, we would like to see LEAs with the expertise to complete the work, retain the opportunity to continue doing the work. Disallowing. This practice will potentially cost more and slow the building process. Our local, our local school boards know what's best. Third, the performance audit recommendation, the performance audit of the Public School's Construction Standard Inefficiency, um, explicitly notes that. And then this is from ola. We have not recently conducted an audit of DFCM. Accordingly, we cannot speak to their efficiencies or effectiveness, however, they are currently the state's construction office and likely have more construction expertise than the state board. We recommend that if the legislature consider placing some responsibilities over school construction with DFCM, then the legislature should also consider authorizing a performance audit of DFCM. OLAG has begun that auditing process, and we suggest that before moving forward with this bill, that we let Olag finish their audit, make their recommendation, and include those recommendations in the bill. In closing, while the amendments to SB 1 64, demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder input, significant issues related to costs, expertise, oversight, authority, and accountability remain unresolved. Additional safeguards are necessary before expanding, um, and changing the role of school construction. Please involve K 12 LEAs in your working groups and the work on this. We wanna be involved, we wanna make sure that we are doing it right and doing it, um, cost effectively. Thank you.

  29. Committee chair2:23:19

      Thank you. Any other comments come forward. State your name for the record and go ahead.

  30. Justin Naegle, Director, AEC Department, Granite School District2:23:30

      Good afternoon, Senator Vickers. Chairman Johnson. My name is Justin Negley. I'm the Director of architecture, engineering and construction at the Grand Island School District. I, uh, have, I'll write my name down. This bill will negatively impact us, uh, for several reasons. We would look forward to partnering and collaborating with anybody including DFCM and would love to work, uh, alongside anybody that would, that would work along with us. We know that it's best, uh, for our students and our communities. Uh, our administrators and our teachers, they are part of us. They are our, uh, colleagues and we, uh, know them best. We, uh, last year quickly, uh, made changes so that we can comply with HB 58. Uh, I'll let, uh, rich speak to that in just a second though. Bill mentions that having our own building inspectors is a conflict of interest. We do not believe this is to be true. Uh, as an example of the State Fire Marshal's Office, deputizes, uh, local, uh, fire marshals within the district and, and commence on doing daily fire safety inspections, we, uh, have two fire marshals within the Granite School District and take care of that in a very effective and efficient manner. We actively collaborate with multiple, with local municipalities and other agencies located in the Granite Scholarship boundaries, and to ensure successful projects and collaborative nature with other stakeholders. As one of the larger districts in the state, uh, we have had the opportunity to work alongside some of our smaller friends and in, in some symposiums and other opportunities to share knowledge and gained insight. We likewise have gained insight from some of our smaller district partners. We would love to continue that process and would be willing to, uh, take a stand and, and lead out on that measure if, if, if allowed. And lastly, I believe this bill seems to ignore the LEAs such as Granite School District's extensive qualifications, certifications. Our team saved $120,000 just last week alone on one change order that was presented to us by a contractor. We took charge of that, uh, made a couple of small changes and was able to save extensive money, uh, towards one of our, uh, current schools that's being, uh, built.

  31. Allen Rice, Architectural Services Manager, AEC, Granite School District2:25:29

      I'm Alan Rice, architectural Services Manager for Granite School District. Uh, I am a licensed architect in the state of Utah, and I've been in practice for over 39 years and held licenses in 26 states. I manage a staff of two architectural designers, one of whom is pursuing licensure in Utah, our state deputized liaison with the state fire marshal's office, and two environmental safety technicians. I'd just like to fill you in a little bit about what we do as, uh, an architectural department, granite School District being among, uh, the three largest schools in Utah, uh, is here, providing quality and public education to children in, uh, Salt Lake County. Uh, we as a department are charged with safe quality and code compliant facilities throughout design and construction of all of our buildings. Uh, we're responsible for overseeing and evaluating the design process by performing design and code reviews. Internally, our project managers and inspectors are continuously ensuring compliance with the construction documents during construction. We're all credentialed professionals in our respective fields and strive to uphold our professional and ethical standards as required by our professions. And we can provide with the required review and inspection services quickly and efficiently. And within the current construction laws, including building codes, granite has been aligned with the DFCM principles longer than my six years with the district. Our contracts and designers contracts, contractor and designer contracts and agreements are pardon patterned after the DFCM models, along with our general conditions for construction. These are all currently under review to align with the current DFCM documents. We utilize the DFCM pre-qualified designers list to select architects and engineers for projects below $1.2 million, and follow a rigorous SOQ selection process for larger projects. Our design fees are calculated based on the DFCM model, um, and require designers to agree to those terms prior to award. And we would welcome the idea of DFCM producing a contractor's list in order to make the selection of bidding process and bidding process for construction a little simpler. In short, districts that have the internal capacity through properly credentialed employees to perform the necessary design and inspection functions as they have for many years, are well qualified to continue in that role in collaboration and cooperation with DFCM while utilizing parameters set in place by the division. This would allow the districts to respond quickly to the needs of the district while still keeping DFCM informed of construction in the district. Thank you, uh, for giving us the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.

  32. Richard Tregeagle, Construction Services Manager, AEC, Granite School District2:28:22

      My name is Richard Regale. I am the, uh, construction Services Manager at Granite School District. I'm also the school district building official, I'm gonna be really brief in what I have to say to you. It is basically, uh, uh, a quick view of our credentials. Um, as I said, uh, we have myself as the, uh, building official compliant with the last year's qualified building official requirements. We also have one additional staff member who, uh, meets that requirement. Also, our department is comprised of four Utah State building inspectors that are licensed through doppel. Two are combination inspectors. Two are limited inspectors, inspectors, and all four hold commercial, four-way credentials. This, uh, works out to be 53 International Code Council certifications have been awarded to our team. We know what we're doing. We have 32 years of combined, uh, inspection experience, and the four project managers bring practical experience beyond inspection and code compliance. The team has a total of 52 years of combined service and experience at Granite School District. We've been there a while. Two team members have 23 years of combined experience in our facilities and maintenance department. In addition, uh, one is a state license, master master electrician, one receiving associate's degree in heating and air conditioning. One received an associate's degree in construction management. One is a special deputy fire marshal and a certified fire Inspector. Granite School District has maintained a well-trained construction management team for over two decades. We take great pride in the performance of our duties. Those duties focus on providing a safe learning environment for the students through the application of the building codes. Thank you for the time.

  33. Committee chair2:30:22

      Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments? Come forward and state your name for the record and who you're representing.

  34. Jennie Earl, USBE Board Member2:30:31

      Thank you. Uh, Jenny Earl, and I am speaking on behalf of myself, but I am just sharing, um, I just a, a little bit of what the code says if we don't make any changes, which goes back to the audit. Um, and the state board has not taken a stand on this yet. I think, um, uh, Senator Wilson is coming this Thursday to talk with us, so we'll have additional discussion and questions there, but without any changes to law. The code currently reads that the, the school district or charter school shall submit to the state superintendent public instruction and the municipal building official on a monthly basis during construction of the school, building a copy of each inspection certification regarding the school building. So we're, we're receiving all these pieces, and I think that's where the audit said, Hey, we need to, um, is there adequate resources to address this appropriately? And I guess what I'm saying is that if you're asking us to do this, that we're gonna need additional expertise and additional people for that to do this. The way I think that it's being asked to be done, I think there's plenty of room. It sounds like there's a lot of people interested in continuing to talk about this and work on this, and I know the state board is interested in that in our school's facility, people. So thank you. Thank You very much.

  35. Committee chair2:31:44

      Come forward, state your name for the record. Go ahead, tell us who you represent.

  36. Aaron Metcalfe, Vice President, Hogan and Associates Construction2:31:50

      Sure. My name is Aaron Metcalf. I'm, uh, a vice president at, uh, Hogan and Associates Construction. We are the largest data cd, uh, K 12 builder in the state. Um, and really it may seem like, uh, you know, kind of the fox in the hen house here, uh, especially with, uh, the way this bill is written. However, we share, uh, Senator, uh, Wilson's concerns about cost, because really when it comes down to it, uh, the higher the cost of the buildings, the fewer the buildings there are in a bond, and then thus, uh, it affects us, is that we have fewer opportunities to build. So, uh, it, it, it's, it's really behooves everybody to be involved in, in lowering costs and making these, uh, buildings more effective and and efficient. Uh, the issue really comes down to is that the, uh, that the bill mandates a lot of things that are really, uh, out there right now for school districts to, uh, take part in for an example, uh, working with the fine folks at DFCM is, uh, already a possibility. The issue really comes down to is that, uh, whether it's true or not, uh, it is, uh, seen by a lot of the LEAs that, uh, the DFCM raises costs more than it does now, this may not be a fair comparison to, uh, K 12 as opposed to, uh, higher education with all those other, uh, things that they have to deal with, with donors and other things like this. But, uh, there is in lies the, uh, challenge that DFCM has. Now, what I would suggest is, uh, as a builder of educational facilities, uh, and I've been doing this for 26 years, so it's just not something that, uh, I've just come up with right now, is where I come and see and talk to, uh, districts of all sizes. The issue really comes down to is that there's a lack of education, ironically enough, in the, uh, construction process. Now, the CMGC, uh, processes, which we believe in very highly because of its collaborative nature, is really being kind of vilified in this in a sense, when in actuality it's the one, uh, uh, uh, method of construction that is more, uh, uh, transparent and has the ability of providing more cost savings than any of the others. Design, build, build or design build. Uh, and we can talk about that more in depth, but the issue is, is that, uh, one of the things that just frustrates me on a personal and professional level is that, uh, with all the discussion about design and controlling design and capping, you know, things like this, and believe me, I'm not an advocate for the architectural industry by any stretch, but the issue really comes down to, uh, is that there is just a lack of knowledge on how the contractors are not engaged from the very beginning. We're not even engaged. It's very rare that a contractor like ourselves is brought in as a bond. Uh, cost consultants we're usually brought in at 30% design, 50% design, or in the case of a, you know, low bid, you know, project, it's at, uh, a hundred percent design when design, just like anything else, it's not a, a perfect process. So there's really a lot of, uh, uh, constructability reviews, uh, you know, red line reviews. Things that we could be doing early in the process is even if it was state mandated that we were hired along with the architects. When that takes place, usually there's a lot of issues of why that's not the case. And I, we can talk about that historically, but the real thing that we need to focus in on is bringing these, these groups together, talking, uh, instead of mandating. And I think the communication would really come up with, uh, everybody talking about this. One of the other things, um, I really don't like comparison to other states, but, uh, I was approached, um, by a, um, member of the school Facilities Commission there in Wyoming, just, uh, about a month ago. And he asked me why their school facilities actually cost more online about $200 a square foot more than what we hear paid in Utah. So I really wanna be careful about, uh, this comparison that, that takes place, uh, generally in a lot of, uh, states that there are issues with how, if it's, uh, governed through an agency, the agency through red tape and all these other things, extend schedules and bring the budgets higher. This 1.25% is just the beginning. It's not the end. And, uh, that's just the way the government works. And I think here in Utah, we should know that. Uh, thank you very much. Thank you.

  37. Joey Gilbert, President, Associated General Contractors of Utah2:36:35

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, JOE Gilbert, with the Associated General Contractors. We represent commercial construction here in the city of Utah. Have over 700 member firm companies, um, that do this type of work day in and day out for not only, uh, state agencies, uh, such as DFCM, but udot and others. Uh, we like to commend, uh, the sponsor for this legislation. We certainly support the goals and objectives in which we're trying to be accomplished. And as an organization, we certainly appreciate our relationship and partnership with the DFCM. And I know our contractors that do DFCM work enjoy the opportunity to do that work for them. Um, just again, not to reiterate, uh, some of the comments that are already shared, but as an organization, uh, we have met with a, just a small handful of our members currently on this piece of legislation, would like the opportunity to meet with some more, to, to, uh, get a better idea and concept of, uh, what is entailed and, and maybe the concerns and challenges that, uh, might come from a, uh, one of our, as we've taken a, a brief look at it and a read, um, we think that the way that the current draft is, uh, drafted that it will cost more money, not save more money. And so, uh, again, we have, uh, concerns on that. But one thing I can say about contractors, we like to solve problems. We like to build things and we like to improve things. And so, um, I can tell you that, uh, we will take the opportunity to, to make, uh, and build this better if given the chance. But, um, you know, contractors, uh, bid, uh, risk, they bid, uh, complexity and they bid uncertainty. And that's really what the true costs are on any type of construction project is, uh, what, uh, those complexities, risks, as well as uncertainties are. And with that in mind, I, I'd like to commit that we as an A GC, would love to work with the sponsor and come up with, uh, again, ways to improve and, uh, make better if possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  38. Shawn Benjamin, Government Affairs Committee, American Institute of Architects2:38:38

      Thank you. Go ahead. My name is Sean Benjamin. I'm on the board of Directors of a i, a Utah on the Government Affairs Committee. Uh, I am speaking representing the, the A IU Utah. Uh, I'm also Draper citizen for what it's worth. But, um, so, uh, we've been following, uh, the discussions and legislation and, um, uh, interim session meetings that have been related to, uh, many of the school construction, um, questions and concerns that have come up. Uh, we've, we've certainly had concerns of our own as, as sentiment has been expressed, uh, some negatively, uh, towards architects. And I think that's where, uh, the, the fee structure comes in here. But, um, it's, it's been a curious process. We appreciate certainly the work and efforts that that's been put into the build that's before us right now. Um, on the whole, we, we agree with the idea of, of having additional oversight. Um, there are things that fall through the cracks in the construction process and design process, and we think there's value in, in having that additional in, uh, oversight. Um, and, and potentially having that managed. Uh, we would suggest that maybe there's an opportunity not to have a car blanc, um, fixed fee for every project and every circumstance, but maybe an a la carte sort of menu style version of, of how those fees might be applicable in how those services might be, uh, used best by LEAs. Um, we agree with the idea that, uh, there's additional training that that's necessary, especially when we have smaller entities, uh, and, and, and no offense senator in rural areas. Um, some of those, um, some of those processes can be a little more complicated and, uh, sometimes they don't have the, the manpower or the experience to deal with those things, but they can be trained. Everybody can be trained. Um, so we think being a part of that process, developing those standards to help those people be more capable or more aware of what they're dealing with, I think is a positive thing. Um, when it comes to the contractor selection and AE selection process, um, there's some, uh, conflicting messages being sent by the bill right now. Currently we're saying it's a good idea to, uh, have a selection of contractors that, that LEAs can choose from. Um, but at the same time, that limits competition, that limits, um, the ability for, for other contractors to be involved in this process. Now, we like for qualification based selections to be made. Um, but this bill also in terms of, uh, AE selection suggests that a low bid selection is the best method. Perhaps it's, it's not, uh, mandatory certainly, uh, per the language, but, um, the suggestion or, or recommendation that, uh, architects be selected based off of their low bid price, off of, off of a construction cost is, um, a little bit of a misunderstanding, demonstrates a misunderstanding of what architects do, how their fees are based and, and requires a little, um, concerning from our perspective, uh, the plan library that is suggested is something that, uh, Utah has tried, uh, from 1994, or actually maybe a little before then through, uh, 2010, there were seven different schools at least that I could find that were modeled off of the Jordan High School and Copper Hills Riverton. Uh, the list goes down when you follow those schools and, and the cost of those schools and modify for inflation, what you see is an increase in school costs that exceeds the inflationary rate leading up to Herriman, where the cost of the high school exceeded the inflationary rate by 50%. So simply having a a a a library of plans probably isn't the best solution, but it's a solution, right? So we're, we're respectful of, of the ideas and the process and, and would like to be a part of that discussion as we move forward. Implementation was a concern that we also had. Um, it, I know that this bill gives a one year implementation benchmark, um, but if we're talking about also having a plan library, you're talking about a nine plus month design process just in and of itself. So having that library in place within a year could be challenging, especially if the standards that they're supposed to pace those designs off of haven't been implemented yet. Uh, lastly, the coordination of this bill is a really critical thing with both HB 43 and HB 2 98, both of those bills, the first one being school security, the second being the plans library, I think are really elements that need to be sorted out and dealt with concurrently, which may lend itself to extending the, the opportunity to review this legislation more. Thank you.

  39. Joe McAllister, General Counsel, Hughes General Contractors2:43:46

      Uh, my name is Joe McAllister. I work for Hughes General Contractors. We try to pick up the few educational projects that are great competitors at Hogan don't win. And, uh, I, I am just here to, uh, we've worked with DFCM and they're incredible folks, but I, I wanna raise this question. Number one, I, I think the details of how this, this process for improving school construction and, and managing those cost escalations, that's easy. That's easy to do. The big question is what's the framework? And the thing that I keep coming back to is, uh, article 10, section three of the Utah Constitution, which says that oversight and control of the public education system shall be what the Utah State Board of Education, and that includes this, there's section four, as you probably know, says, Hey, higher ed, that that can be according to whatever statute the legislature passes. And that's why that is with DFCM, I believe. But constitutionally, rather than just assume that DFCM is the efficiency, we have to look back and say, the Constitution for a reason says that the San Juan County School District is by definition an independent procurement unit. So is the TIC School District and the Davis County School District. Davis School District, sorry. And those are for a reason. So they can respond to their constituents, they can teach the way that they teach, and each of them has a little bit different approach to it. And that framework dictates some of the problems that we have. But we can work within that framework. We don't have to throw that framework out to make this a better system. I think, um, that's what I would like to, to think about is before we move this thing forward, maybe we push, pause, get together and think, is this constitutional, fundamentally, does this meet with the constitutional mandate that the State Board of Education, which they can do it, they've got folks, they've got Mr. Dean Dyer over there is as good of a construction professional as you're gonna find. There is no reason why we can't stand those folks up, coach 'em up, show 'em this is how we're gonna do this, and they could put together a system within their constitutional mandate. Now, I would encourage us to maybe take a, take a couple days, meet with as many stakeholders as necessary to figure out how we do that within the framework that the Constitution and the procurement code is already established.

  40. Committee chair2:46:39

      Thank you. Unless there are any questions. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak to this? Okay. Let's go with the one, Tracy Taylor, go ahead.

  41. Tracy Taylor, Wasatch Taxpayers Association2:47:11

      Hi, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Great. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. Um, my name's Tracy Taylor. I'm with the Wasatch Taxpayers Association up in Wasatch School District. Uh, over the last 25 years, some of our members of the Taxpayers Association has been very closely involved with this subject. Um, back in 2000, we had a $5 million renovation where $1.8 million disappeared in 2009. We had a $59.5 million high school go 25 million over budget, and we never knew where that money came from. So there was a legislative audit back in 2008 that actually cited some of our bid processes and the flaws there. Um, so we've been dealing with this for a very long time in Wasatch County. We totally support this bill. Um, we have met over the years with the, uh, U-S-O-O-E, uh, finance department 15 years ago, so a state superintendent, um, where that we tried to explain to them that some of the information on their website was not correct as far as construction costs. So, you know, I'm a taxpayer here advocating for better, uh, standardized costs and correct info on state websites for the taxpayers of the state of Utah to be able to check their own school districts. Um, so that's what this bill does. I understand some of the large LEAs do not feel they need this, but honestly, Wasatch School District has really stressed the taxpayers up here in the last 25 years. Um, I would suggest that a taxpayer group should be on the working group, should be part of the stakeholders. Um, I understand there's many others, but I did not hear of a taxpayer group that was involved. And we are very educated in this, in this subject. I wanna thank the legislative audit group last spring with the audit. I, um, thank Senator Wilson for proposing this bill. And, you know, I think the fees are a little high. I think there's things we can tweak here to make it, to keep the costs of school construction down. That is the biggest problem. But I, I think as a whole, um, you know, we need the transparency. We need the correct info online and the oversight from DFCM, uh, that is a great improvement to school construction. Thank you.

  42. Committee chair2:50:26

      Thank you very much. Looks like that concludes comments. Uh, we're gonna come back to the Committee for action. Senator Fillmore, go ahead.

  43. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:50:39

      It's actually my light. Oh, can I take it? Yeah, you, you're in There. I, I, I'm gonna make a favorable recommendation that we move out Senate Bill 1 64, and I understand that the good sponsor is gonna continue to work with stakeholders and perfect this bill through the process. And I, I probably address some of the concerns that were expressed today.

  44. Committee chair2:51:01

      Thank you, Senator Rebe discussion on the motion.

  45. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe2:51:07

      I will still be voting no, but I would suggest maybe we make it an opt-in possibility. And, um, see who wants to partake in this process.

  46. Committee chair2:51:19

      Any other comments? Seeing none, Senator Welson back to you.

  47. Sen. Chris H. Wilson2:51:25

      I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We obviously got, uh, our work cut out for us. Uh, you know, we're, we're taking, you know, the audit recommendations. We're taking, uh, input from Utah State Board of Education. We're trying to relieve them of, of some responsibilities. Um, we're gonna meet with them, obviously on, on Thursday. We meet with the board. Um, like I said, I, I think it's a, a problem we need to address. Um, but we obviously, uh, have a lot of work to do, which I'm willing to do. Um, I just want to, as many of the, uh, uh, eight construction and, uh, there is work to be done. I think there's some areas that can, can Helper, bring in contractors in earlier in the process, and it's a great idea. I may have mentioned one thing on the, uh, yeah, there is, there is an audit that, that has been called for, for DFCM. I've talked with the auditors. Uh, that is, it is not a major, major audit. It's just on processes and a few things. The best thing about that audit is the same auditors that, uh, did this school construction, um, audit, are also the same ones doing the DFCM. And I think their knowledge will be very, very helpful in trying to mesh together on, on what we can do going forward to try and help the problem. But, uh, Mr. Chair, I am willing to, uh, work with stakeholders. I'm a small business owner myself, so, um, I understand their concerns on, on, uh, some of these issues. We're just trying to three, uh, thread that needle between what the auditors have told us, trying to help Utah Board of Education, and also help the, the, uh, taxpayers knowing that we are liable, uh, for these, the school construction. Make sure they're safe.

  48. Committee chair2:53:02

      Thank you. Um, back to you. Okay. So the motion on the table is to send out SB 1 64 with favorable recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, it's five to two with, uh, re and hings opposed.

  49. Unknown speaker2:53:28speaker not certain

      Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  50. Committee chair2:53:32

      Senator McKay here? He's Not, I don't see him.

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (31 turns)

  1. Senate President (presiding)33:46

     The bill is Uncircled. Senator Wilson.

  2. Sen. Chris H. Wilson33:49

     I thank you Mr. Uh, Mr. President. Uh, I'd like to, uh, move the second sub on SB 1 64.

  3. Senate President (presiding)33:56

     Okay. We'll skip the first and go to the second. That motion's in order. Do you want to explain the second substitute to us?

  4. Sen. Chris H. Wilson34:04

     Uh, yes. The second sub, uh, basically we've had between 14 and 15 stakeholders and with input on the, on the bill, we've been able to put most of the language in the second sub. Um, and it from the original, it removes a provision that would've required school di school districts to notify local agencies before purchasing or leasing school property and to submit construction traffic and safety plans prior to building. It also changes from a mandatory up to 1.25% oversight fee to a fee schedule established by division rule and approved by the rate committee with fees that can be reduced or waived for school districts with delegated oversight authority and adjusted based on actual oversight provided. And those fees, Mr. President are put in the, uh, physical note. They basically start at $2,000, um, and go up to a maximum on a $50 million project of $107,000. That's if they opted in for the complete plan review and, um, uh, and all the way, all the way up to the certificate of occupancy with the building inspections throughout. So that would be the most, it would be as $107,000. It adds provisions clarifying that school districts that hire a division approved project manager are exempt from paying the construction oversight fee. It adds provision permitting school district employees who meet, meet qualifications to be included on the DFCM approved Inspector roster. Pre preserving some local capacity, it adds new language. Clarifying, nothing in this section shall prohibit the required regulation or subsequent inspection by the local health department. It changes from DFCM may deny to may only deny delivery methods and removes languages. Stating DFCM determines, uh, is is the construction management and, uh, uh, complete as, as most appropriate. Shifting to division can only deny if specific negative criteria are met. It creates a new section allowing DFCM to delegate oversight authority to qualified school districts with demonstrated internal capacity reducing state control for capable districts at one time. The first sub, there was some, uh, talk about the first sub that removed the charter schools. This second sub adds the charter schools are still in there on the second sub. It changes from maximum allowable fees to maximum allowable fees for both basic services and complexities, providing more detailed cost controls. It requires DFCM to develop design templates and prototypes in collaboration with architects experiencing the design of school facilities. These templates and prototypes Mr. President, are not gonna be man mandated. They're just gonna be up to the, um, districts whether they want to use them or not. That pretty well does the second sub.

  5. Senate President (presiding)37:12

     Thank you. You have a motion to substitute. Do we have discussion on the motion? Seen? Not all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? This bill is substitute. Do any further presentation on the bill? Yes, I could. Mr. President, go ahead.

  6. Sen. Chris H. Wilson37:25

     Thank you. Um, currently the Utah State Board of Education is responsible for the high level oversight of public school construction. The school board has neither the expertise nor the capacity to provide the required oversight. Currently, this is what the board is, is responsible for providing guidelines for public school construction, a construction and inspection resource, manual bidding limitations on school boards, an annual school plant capacity outlay report, oversight of building inspections and plan reviews, training of building inspections and certificates of occupancy. That's what currently, and let me talk about, uh, an audit was just, uh, done by our legislative audit team, and they came and, uh, reported to the inter, inter interim education committee. And this is what they found in their audit. The audit identified situations where unqualified and or inexperienced district personnel were making important decisions regarding the construction of school buildings. We found some LEAs that did not have the relevant qualifications and experience to perform construction related activities appropriately authorizing unqualified individuals to make construction decisions on behalf of an lea a increases the risk of unsafe school buildings. The purpose of oversight is to reasonably assure that facilities construction is done according to building code requirements, which include minimum life and safety standards, as well as industry best practice. Our audit found that the state board's oversight system did not function properly. The system did not verify comp compliance with building codes and did not demonstrate the two true costs of K 12 construction across the state. Here are a few c uh, circumstances. Lemme just talk about they say, below our several circumstances we observed or heard reported, which indicated that increased oversight or assistant may be beneficial. Independent code professionals found that unqualified building officials inappropriately waived building code requirements. LEA administrators without the necessary technical code expertise should not negotiate with design professionals on critical life safety issues. Our independent code professionals could not determine whether many of the K through 12 school project plans were reviewed and appropriately and approved appropriately. Plans lacked design professionals seals stamps and approvals, making it difficult to know which plans were reviewed and approved. The plans may have been reviewed and approved, but we can, we cannot know for sure. Functional oversight should ensure review and approval and usually some of the risks of the conflicts of interest. Some LEAs may have allowed designers to allegedly select or participate in the selection of plan reviewers. The tight construction timeline allegedly encourages designers to pick plan reviewers that will go quickly and cheaply, which may lead to unenforced code requirements against the interests of the owner. Also, LEAs inexperienced with construction may not have the resources to hire experienced owners' representation. Without experienced rep representation or in-house construction experts, there may be an increased risk of conflicting interest being decided between the owner and in favor of a construction manager or general contractor architect or other contracted entity. Also, they decide to find out that rural districts reportedly need help with managing construction. A rural district's business administration administrator reported to us that their district and other smaller districts could use some help in managing construction needs. Mr. President, this bill transfers public school construction oversight from the State Board of Education to DFCM for both school districts and charter schools. It establishes four goals, it construction oversight through plan review and inspection, cost control via cost matrices and benchmarks, standardization through design prototypes and uniform reporting and data collection. Probably the most important thing in, in my estimation, through comprehensive databases, the bill includes delegated authority for qualified LEA and appeals process and phases in implementation, beginning January 1st, 2027 with full cost database requirements by July, 2030. When the school district or charter school wants to build a new school, they must obtain DFCM approval at five decision points before proceeding proceeding architect contract approval. The LEA must submit proposed architect contracts to DFCM for verification that fees don't exceed published maximums with review within 15 business days. Pre-construction costs matrix approval, the LEA must demonstrate the project fits within d FM's Cost matrix meets cost square foot parameters for the building type and region. It shows costs are consistent with division benchmarks with review within 15 business days plan review and construction permit. DF CM reviews construction documents for compliance with building codes, assessor accessibility energy codes, fire safety, mandatory security standards before issuing exclusive construction permit with review within 10 days, contract approval for construction contracts exceeded 1 million. The LEA must submit prepared proposed cost for benchmark comparison and justify any cost exceeding benchmarks by more than 10%. Certificate of occupancy after construction, DFCM reviews all closeout documentation, inspection reports, and code compliance verification before issuing the exclusive occupancy cer cer certificate that satisfies all local requirements. And with review within 10 business days during construction, LEAs must u must use only DFCM approved inspections that can include qualified district employees. So the larger districts that already have employees are gonna be able to discontinue the way they are with their own plan review and their own certificate of occupancy. They'll be able to decide what the designs are in the schools the same way it has before they, um, based on schedule maintenance by rule and approved by the rate committee with fees. Of course, we've talked about the fees and those hiring division approved project managers, whether you have employees or if you have a district that are used to using a division approved project manager, you can still hire a project manager. I think those project managers usually cost somewhere around 3% to oversee the project from start to finish. And as long as they are qualified and licensed business, um, contractors as far as their, um, uh, they, they are, they can be the DFCM will approve them. So the, there's also appeals process for a three Men member panel. If there is a problem. They can have within 20 to 45 days, depending on, uh, if they need to appeal any decision by DFCM. The State Board of Education must designate a school construction liaison, which is already in place, who serves as the primary contact. Um, the L-D-F-C-M may delegate oversight authority here again for school fac, facility planning, design review, and construction plan approval to the LEAs that demonstrate internal capacity and construction management, procurement and project delivery with a qualification criteria and application process defined by DFCM rule. The LEAs granted delegate authority can handle their own internal plan reviews and approvals, re receive reduced or waived oversight fees depending on what they're looking for, promote proportional to their actual oversight, but remain subject to all reporting requirements. And they must use the DFC of approved inspectors, which is on their website. And it's easy to, to go ahead and be added to the, to the, uh, website. All you have to do is have a dopple, uh, show that you're a licensed billing inspector. It must submit to compliance audits and can have their delegated authority revoked by DFCM if they find noncompliance or substantial risk to help safety or physical integrity. Again, districts will retain full control of the capital projects and facility management program subject to oversight from DFCM. The districts will continue to control and manage LEAs with their own design and construction procurement, as well as conduct plan reviews and inspections with qualified staff. Uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions. I'll add it there.

  7. Senate President (presiding)46:57

     Thank you for that presentation to the bill. Senator Ipson.

  8. Sen. Ipson47:00

     Thank you, Mr. President ProAm. Now it's my understanding that if a district has processes in place, do they continue as usual or do they have to still get clearance from DCFM? Senator Wilson? Will you yield

  9. Sen. Chris H. Wilson47:18

     No. If, if they have qualified either qualified personnel already employed or if they have a relationship with a company that already provides plan review building inspections throughout that process. And also for the occupancy, the certificate of occupancy, they are welcome to use that. Um, I believe all they have to do is just show that they're the building inspections, inspectors are certified And they can proceed to construction without state approval. I I, yeah, as long as they can show that the building inspectors are, are, uh, licensed, then yes. And as far as the design of the building is still up to the districts. Um, and as far as, like I said, the plan review can be done by the districts if they have qualified people.

  10. Senate President (presiding)48:06

      Okay, thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Senator Owens.

  11. Sen. Owens48:14

      Thank you President Pro tem. Uh, I can you attend a sponsor offer some surety on going to a central system like this, that that cost actually won't increase, um, and time on construction will be faster. Um, I know you've done a ton of work on it, uh, but if we could answer that, Mr. Speaker, president Pro Tem, Senator Wilson. You

  12. Sen. Chris H. Wilson48:38

      know, I appreciate the question and, and I, you know, I, I don't think there's any guarantees in life other than Joe Namath. Um, I, I, I, I truly believe that the best piece of this bill is going to be compiling the database where we can take best practices. If Washington County has a great way of building schools down in Washington County, I want to be able to take the information, the designs, the materials used, and be able to share those with other districts throughout the state. And we also have timelines up to 10 and 15 days, which is a lot less than what our municipalities and our counties are currently doing. Um, I guess there's no guarantees, but I, I, uh, if I was a betting man, Mr. President Pro temp, I truly believe that this, having the oversight from DFCM and collect, collecting that data, letting the districts who have the, the, uh, qualified people continue to run the projects. Um, I I I, I truly believe that we can share best practices. I do believe we can cut costs or at least, um, use best practices with other districts will help lower costs. And not only that, if I can, Mr. President ProAm, there are rural districts, and I have talked to some, some superintendents in rural districts who are very interested in having DFCM manage their projects. They can negotiate currently, I think their fee is a, is one point 25%, which from what I understand, is less than what it is for other companies that can manage a project. So, um, I I really believe that some of the rural districts and some are smaller districts that do not have, uh, district employees specifically for this person purpose, can, uh, go ahead and negotiate with DMCM and receive help on bidding the projects and working through right to certificate of occupancy.

  13. Senate President (presiding)50:38

      And thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Senator Wilson, back to you for summation or, oh, we've got a popper up here. Senator Riebe.

  14. Sen. Riebe50:49

      Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the sponsors yield to questions. Yes, Thank you. When I was looking at the recommendations, 1.12, 3.1, uh, you know, a lot of the, um, summary was internal controls training, standardized costs, comply to codes, construction, re construct, re reconstructing, um, tactics, and then DFCM inspectors. So all of these things can be done without giving our buildings, um, control over to DFCM. Uh, I have looked with the USBA, the Utah School Boards Association, and they are in opposition of this bill. I looked to the Utah Rural Schools Association, and they're opposed to this bill. And I don't know where the League of Cities and stands on this bill, but when I look at your fiscal note, the fee schedule shows me that it's going to cost certain amounts, percentages, depending on how much they're spending. Is this fee schedule gonna be added to the cost of the building?

  15. Sen. Chris H. Wilson51:57

      Senator Wilson? Yes, Mr. President Pro temp. Um, whenever a school district decides to build a program or a a building, they always add all of these fees. These fees in the physical note are only for those districts who want to use the DFCM for plan review or certificate of occupancy. So these are only going to be, but every district already includes all these fees, whether, whether they have internal, uh, employees or whether they're gonna contract with an another company, um, to, to do these services.

  16. Sen. Riebe52:35

      Thank you. Um, may I have a follow up? Yes, proceed. Thanks. To clarify, this is now an opt-in for all districts that would like to use DFCM and not a requirement.

  17. Sen. Chris H. Wilson52:49

      Senator Wilson. I'm sorry, I I couldn't hear the last part of the question.

  18. Sen. Riebe52:52

      Is this a requirement for all districts to use this service or an opt-in option?

  19. Sen. Chris H. Wilson52:59

      Senator, uh, Mr. President Prote? No, this is just, if they have to show that they have certified employees in the district, or they have a relationship, they have a contract with somebody with qualified building inspectors, they do not have to use DFCM for these fees or for the plan review or the, um, certificate of occupancy or all the, um, building inspections in between. There's more than just the two. You, you've got, you've got building inspection. They'll be, they'll be looking the rough work. They'll be checking on the concrete, uh, strength to make sure that rebar, I mean, you go on and on through the whole process.

  20. Sen. Riebe53:39

      Thank you. Um, my, I'm concerned that school districts don't like this bill. They say it's adding costs to their building. I'm also concerned with, um, the restrictive nature of some of the abilities for our school districts also to build. Uh, when I think about our school districts, I am not excited about how big the schools are becoming and how palatial they're becoming. But we are a state that allows school choice. And when we build a new school, we find that many people move outta their school and go to that new school. So do you think this would address, um, the, the, the desires of our school districts and their per people to go to schools that they wanna go to? Or would we have a one size fits all for every district now, Senator Wilson, Mr.

  21. Sen. Chris H. Wilson54:39

      President Pro temp? I mean, this is gonna be up to the districts. The districts will still be able to build whatever design of, of building they want. They'll be able to use their own people. Uh, I, I don't see how that's gonna change what type of schools that the districts build.

  22. Sen. Riebe54:56

      Thank you. Uh, one last question. Please. Go ahead. Um, so my, um, sorry. When we think about how we are building our schools, and now if we opt in, does, does the school districts still have control over their, um, maintenance and they're, um, uh, add-on buildings and can they be still in control of their facilities?

  23. Sen. Chris H. Wilson55:29

      Senator Wilson? Uh, yes. They are still in controller maintenance, but part of this bill also is, from what I've discovered in the two years I've been working on between the audit and this bill, is that there are many, many districts that have not put forth any money for the deferred maintenance. We have millions and millions of dollars going into buildings, and I'm afraid that, that most of them are not being maintained, uh, adequately up here in the hill. We do a great job when we fund a building. We always fund fund o and m as part of that building, knowing that if we maintain it, it's going to last longer. And I, I, and, um, also be safer. So I I, part of this bill is to make sure that the districts can show and they'll become a plan. It's gonna take some time, but they're gonna be able to come back and show that they have deferred maintenance program in place for their buildings.

  24. Sen. Riebe56:25

      Thank you. Um, I, I, I still am going to oppose this bill because our school boards association has not supported this bill and our rural schools associations have not supported this bill. I, um, am concerned that when we start to look at the audit and then what the audit asks, we are focusing on more of control than actually implementing codes and keeping them safe. So I want my schools to be safe, and I looked at the code, and I think we can achieve safety through most of those recommendations, which were addressed. Uh, the opt-in part I appreciate, uh, but I am concerned that I, I would, I would want to keep control of all of our buildings in the school districts. And I, I don't know if this does that completely. So thank you.

  25. Senate President (presiding)57:12

      Thank you. Further discussion of the bill. Senator Winterton.

  26. Sen. Winterton57:15

      Yes, I appreciate the sponsor tackling this problem. Having been, uh, firsthand experience of this for our smaller school districts. They don't have this sex expertise. And so they look around, sometimes it's pretty hard to find an inspector that can do a project this large. And so what they're, they're, um, trying to do in this bill is just exactly what we did in Duchesne County. And we had them come and manage it. They did the construction inspections, uh, the updates, the, uh, punch list and that, and I was amazed at, at the professionalism that they did, and they protected the customer, the school district there from having something that none of us knew that much about. And so, I, I support this bill because I think it's gonna be really good for those that are smaller and, and are challenged in, in this kind of expertise.

  27. Senate President (presiding)58:15

      Thank you. Further discussion of the bill. Seeing none. Back to you, Senator Wilson for summation and a motion.

  28. Sen. Chris H. Wilson58:21

      Thank you, Mr. Proto. Uh, yeah, this has been, uh, quite an effort. Um, let me just finish this by summing with what's in the Auditor General's best Practice Handbook for Student Achievement in Public Education and other related legislative audit work. Utah's audits emphasize that the core focus of education should be on student achievement and learning outcomes. And that other functions like facilities and construction are separate. Professional responsibilities. The handbook highlights that school boards and administrators should concentrate on improving student learning and academic achievement through clear instructional frameworks, teacher support and evidence-based planning, rather than focus on ancillary task or administrative roles that dilute attention from core educational goals. Mr. President Pro Temp, I've had conversations and I was there when the, when the, um, state school board with our, with our new superintendent who I think is doing a great job. Superintendent, uh, Molly Hart has done a great job. She indicated she does not have the resources she does. She's just been signing off on all the plan reviews and all the certificate of occupancy. Um, she doesn't have the resources and they just really don't want to have this responsibility 'cause they know they're not performing what they're supposed to be doing. DFCM has 235 employees and I believe that we found some areas and yes, the officials stance of the school boards is one way, but as I've talked with, with, uh, different employees and different school board members and special rural superintendents, I've talked with, many of 'em think this is the only way we're gonna ever have oversight and be able to collect the data We need to be able to share best practices with other districts. And so with that, Mr. President, I would a motion that, uh, allow me to continue with meeting. I've still got three or four other stakeholders that wanna meet with me. Again, I've met with probably up to 15 different stakeholders or individuals as we've worked through this process. I'd like to continue on third and hope that I can get the support to get second substitute SB 1 64 over on the third reading calendar. With that Mr. President Pro temp, I move that, uh, second substitute SB 1 64. Be read a third time. And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill 1 64?

  29. Senate President (presiding)1:00:57

      Be read for a third time. Roll call vote.

  30. Unknown speaker1:00:59speaker not certain

      Senator Vickers. Derry Lewin Brammer bus Fillmore Aye. Escamilla Fillmore a Grover. Yeah. Harper, I am too. Kins ipson. God. More up vote. Johnson Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher. Plum rebe sandal Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Stratton pickers filer. Wilson. Aye. Winterton No. One. Two Also. Aye. President Adams

  31. Senate President (presiding)1:02:25

      Second substitute Senate bill 1 64 Having received Adams aye. Okay, let me call that again. Second substitute Senate bill 1 64. Having received 18 yay votes nine na votes two being absent will be read for a third time. We'll return back to the Senate. Third reading calendar.

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Sen. Chris H. Wilson34:07

     between 14 and 15 stakeholders and with input on the, on the bill, we've been able to put most of the language in the second sub. Um, and it from the original, it removes a provision that would've required school di school districts to notify local agencies before purchasing or leasing school property and to submit construction traffic and safety plans prior to building. It also changes from a mandatory up to 1.25% oversight fee to a fee schedule established by division rule and approved by the rate committee with fees that can be reduced or waived for school districts with delegated oversight authority and adjusted based on actual oversight provided. And those fees, Mr. President are put in the, uh, physical note. They basically start at $2,000, um, and go up to a maximum on a $50 million project of $107,000. That's if they opted in for the complete plan review and, um, uh, and all the way, all the way up to the certificate of occupancy with the building inspections throughout. So that would be the most, it would be as $107,000. It adds provisions clarifying that school districts that hire a division approved project manager are exempt from paying the construction oversight fee. It adds provision permitting school district employees who meet, meet qualifications to be included on the DFCM approved Inspector roster. Pre preserving some local capacity, it adds new language. Clarifying, nothing in this section shall prohibit the required regulation or subsequent inspection by the local health department. It changes from DFCM may deny to may only deny delivery methods and removes languages. Stating DFCM determines, uh, is is the construction management and, uh, uh, complete as, as most appropriate. Shifting to division can only deny if specific negative criteria are met. It creates a new section allowing DFCM to delegate oversight authority to qualified school districts with demonstrated internal capacity reducing state control for capable districts at one time. The first sub, there was some, uh, talk about the first sub that removed the charter schools. This second sub adds the charter schools are still in there on the second sub. It changes from maximum allowable fees to maximum allowable fees for both basic services and complexities, providing more detailed cost controls. It requires DFCM to develop design templates and prototypes in collaboration with architects experiencing the design of school facilities. These templates and prototypes Mr. President, are not gonna be man mandated. They're just gonna be up to the, um, districts whether they want to use them or not. That pretty well does the second sub. Thank you. You have a motion to substitute.

  2. Senate President (presiding)37:14

     Do we have discussion on the motion? Seen? Not all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? This bill is substitute. Do any further presentation on the bill? Yes,

  3. Sen. Chris H. Wilson37:24

     I could. Mr. President, go ahead. Thank you. Um, currently the Utah State Board of Education is responsible for the high level oversight of public school construction. The school board has neither the expertise nor the capacity to provide the required oversight. Currently, this is what the board is, is responsible for providing guidelines for public school construction, a construction and inspection resource, manual bidding limitations on school boards, an annual school plant capacity outlay report, oversight of building inspections and plan reviews, training of building inspections and certificates of occupancy. That's what currently, and let me talk about, uh, an audit was just, uh, done by our legislative audit team, and they came and, uh, reported to the inter, inter interim education committee. And this is what they found in their audit. The audit identified situations where unqualified and or inexperienced district personnel were making important decisions regarding the construction of school buildings. We found some LEAs that did not have the relevant qualifications and experience to perform construction related activities appropriately authorizing unqualified individuals to make construction decisions on behalf of an lea a increases the risk of unsafe school buildings. The purpose of oversight is to reasonably assure that facilities construction is done according to building code requirements, which include minimum life and safety standards, as well as industry best practice. Our audit found that the state board's oversight system did not function properly. The system did not verify comp compliance with building codes and did not demonstrate the two true costs of K 12 construction across the state. Here are a few c uh, circumstances. Lemme just talk about they say, below our several circumstances we observed or heard reported, which indicated that increased oversight or assistant may be beneficial. Independent code professionals found that unqualified building officials inappropriately waived building code requirements. LEA administrators without the necessary technical code expertise should not negotiate with design professionals on critical life safety issues. Our independent code professionals could not determine whether many of the K through 12 school project plans were reviewed and appropriately and approved appropriately. Plans lacked design professionals seals stamps and approvals, making it difficult to know which plans were reviewed and approved. The plans may have been reviewed and approved, but we can, we cannot know for sure. Functional oversight should ensure review and approval and usually some of the risks of the conflicts of interest. Some LEAs may have allowed designers to allegedly select or participate in the selection of plan reviewers. The tight construction timeline allegedly encourages designers to pick plan reviewers that will go quickly and cheaply, which may lead to unenforced code requirements against the interests of the owner. Also, LEAs inexperienced with construction may not have the resources to hire experienced owners' representation. Without experienced rep representation or in-house construction experts, there may be an increased risk of conflicting interest being decided between the owner and in favor of a construction manager or general contractor architect or other contracted entity. Also, they decide to find out that rural districts reportedly need help with managing construction. A rural district's business administration administrator reported to us that their district and other smaller districts could use some help in managing construction needs. Mr. President, this bill transfers public school construction oversight from the State Board of Education to DFCM for both school districts and charter schools. It establishes four goals, it construction oversight through plan review and inspection, cost control via cost matrices and benchmarks, standardization through design prototypes and uniform reporting and data collection. Probably the most important thing in, in my estimation, through comprehensive databases, the bill includes delegated authority for qualified LEA and appeals process and phases in implementation, beginning January 1st, 2027 with full cost database requirements by July, 2030. When the school district or charter school wants to build a new school, they must obtain DFCM approval at five decision points before proceeding proceeding architect contract approval. The LEA must submit proposed architect contracts to DFCM for verification that fees don't exceed published maximums with review within 15 business days. Pre-construction costs matrix approval, the LEA must demonstrate the project fits within d FM's Cost matrix meets cost square foot parameters for the building type and region. It shows costs are consistent with division benchmarks with review within 15 business days plan review and construction permit. DF CM reviews construction documents for compliance with building codes, assessor accessibility energy codes, fire safety, mandatory security standards before issuing exclusive construction permit with review within 10 days, contract approval for construction contracts exceeded 1 million. The LEA must submit prepared proposed cost for benchmark comparison and justify any cost exceeding benchmarks by more than 10%. Certificate of occupancy after construction, DFCM reviews all closeout documentation, inspection reports, and code compliance verification before issuing the exclusive occupancy cer cer certificate that satisfies all local requirements. And with review within 10 business days during construction, LEAs must u must use only DFCM approved inspections that can include qualified district employees. So the larger districts that already have employees are gonna be able to discontinue the way they are with their own plan review and their own certificate of occupancy. They'll be able to decide what the designs are in the schools the same way it has before they, um, based on schedule maintenance by rule and approved by the rate committee with fees. Of course, we've talked about the fees and those hiring division approved project managers, whether you have employees or if you have a district that are used to using a division approved project manager, you can still hire a project manager. I think those project managers usually cost somewhere around 3% to oversee the project from start to finish. And as long as they are qualified and licensed business, um, contractors as far as their, um, uh, they, they are, they can be the DFCM will approve them. So the, there's also appeals process for a three Men member panel. If there is a problem. They can have within 20 to 45 days, depending on, uh, if they need to appeal any decision by DFCM. The State Board of Education must designate a school construction liaison, which is already in place, who serves as the primary contact. Um, the L-D-F-C-M may delegate oversight authority here again for school fac, facility planning, design review, and construction plan approval to the LEAs that demonstrate internal capacity and construction management, procurement and project delivery with a qualification criteria and application process defined by DFCM rule. The LEAs granted delegate authority can handle their own internal plan reviews and approvals, re receive reduced or waived oversight fees depending on what they're looking for, promote proportional to their actual oversight, but remain subject to all reporting requirements. And they must use the DFC of approved inspectors, which is on their website. And it's easy to, to go ahead and be added to the, to the, uh, website. All you have to do is have a dopple, uh, show that you're a licensed billing inspector. It must submit to compliance audits and can have their delegated authority revoked by DFCM if they find noncompliance or substantial risk to help safety or physical integrity. Again, districts will retain full control of the capital projects and facility management program subject to oversight from DFCM. The districts will continue to control and manage LEAs with their own design and construction procurement, as well as conduct plan reviews and inspections with qualified staff. Uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions. I'll add it there.

  4. Senate President (presiding)46:57

     Thank you for that presentation to the bill. Senator Ipson.

  5. Sen. Don L. Ipson47:00

     Thank you, Mr. President ProAm. Now it's my understanding that if a district has processes in place, do they continue as usual or do they have to still get clearance from DCFM? Senator Wilson? Will you yield

  6. Sen. Chris H. Wilson47:18

     No. If, if they have qualified either qualified personnel already employed or if they have a relationship with a company that already provides plan review building inspections throughout that process. And also for the occupancy, the certificate of occupancy, they are welcome to use that. Um, I believe all they have to do is just show that they're the building inspections, inspectors are certified And they can proceed to construction without state approval. I I, yeah, as long as they can show that the building inspectors are, are, uh, licensed, then yes. And as far as the design of the building is still up to the districts. Um, and as far as, like I said, the plan review can be done by the districts if they have qualified people.

  7. Senate President (presiding)48:06

     Okay, thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Senator Owens.

  8. Sen. Derrin R. Owens48:14

     Thank you President Pro tem. Uh, I can you attend a sponsor offer some surety on going to a central system like this, that that cost actually won't increase, um, and time on construction will be faster. Um, I know you've done a ton of work on it, uh, but if we could answer that, Mr.

  9. Sen. Chris H. Wilson48:35

     Speaker, president Pro Tem, Senator Wilson. You know, I appreciate the question and, and I, you know, I, I don't think there's any guarantees in life other than Joe Namath. Um, I, I, I, I truly believe that the best piece of this bill is going to be compiling the database where we can take best practices. If Washington County has a great way of building schools down in Washington County, I want to be able to take the information, the designs, the materials used, and be able to share those with other districts throughout the state. And we also have timelines up to 10 and 15 days, which is a lot less than what our municipalities and our counties are currently doing. Um, I guess there's no guarantees, but I, I, uh, if I was a betting man, Mr. President Pro temp, I truly believe that this, having the oversight from DFCM and collect, collecting that data, letting the districts who have the, the, uh, qualified people continue to run the projects. Um, I I I, I truly believe that we can share best practices. I do believe we can cut costs or at least, um, use best practices with other districts will help lower costs. And not only that, if I can, Mr. President ProAm, there are rural districts, and I have talked to some, some superintendents in rural districts who are very interested in having DFCM manage their projects. They can negotiate currently, I think their fee is a, is one point 25%, which from what I understand, is less than what it is for other companies that can manage a project. So, um, I I really believe that some of the rural districts and some are smaller districts that do not have, uh, district employees specifically for this person purpose, can, uh, go ahead and negotiate with DMCM and receive help on bidding the projects and working through right to certificate of occupancy.

  10. Senate President (presiding)50:38

      And thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Senator Wilson, back to you for summation or, oh, we've got a popper up here. Senator Riebe.

  11. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe50:49

      Thank you, Mr. President. Um, the sponsors yield to questions. Yes, Thank you. When I was looking at the recommendations, 1.12, 3.1, uh, you know, a lot of the, um, summary was internal controls training, standardized costs, comply to codes, construction, re construct, re reconstructing, um, tactics, and then DFCM inspectors. So all of these things can be done without giving our buildings, um, control over to DFCM. Uh, I have looked with the USBA, the Utah School Boards Association, and they are in opposition of this bill. I looked to the Utah Rural Schools Association, and they're opposed to this bill. And I don't know where the League of Cities and stands on this bill, but when I look at your fiscal note, the fee schedule shows me that it's going to cost certain amounts, percentages, depending on how much they're spending. Is this fee schedule gonna be added to the cost of the building?

  12. Sen. Chris H. Wilson51:57

      Senator Wilson? Yes, Mr. President Pro temp. Um, whenever a school district decides to build a program or a a building, they always add all of these fees. These fees in the physical note are only for those districts who want to use the DFCM for plan review or certificate of occupancy. So these are only going to be, but every district already includes all these fees, whether, whether they have internal, uh, employees or whether they're gonna contract with an another company, um, to, to do these services.

  13. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe52:35

      Thank you. Um, may I have a follow up? Yes, proceed. Thanks. To clarify, this is now an opt-in for all districts that would like to use DFCM and not a requirement.

  14. Sen. Chris H. Wilson52:49speaker not certain

      Senator Wilson. I'm sorry, I I couldn't hear the last part of the question.

  15. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe52:52

      Is this a requirement for all districts to use this service or an opt-in option?

  16. Sen. Chris H. Wilson52:59

      Senator, uh, Mr. President Prote? No, this is just, if they have to show that they have certified employees in the district, or they have a relationship, they have a contract with somebody with qualified building inspectors, they do not have to use DFCM for these fees or for the plan review or the, um, certificate of occupancy or all the, um, building inspections in between. There's more than just the two. You, you've got, you've got building inspection. They'll be, they'll be looking the rough work. They'll be checking on the concrete, uh, strength to make sure that rebar, I mean, you go on and on through the whole process.

  17. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe53:39

      Thank you. Um, my, I'm concerned that school districts don't like this bill. They say it's adding costs to their building. I'm also concerned with, um, the restrictive nature of some of the abilities for our school districts also to build. Uh, when I think about our school districts, I am not excited about how big the schools are becoming and how palatial they're becoming. But we are a state that allows school choice. And when we build a new school, we find that many people move outta their school and go to that new school. So do you think this would address, um, the, the, the desires of our school districts and their per people to go to schools that they wanna go to? Or would we have a one size fits all for every district now, Senator Wilson, Mr. President Pro temp? I mean, this is gonna be up to the districts. The districts will still be able to build whatever design of, of building they want. They'll be able to use their own people. Uh, I, I don't see how that's gonna change what type of schools that the districts build. Thank you. Uh, one last question. Please. Go ahead. Um, so my, um, sorry. When we think about how we are building our schools, and now if we opt in, does, does the school districts still have control over their, um, maintenance and they're, um, uh, add-on buildings and can they be still in control of their facilities? Senator Wilson? Uh, yes. They are still in controller maintenance, but part of this bill also is, from what I've discovered in the two years I've been working on between the audit and this bill, is that there are many, many districts that have not put forth any money for the deferred maintenance. We have millions and millions of dollars going into buildings, and I'm afraid that, that most of them are not being maintained, uh, adequately up here in the hill. We do a great job when we fund a building. We always fund fund o and m as part of that building, knowing that if we maintain it, it's going to last longer. And I, I, and, um, also be safer. So I I, part of this bill is to make sure that the districts can show and they'll become a plan. It's gonna take some time, but they're gonna be able to come back and show that they have deferred maintenance program in place for their buildings. Thank you. Um, I, I, I still am going to oppose this bill because our school boards association has not supported this bill and our rural schools associations have not supported this bill. I, um, am concerned that when we start to look at the audit and then what the audit asks, we are focusing on more of control than actually implementing codes and keeping them safe. So I want my schools to be safe, and I looked at the code, and I think we can achieve safety through most of those recommendations, which were addressed. Uh, the opt-in part I appreciate, uh, but I am concerned that I, I would, I would want to keep control of all of our buildings in the school districts. And I, I don't know if this does that completely. So thank you.

  18. Senate President (presiding)57:12

      Thank you. Further discussion of the bill.

  19. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton57:13

      Senator Winterton. Yes, I appreciate the sponsor tackling this problem. Having been, uh, firsthand experience of this for our smaller school districts. They don't have this sex expertise. And so they look around, sometimes it's pretty hard to find an inspector that can do a project this large. And so what they're, they're, um, trying to do in this bill is just exactly what we did in Duchesne County. And we had them come and manage it. They did the construction inspections, uh, the updates, the, uh, punch list and that, and I was amazed at, at the professionalism that they did, and they protected the customer, the school district there from having something that none of us knew that much about. And so, I, I support this bill because I think it's gonna be really good for those that are smaller and, and are challenged in, in this kind of expertise.

  20. Senate President (presiding)58:15

      Thank you. Further discussion of the bill. Seeing none. Back to you, Senator Wilson for summation and a motion.

  21. Sen. Chris H. Wilson58:21

      Thank you, Mr. Proto. Uh, yeah, this has been, uh, quite an effort. Um, let me just finish this by summing with what's in the Auditor General's best Practice Handbook for Student Achievement in Public Education and other related legislative audit work. Utah's audits emphasize that the core focus of education should be on student achievement and learning outcomes. And that other functions like facilities and construction are separate. Professional responsibilities. The handbook highlights that school boards and administrators should concentrate on improving student learning and academic achievement through clear instructional frameworks, teacher support and evidence-based planning, rather than focus on ancillary task or administrative roles that dilute attention from core educational goals. Mr. President Pro Temp, I've had conversations and I was there when the, when the, um, state school board with our, with our new superintendent who I think is doing a great job. Superintendent, uh, Molly Hart has done a great job. She indicated she does not have the resources she does. She's just been signing off on all the plan reviews and all the certificate of occupancy. Um, she doesn't have the resources and they just really don't want to have this responsibility 'cause they know they're not performing what they're supposed to be doing. DFCM has 235 employees and I believe that we found some areas and yes, the officials stance of the school boards is one way, but as I've talked with, with, uh, different employees and different school board members and special rural superintendents, I've talked with, many of 'em think this is the only way we're gonna ever have oversight and be able to collect the data We need to be able to share best practices with other districts. And so with that, Mr. President, I would a motion that, uh, allow me to continue with meeting. I've still got three or four other stakeholders that wanna meet with me. Again, I've met with probably up to 15 different stakeholders or individuals as we've worked through this process. I'd like to continue on third and hope that I can get the support to get second substitute SB 1 64 over on the third reading calendar. With that Mr. President Pro temp, I move that, uh, second substitute SB 1 64. Be read a third time.

  22. Senate President (presiding)1:00:54

      And the question is, shall second substitute Senate bill 1 64? Be read for a third time. Roll call vote. Senator Vickers. Derry Lewin Brammer bus Fillmore Aye. Escamilla Fillmore a Grover. Yeah. Harper, I am too. Kins ipson. God. More up vote. Johnson Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher. Plum rebe sandal Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Stratton pickers filer. Wilson. Aye. Winterton No. One. Two Also. Aye. President Adams Second substitute Senate bill 1 64 Having received Adams aye. Okay, let me call that again. Second substitute Senate bill 1 64. Having received 18 yay votes nine na votes two being absent will be read for a third time. We'll return back to the Senate. Third reading calendar. Senator Stratton.

• Feb 18, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (10 turns)

  1. Sen. Chris H. Wilson21:19

     Uh, I've been told that I need to make this a little bit quicker, so I'm gonna be, uh, if you remember the debate yesterday, this is talking about the non-compliance with building codes that, uh, of course can manifest into risks to school policy properties and building occupancy. Let me just highlight one thing. In the audit that was done by our legislative auditors, they, they audited projects between 2017 and 2024 outta 30 projects that they reviewed. 19 projects began building before receiving their permit. DSB permit seven never did receive a permit. Only four were compliant with starting to build before their permit or before they received their, well, they, after they received their permit, they started building, it's only four out of 30 Mr. President. This, uh, the districts will retain full control of their capital projects and facility management programs subject to oversight and make sure they have qualified building inspectors. The districts will continue to control and manage their own design and construction procurements, as well as conduct plan reviews and inspections just with qualified staff. I wanted to remind the body, Mr. President, that the state of Utah does hold the liability insurance on these, uh, buildings. So we are liable to make sure that they are safe. Um, of course we know what risk can can happen in school property to our students, our teachers, administration staff. Um, I think that verifying compliance with, uh, with state, uh, with our state requirements is very important. And I think the life and safety of our school buildings is, is, is important. Also. That would conclude my presentation.

  2. Senate President (presiding)23:03

     Thank you for the present presentation. Senator. Uh, looking, uh, for discussion. Yeah. I'm not seeing any discussion today, so I'm gonna go to you. Do you Go ahead, Senator.

  3. Unknown speaker23:17speaker not certain

     I'd like to have a call of the Senate please.

  4. Senate President (presiding)23:18

     If five or more standing we'll be in a call. Looks like we are. So, uh, we're missing Senator Stevenson and Sandal, can we bring them online? I see Senator Brammer in the back. So, uh, and Senator Cullimore. So I think if we get, uh, it looks like we're, we're missing blue one and picture also. And bus. Okay. Lewin's online. ML'S in the back. McKay. Oh, McKay. Can we get Senator Stevenson? And, okay. Okay. It looks like we're missing McKay and Cullimore. There is Senator McKay. Okay, let's lift. I'd left the call. Senator, see no discussion. I'm going to you for our summation and a motion. You know,

  5. Sen. Chris H. Wilson24:41

     I'll, I'll waive summation Mr. President. Uh, and go ahead with a motion that we favorably pass Senate SU second substitute Senate Bill 1 64 pass.

  6. Senate President (presiding)24:51

     Thank you. And the question is, shall second substitute Senate Bill one sixty four pass Roll call vote.

  7. Unknown speaker24:56speaker not certain

     Senator Vickers Baldry. No. Lewin, No Brammer bus. No. Colmore Aye. Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper. Aye. Kins. Ipson Aye. Johnson. Aye. Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Aye. Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher Aye. Plum Aye. Rebi, no. Sandal. Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton? Yes. Stickers. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. Second substitute Senate Bill 1 64.

  8. Senate President (presiding)26:02

     Having received 20 yay votes. Nine na votes zero being absent passes. This body will be sent to the house for their consideration.

  9. Senate President (presiding)26:09

     Senator Balderree, you want a personal privilege?

  10. Sen. Heidi Balderree26:12

      Thank you Mr. President. Today I have with me a student from Providence Hall, uh, and from Mr.

• Feb 24, 2026 House Education Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (50 turns)

  1. Committee chair45:49

     All right. Uh, we'll go to, uh, SB 1 64 School Construction Amendments. Senator Wilson. Welcome, Senator Wilson. We're glad to have you here today. Um, we're on the second substitute for members that are following along.

  2. Sen. Chris H. Wilson46:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that.

  3. Sen. Chris H. Wilson46:11

     And committee members. And I wanted to make it clear that you are the one that asked me to be first. I did not ask to change, so I wanna make sure everybody knows that, uh, there's been accusations that I used my leadership to come and change the, the agenda, but I wanna make sure that, uh, everybody knows. I did not ask to change this, but I'm happy, appreciate you allowing, I I've got, uh, representative, uh, Tom Peterson, who's this floor sponsor to be with me, and also, uh, uh, like to have, uh, Jim Russell and then Andy Mark, come on up and if you have any questions for them, many of us that are, uh, on, on the Interim Education Committee remembers that, uh, we, we did a, a performance audit of public school construction standards and efficiency. And they came and presented to us, I think it was this summer, maybe May or June. And I do have some of these audits. If anybody wanted to take a look at one. I do have some extra copies. Um, if you can remember, um, when they came and presented, in fact, we even have one of the audit auditors here in the room if we have any questions for him.

  4. Sen. Chris H. Wilson47:15

     Uh, but Mr. Mr. Chair, uh, if, if I can re remind everybody under current code, the Utah State Board of Education is responsible for high level oversight of public school construction. The school board has never, has neither the expertise nor the capacity to provide the required oversight. Currently, the board is responsible for providing guidelines for public school construction, a construction and inspection resource, manual bidding limitations on school boards, an annual school plant, capital outlay report, oversight of building inspections and plan reviews, training of building inspectors, and certificates of occupancy. Those are what currently is in code Utah Board of Education is responsible for. I'm just gonna go through a few things from the audit, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Uh, just some statements from the auditors when they, uh, our audit identified situations were unqualified and or inexperienced district personnel were making important decisions regarding the construction of school buildings. We found some LEAs that did not have the relevant qualification and experience to perform construction related activities appropriately authorizing unqualified individuals to make construction decisions on behalf of an LEA increases the risk of unsafe school buildings. The purpose of oversight is to reasonably assure that facilities construction is done according to building code requirements, which include minimum life and safety standards, as well as industry best practices. Our audit found that this state board's oversight system did not function properly. The system did not verify compliance with building codes and did not demonstrate the true cost of K to 12 construction across the state. Below are several circumstances we observed or heard reported, which indicates that increased oversight or assistance may be beneficial. Independent code professionals found that unqualified building officials inappropriately waived building code requirements. EEA administrators without the necessary technical code experience should not negotiate with design professionals on critical life safety issues. Our independent code professionals could not determine whether many of the K through 12 school project plans were reviewed and approved appropriately. Plans lacked design professionals seals stamps and approvals, making it difficult to know which plans were reviewed and approved. The plans may have been reviewed and approved, but we cannot know for sure. Functional oversight should ensure review and approval. There's also risk of various conflicts of interests. Some LEAs may have allowed designers to allegedly select or participate in the selection of plan reviewers. The tight construction timeline allegedly encourages designers to pick plan reviewers that will go quite quickly and cheaply, which may lead to unenforced code requirements against the interest of the owner. LEAs inexperience with construction may have not have the resources to hire experienced owners representation. Without experienced representation or in-house construction experts, there may be an increased risk of conflicting interests being decided against the owner and in favor of a construction manager, general contractor, architect, or other contracted entity. Also go on to state a rural district's reportedly need help with managing construction. A rural district's business administrator reported to us that their district and other smaller district could use some help in managing construction needs. Also, Mr. Chair, if I may also part of the audit, um, they audited 30 construction projects from 2017 to 2024 out of 30 projects. Only four received their permits before beginning to build seven, never received a permit, and 19 began to build before receiving their permit. So, out of 30 projects that they audited, only four had received their permit and followed the state code.

  5. Sen. Chris H. Wilson51:55

     Mr. Chair, uh, if I can just briefly, I'll talk a little bit about, a little bit about the, the bill. The bill transfers public school construction oversight from the State Board of Education to DFCM for both school districts and charter schools that establishes four goals. Construction oversight through plan review and inspection, cost control via cost matrices and benchmarks, standardization through design prototypes and uniform reporting and data collection through comprehensive databases. The bill includes delegated authority for qualified LEAs appeals process and phases, and implement implementation beginning January 1st with full cost database requirements by July of 2030. When a school district of charter school wants to build a new school, they must obtain DFCM approval at five decision points before proceeding, architect contract approval, pre-construction, cost matrix, approval plan review and construction permit, contract approval, and certificate of occupancy during construction. LEAs must use only DFCM approved inspectors, which can include qualified district employees report monthly through an online system and pay oversight fees based on a schedule established by DFCM rule and approved by the rate committee with fees that can, with fees that can be reduced or waived, reduced or waived for LEAs with delegated authority or those hiring division approved project managers. So using DFCM is an option, not mandatory. The LEA cannot begin construction, execute major contracts, or occupy the building without the DFCM approval. At each decision point, though, there's also appeals process that we put into the bill where they can go before the three member panel. Uh, if they have any issues with the decision made by DFCM, the State Board of Education must designate a school construction liaison, which they already have, who serves as the primary contact between the State board and DFCM coordinating on educational program requirements. So the state school board will still be involved with program requirements that affect construction standards, participation in administrative rule development, providing input on educational facility needs, and assisting with training programs for LEA officials DFCM may delegate oversight authority for school facility planning, design review, and construction plan approval to LEO LEAs that demonstrate internal capacity and construction management, procurement and project delivery with the qualification criteria and application process defined by DFCM rule LEAs granted delegated authority can handle their own internal plan. Reviews and approvals receive reduced or waived oversight fees proportional to the actual oversight DFCM performs, but remain subject to all reporting requirements. They must use DFCM approved inspectors, which they have a list must sub submit to compliance audits. And I also mentioned the approved inspectors. There are many districts that have approved inspectors that are hired and, and, uh, on staff at the districts. Many districts have them already, and they can still use them and can have their delegated authority revoked by DFCN upon finding a material non-compliance or substantial risk to health, safety, or physical integrity. Mr. Chair, I think it's important to know, I think there's a lot of misinformation. I know there's been a number of lobbyists hired that are around, and I'm not quite sure they're actually spreading, uh, correct information. Districts will retain control of their PAC project, capital projects and Facility Management program subject to oversight by DFCM. The districts will continue to control and manage their own design and construction procurements, as well as conduct plan reviews and inspections with qualified staff. It's also important to know, Mr. Chair, that the state of Utah holds liability insurance on all these K through 12 buildings through our Department of Risk. So it's very, very important since we are, uh, liable for these buildings, that they're safe and they follow the, the proper, uh, safety standards. Um, I think it's important, Mr. Chair, that our, our students, our teachers, administrators, they deserve to be in a building that we know is built safely. They need to verify compliance with state requirements. And as we know, there's been many, uh, instances as we've learned in this audit that the safety of the school building occupants, I think was, was in my opinion, put in danger as those, as those safety standards were, were, uh, were not followed.

  6. Committee chair57:04

     Um, Mr. Chair, I, I would like to have just a, a quick statement if, if I could, um, by, um, Jim, would you like to have a statement or Tom, or, and I'd also like to bring up our, our state superintendent, uh, Molly Hart for a quick comment, if that's okay, Mr. Chair? Sorry. Yes, that'd be just fine. Go Ahead. Okay. You've got a full table there, so go ahead. You're just fine. Is this on? I'll turn it on for you.

  7. Jim Russell, former DFCM director57:39

     Go ahead. There We go. Jim Russell, associate Vice President of Facilities, university of Utah. I wanna be clear, I do not represent the University of Utah today. I'm here as a citizen and former director of DFCM, who was involved, um, in this bill in the OLA audit, and then a previous audit that was performed that I actually conducted with df, other DFCM personnel of K through 12 buildings in conjunction with the State Board of Education, the state auditor's office, and the governor's office. And I would like to talk about that just for a few minutes if I can, because I think what's getting lost in sight of the, the CLA over construction here too, is that this is not just a construction bill. And when I audited, so the state board selected 13 districts of different sizes and regions for, and, uh, I had them send me all their information on everything they do from how they maintain their buildings, to how they do their procurements, to how they manage their construction and so forth. And then we did a review of their programs and then sent that review back to the districts. And then I met with each of those districts to go over, um, what I saw and what they felt like. I wanna tell you that all those districts had amazing employees that care deeply about their buildings and are working really hard, but the districts of different sizes and that have different abilities, and the smaller rural districts, they, they really, their, their building is everything to 'em. It's a community building, and they don't get 'em very often. And they make great decisions, but they don't have proper oversight. And as I went through this Audi, things that were very concerning, like, um, facility maintenance programs and audits, they, they don't under seem to understand or know the difference between a custodial program and a maintenance program. Lemme give you a little example. If you were to, if your car, if you were just to wash your car and not take it in for maintenance and oil changes, that's the difference right there, right? It's going to, you know, the outside might look great, but at some point, the, the functioning of that building is going to be a problem. And you're gonna have early, um, you're gonna have your systems and that, um, end use, end of life sooner than they should be. They also didn't really understand and know about facility condition assessments. They don't know what their facilities are like, they don't know, they don't have any understanding of their deferred maintenance. Even the medium sized districts, I'd say we're in that, that group. And then also on, just on construction, just to be quick on construction oversight, um, largely all of the new K through 12 buildings are going CMGC, which is construction manager, general contractor. It's a very complicated process in that process. The contractors brought, brought on very early in design, and they can offer help through the design and give and influence the design. You use this for a, a complicated building like the North capital building or like the new prison, or like a, a historical renovation, things where there's a lot of, um, quality issues or complexity in that. Um, but what I found with a couple things that were very problematic, one is that the districts, particularly the smaller, the medium and smaller districts that don't have qualified personnel that are managing their projects with a janitor or a retired person from the district, they felt like they went this method so that the general contractor could be their construction manager. Now, this is a cost plus complicated process, and they've been convinced by the contractors that, that they're, it's okay for the contractors to, to police and manage themselves. And so very concerning that those districts don't have proper oversight of their projects. Uh, and the other, the other part is that the contractors, even the two, the few that you'll hear from today would acknowledge that they're not, that the K through 12 districts are not deploying CMGC properly. They don't bring them in early. They bring them in because they, a lot of them have prototype designs. So the value of a C MGC is to bring them in early in the design to help with the design. If the design's already done, there is no reason to do something that costs more and is more complicated to manage and is as, has the possibility of cost going out of control because of that when you're, you're not even deploying it. Right? So because they're not doing it right, and because they don't have qualified people managing it, that's a very concerning thing in this bill. There is a lot of language about the CMGC process, and you're gonna hear some concerns about that. The contractors that are using it are protective of it. They wanna keep it in place, and they don't want to have the oversight. So please don't lose sight of that when you hear comments today. Um, Thank you. I I'll yield some time. I, I could go on more, but I'll just answer questions at this point.

  8. Committee chair1:02:31

     All right. Thank you. Mr. Russell. Superintendent. Yes,

  9. Molly Hart, State Superintendent, Utah State Board of Education1:02:34

     Molly Hart. Uh, state Superintendent of public instruction. The state board supports this bill. Uh, we, the art of knowing how to, or trying to use government funds, other people's tax dollars effectively, is partially knowing what you're good at and what you're not. Uh, we full well knew, um, that we were using the an A method of attestation, uh, for compliance with, uh, construction. And that was because we had, uh, zero resources allocated for the oversight of construction. So we have one FTE that we carved out of a separate line item to manage oversight of construction. And we rely on a test station to this day to make sure that that compliance and that oversight, um, is accomplished. Um, so essentially we knew really what was in that audit before it was done. And if there is interest in more oversight, then we are of the position that we are not the best people to do that work, that we have other, another government agency that is qualified to do that. So in the absence of those resources, our board does support this bill. Thank you very much.

  10. Committee chair1:04:22

      Thank you, superintendent Hart.

  11. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:04:23

      And by the way, she's been just amazing. You know, we met many times about, about this bill, and, and from the beginning, again, it was a, you know, unfunded mandate. And we put to the state school board, if I could, Mr. Chair, really quickly, I wanted to talk in the physical note, you will see that I've placed there the proposed rates. These rates are, if a, if a district, um, wants to hire DFCM to do the plan review and certificate of occupancy and the other building inspection, uh, along the way, the fees are set such that they, the lowest is $2,000 for project of a hundred thousand. And under the highest amount, the maximum amount that they would charge on a over $50 million project is $107,000. That's for them to do the building inspections, the plan review, and their certificate of occupancy. If a district does not have their own, uh, qualified people to do that, or have hired somebody else to do that, who is qualified. So that is in the, um, the, the fiscal note. And that those fees, if this, when this bill passes, will just have to be approved by the rate committee, which is something we do with, with all the fees, um, in the state. I think we review those really quick. Uh, um, just a little bit about the bill really quick. Um, of course, the state school board will be able still be coordinating with the DFCM. Um, the best thing, I think one of the best things about this bill is gonna have a cost database for construction costs. And so there'll be, uh, standardized school designs and prototype if districts want to try and, and, uh, choose one of those designs. Of course, we talked about deferred maintenance. Uh, also there's a report back to the Interim Education Committee and also the Transportation and Infrastructure Appropriations Committee, um, during the interim that the DFCM will report back. And there's a list of things that they'll report on. Now, of course, the standardized cost reporting, there's an appeals panel, and of course, the collaboration with the liaison and the state school board. Um, and then of course, the, the database, um, will start on any projects completed after January 1st of 25. Um, we should be hopefully, uh, be able to collect that data, make it available for other districts. So, um, and with that, Mr. Uh, chair, uh, yeah, I, I think I'm gonna cut short there and just ask for any questions. Um, and the other thing I wanna talk about is the fee really quick. Uh, there's been some misinformation that if, if, if there's a district, especially a rural district or somebody that, that wants to negotiate with DFCM, their usual fee is around one and a quarter percent. If you wanted them to manage the whole project, if you wanted them to come in and manage the whole project, that is an option that you could hire them if you would like to. So with that, I'll conclude Mr. Chair.

  12. Committee chair1:07:36

      All right. Thank you. Uh, we're gonna go to the committee for clarifying questions. We've got a few questions we're gonna start with, uh, representative de Faye, vice chair.

  13. Rep. Ca Ken Defay1:07:46

      Thank you. And thank you to the bill sponsor. Um, these are things I have been thinking about for years. I appreciate your, um, work to try and address them and address the audit findings. Um, I do have a few questions and concerns. So first of all, um, I am concerned about fees. So you mentioned, um, that it won't cost a district more than 2000 to $107,000. Um, so are, is there anywhere in this bill that there could be any additional fees, other than you said if they manage the entire project, it's that one and a quarter percent Is there, and that's, and that's optional. That's if the districts wanted to hire them to do those. Okay. Those fees. So a district, and I've met with, uh, many districts that have their own people, and of course there won't be any cost for them. If they have their own qualified people to do building inspections and plan reviews, those things, um, then there, there, none of those fees will, uh, will apply. Okay, great. Um, and then it's, it's optional. Um, what, in this bill, this might be kind of a big question is not optional for the school districts. Uh, well, uh, I really, what's opt what, what's not optional is the things that we're taking away that are oversight from the school board and putting with DFCM. So it's not optional. You can't use a certified building inspector or inspectors that are certified throughout the process. Um, and I may have to ask, you know, whatever other things are mandatory is just that you follow standard building procedures, the same things that oversight of building inspections and plan reviews. Um, just the things that are in code that the build, uh, that the school board is should be doing. So a few more, I'm sorry. And reporting costs is also mandatory. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Maintenance issues as well. Do you wanna, Mr. Russell, would you like to comment? If I can just add to that? Yeah, please do. There, there's also facility condition assessments so that they can understand their deferred maintenance needs. There's going to be the requirement to, to, um, DFC will create a maintenance standard, just like they do for all state buildings. There'll be audits to see how they comply and to help them be able to develop a better program there. And then, like the, the cost reporting, standardized cost reporting. So there's both facility. And then on the construction side, if they wanna manage their own construction, aside from the building official, they'll also have to have qualified people to manage the construction, like the CMGC process and that. Thanks. Alright.

  14. Rep. Defay1:10:11speaker not certain

      So just to, I've just been making a couple of notes. So just so, uh, I'm clear, the parts that are not optional are in inspect the inspections have to be from somebody that's on a list that you'll essentially curate and, and, uh, uh, uh, you'll, they'll have to be authorized. Um, there's a number of data collection and in addition to that, there's some cost reporting. Those, those data collection, which have been at USBE and the cost reporting elements are, are not optional. Um, the facility condition assessments, right. Those are the things that I think I've heard you say. And then the maintenance, the building maintenance standard and Audits. Thank you. That's right. To make sure That Right, sure. That we're maintaining the buildings correctly.

  15. Committee chair1:10:53

      Okay. We're gonna go to Representative Elison.

  16. Rep. Elison1:10:56

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation on this. So let's say that a district does want to hire D-D-C-F-M to, to help with the project. Do, can they use the, can the district say, Hey, we wanna use, will they help in the process of getting bids, I guess, from construction companies? Or are these gonna be bids that go out to relationships that D-D-C-F-M uses? Um, how does that work? And you may have already covered that, and I missed it 'cause I was presenting another bill on another committee. Sorry about that. Thank you. Representative Andy Mar, DFCM director currently. Um, I think that process would be, uh, collaborative process with the LEAs where DFCM would come in and help at any part of the project where we can provide value, um, especially in procurement, uh, you know, the, the delivery method that's selected to, to achieve the project. Um, currently we're managing projects for state agencies and Utah system of higher education. Uh, we would, we look to those models to really help the LEAs using the same process essentially. Um, so our project management approach would relatively remain unchanged with, with, you know, the exception that we would like to learn more about the LEAs priorities, and especially with the local autonomy piece to make sure that that's, that's preserved in that process. But by and large, it would be very similar to the process we have now for state agencies in Yui. Okay. And, and the reason why I ask that, because I feel like everybody's trying to do a good job and be good stewards of tax resources and so forth, but I, you know, I looked at, uh, our district, you know, down in Dixie, we do things very, very shoestring budget, and we tend to, I think, do things in a, in a really great way. Mm-hmm. And we recently built a, a career tech high school down there on the Arizona border, and it was significantly less per square foot than most all the other DCFM projects. Nothing against the DCFM projects. But I, it makes me wonder, you know, I, I don't want to see a district that's doing really well, building things that are very, very competitive price than all of a sudden, hey, we're now gonna be charged a lot more. You know, that, that's what, that's my fear, to be honest. I mean, that's, I, that's was my whole fear of this, and I'm so glad that you guys have said that this is completely opt-in. They don't have to use it if they don't want to. I think that was a great change. But you can understand the concern, you know, that sometimes we might have. Absolutely. And that is certainly not our intent is to drive up any costs on any projects. Um, it is interesting to note too that, you know, DFCM projects we're, we're building purpose-built buildings. Um, and each of them have their own challenges. And, um, you know, I think when you apply that to the LEA model, there's room for growth and there's room for us to understand that process. And that was the intent behind the data collection so that we can really see the different cost points, um, and standardize those that we have a better understanding of where true cost should be. Um, maybe I can just add one thing. The bill does very emphatically emphasize that this is local district dollars and they should have control of their projects, what the projects are in that. So when DSCM is brought in, like maybe one of your concerns, when you hire a contractor or an architect and you go through that RFP process, DFCM will be the facilitator to make sure it's done correctly, but they won't be a voting member that will still be the local area that will vote on who is going to be selected for their contractor and their architect. So you don't have, I think there's a sense out there that DFCM will force, you know, certain contractors and that into areas and that, and that's not true. That's not how it will work. And under the delegation that DFCM does already, like for me at the university, it doesn't work that way. Right. You have your autonomy and, and this build does a really good job of maintaining that for the districts. And that is super helpful. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair1:14:32

      All right. Thank you. We're gonna go to Representative Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have answered a few of my questions, but I still have maybe two more. Um, first of all, did you say the audit has been completed? I, people have been telling me it's not, Uh, it is, it is my understanding. We have talked that, that the audit will continue. There is, there is more work that needs to be done, uh, from what the auditors tell me. Um, I, it might be more diving into maybe districts looking

  18. Rep. Carol S. Moss1:14:37

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have answered a few of my questions, but I still have maybe two more. Um, first of all, did you say the audit has been completed? I, people have been telling me it's not, Uh, it is, it is my understanding. We have talked that, that the audit will continue. There is, there is more work that needs to be done, uh, from what the auditors tell me. Um, I, it might be more diving into maybe districts looking for best practices or other issues, but I don't know if that's for sure or not. But I've heard the same thing, so, yeah. Okay. Thank you. If I might, uh, ask another question or a statement, um, I'm very much about local control and you just reiterated that, um, I'm also opposed to, um, designs that are cookie cutter kind of designs. And let me just give you an example. I taught at Olympus High, the original Olympus High that was demolished after about 55 years. Uh, it was basically unsafe in an earthquake, but the new Olympus High has a design that takes advantage of the landscape, the environment, the Mount Olympus is right behind it. My daughter teaches at Skyline, they're still under construction. Again, it, it fits the environment and the beauty of the surrounding area, which is critical because it's not only a school, but it's a community center and there are many activities held there and, uh, we want it to fit that particular environment. I'm sure it's different in St. George and other places, but, uh, can you tell me if that, if they would have designs to choose from or the, a limited number or how, how would that work? It was never my intent on this bill to ever tell districts that, you know, this is the only ones you can choose from. What we wanna do is collect data to give them the options to look at other things. But it's up to the districts. It's just like, I mean, uh, Washington County's gonna have a different building than Cash County. So, uh, and like you said, it depends on, you know, landscape. It depends on some of the things, soil content and those things. But the districts will still be able to pick which, um, plan they want. But I think collecting data is very important that they can share information that might help them. Could I just ask what kind of data you're talking about? Uh, well cost, uh, we're gonna have, uh, plans on, you know, the things that worked well, cost, uh, analysis, um, well, I'd have to look on the bill. Do you remember what things you're gonna The plan rack? A plan, A plan rack? So, Yeah, go ahead, Jim. So, so basically DSM will collect a plan rack, which is they'll keep the plans that are being used for these buildings. And like the Senator Vickers said, the districts can go to that and use those as a prototype for another building if they choose to do so, but they're not required to do that. And then the other thing would just be the cost reporting, um, to have that unified and, and to create a database so that, um, if they wanna build a new building, um, then there's some parameters and cost-wise that they need to do it. And, and I understand your, um, concern. Representative Moss e each district wants to have it be a little bit unique and the surroundings around it should influence the buildings themselves. So in some instances, they probably should be a little bit different, even if they're, you can take a prototype design and make it look drastically different. Even if they decide that the inside of the building is gonna look the same, they can make it look, you know, the same on the outside and create some specific spaces. So there, there, it's a, it's a way to share good information. And just going back to, um, the Dixie, you know, the Washington County School district, they're doing concrete tilt up on their K through 12 buildings. Nobody else in the state, I think is doing that would prob might not even want to consider it until they go look at the buildings and see how nice they are. And that's information that's just not being shared from district to district. Every district is a silo right now. And by bringing these together, you are allowing them to share the good things they're doing and information. And so something like what's happening in Washington County through this Plan rack idea can be shared with other districts and and they may say, Hey, we never even thought of that before. You know, and maybe for some schools representative, they'll just want a cookie cutter building, right. And, and they'll just wanna go to the plan rack and save some money on, on design and have a start on that design.

  19. Committee chair1:19:11

      Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Representative Moss. We're gonna go to Representative Welton.

  20. Rep. Welton1:19:17

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a a few questions if I may. Um, first going back to something the chair mentioned, um, about having a, a curated list of, of experts, uh, I kinda miss that. Who, who decides whether they have expertise or not? How does that list made? Uh, The, the building inspector, um, most of 'em are doppel through Department of Commerce. If they have licensure from what, um, as far as building inspectors. And so as long as they're licensed with the doppel, then um, uh, they would be approved. Or there are district employees that are also, um, uh, licensed from what my under understanding is. So this, this is something that I don't know that just came up as you're answering that question. In the past, did the audit find that there were not doppel registered licensed individuals overseeing these? Or Just in one, in one case, it was basically a Jan or maintenance worker. Okay. Um, and then how many districts do you think will be able to certify their own projects versus how many do you think will have to go to DCFM? Do you have a a guess? Boy, I, I've met with, I mean, five or six that have their own employees. The, the larger districts will have their own qualified people, but it, just to be clear, it's the building official, the plan reviewer inspectors, but it's also construction management people, and that will have to be pre-qualified as well. Okay. Uh, I just, one last comment, Terry. I like the, the idea of a plan rack. Um, I also chafe of that comment just a little bit, I, I compete at high schools all across the state, and I'm in all the different buildings, and they are all district to district, you know, overlapping districts. They're sharing all the time. So to, to make a statement that they're not doing that, that's just not what I see in practice. And that, that's a little concerning to me. I think we can do that already. I, I don't know that that's a bad thing. I like that idea, but, but I, I see that in every district. If, if I could Mr. Chair, and I agree with that. I have talked with many districts who share among districts that in their own area, but as far as the statewide sharing, um, I don't know of anything going on. So Thank you.

  21. Committee chair1:21:44

      All right. Thank you Representative Welton.

  22. Committee chair1:21:46

      Um, just a couple of, uh, clarifying questions for me. So, um, we've talked a lot about, uh, schools and school facilities, uh, particularly the larger districts. I wanna just, I wanna focus on our smallest districts and our, um, uh, smallest LEAs, which most cases are charter schools. There's some very, we have some very small districts. Um, just tell me, tell tell me how you see this, uh, working for, um, first our small rural districts and then, um, I'm sure there's some ways that it's gonna help and it's gonna have some impacts on their processes. Um, and then, uh, talk to me about, uh, uh, what, what if, what if any impact there is on charter school facilities? I don't know who wants to take that. I'll leave that to you gentlemen. Sure. For the, the rural districts, like I said, when I met with them, they, when we talked about the things that they should have for a facilities program overall, it was enlightening to them and they really, they said, we need the help. Bring it, bring it to us. We'd like to have, you know, better tools in our tool bag to be able to accomplish and do the things we want, because everybody cares about their buildings, they care about them a lot. So what this will look like is, uh, I think it will take a little bit of time for them to either, for new projects, they'll probably either hire DFCM, which is about half the rate of the vendors that they can go through state purchasing and select. But there are some vendors through state purchasing that do a good job of construction management. They have their option of doing either of those to be able to oversee their construction. But the other part of this, and, and this is where it's nice to have an entity like DFCM that's al already established, um, on the facilities part. DFCM can work with them on implementing, you know, implementing a maintenance program and helping them to understand the difference between custodial and maintenance and maintaining your buildings. They'll be able to work with them on facility condition assessments and things like that. When I, when I undertook that audit, then a lot of the districts started thinking about facility condition assessments. They went out to hire third parties and they were pretty expensive. So I worked with the vendor that we used, and they were able to pull the K two 12 people in the same contract at a much reduced price. So DFCM can provide things like that for the districts to, to help them do things, to maintain their buildings where, well, we, we put a lot of emphasis on first costs on buildings, and they are very expensive, but we will spend multiples time that first cost over the life of the building, maintaining it and repairing it. And so that's where the real, I think, help will come with the small districts, is being able to maybe better, have better tools to better maintain and take care of their buildings and to be able to have a better grip on deferred maintenance and be able to extend the life of those buildings that are so hard for them to get and so difficult with their tax base to be able to get a new building. So I think it will be helping them get better value out of their first cost out of the buildings they're going to build, and then better performance and longevity and lower costs on maintenance in the future. Does that answer your question? Representative? Yes. On small schools, you wanna talk about charter schools or does somebody else wanna take that or does they, uh, I'm, we've talked a lot about school districts, but we haven't talked about the other LEAs, um, that are part of our education infrastructure. Charter schools are a little bit different, as you know, they're usually built and by a private developer and then they're leased to the charter school. So, um, they, I think that a lot of the things that we're talking about here will benefit them as they look in at their total cost of ownership over the life of the building. I think that naturally will, will help them to be able to make better decisions. But I, I think right now, you know, I looked into them just very little, but I had some concern of their leases largely not really being overseen. Um, and, and app approve and the approval process there, I think can be improved. Um, when you build a pur when you build, have somebody build a building like that for you, you kind of get what you pay for. And if you put more into systems that will last longer, it will cost a little bit more, which means your lease price will go up, but your operational costs can be reduced. So I think there'll be benefit. Um, one huge benefit will be the DFCM beating their building official. They will absolutely love it. So will the contractors, because, um, DFM is by and far the best building official in this state. Um, they're quickest and they're the easiest to deal with. They'll get better product there and better plan reviews, they'll have better oversight of that part of the project, which is lax on, on the, on the charter schools as well. But I think just they're, they're not paid for and built the same way, but the same principles will have value to them that they do to this, to the smaller and larger districts. So just to be clear, do you see, or, um, do you see them, uh, charter schools essentially participating in the same process? Or is that a different, or you see that as a different process? That's not part of what's contemplated in the bill Right now. It's mostly around the building official role. Okay. Um, for now, yeah. Okay.

  23. Committee chair1:27:11

      Alright. Uh, thank you. Uh, I don't see any other questions for members of the committee, uh, the members of the public that are here to speak to this bill, if you're, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak to the bill. Okay. We have a few people that would like to, so if, uh, gentlemen, if you wouldn't mind, um, make a little room there and, uh, we're gonna move to public comment.

  24. Committee chair1:27:31

      Um, I'm gonna set the, uh, I'm gonna set the timer for, uh, two minutes. When you come up, please introduce yourself, um, and, uh, tell us who you represent, if any, make sure you sign in. There'll be a warning chime when there's 15 seconds left. So go ahead, introduce yourself. Uh, floor is yours.

  25. Joe McAllister, Hughes General Contractors1:27:56

      My name is Joe McAllister. Uh, I'm the general counsel for a company called Hughes General Contractors. Uh, we're one of the school builders here in the state. Uh, I've been working with the A GC Legislative Committee for probably 13 years on, on different legislative issues. And I just wanted to provide some input here on, on this issue, uh, that I think that the, the committee should bear in mind. Number one, uh, we see so much good in this bill. There's probably about 75, 80% of this bill that will increase accountability. It will increase proper documentation of, of the things that are, that are being done already. And we think those are great things, but we have consistently tried to provide some input about how this will affect construction costs, construction timelines, and even the ability to finance projects, particularly in the outlying areas. Uh, and, and those issues have not been addressed yet. We hope that, that that will happen. But what we wanted to point out was that during the K through 12 audit, there were seven recommendations for what the State Board of Education should do. There was one recommendation for what the LEA should do, and there were three suggestions that could be considered by this body, by the legislature itself. We are trying to, we are here trying to just go past those first eight substantive recommendations of how to improve and reform the system and go right to the last suggestions by just bringing DFCM into it. I'll just read a quote from page 2021 of the K through 12 performance audit. It says, we have not recently conducted an audit of DFCM. Accordingly, we cannot speak to the efficiency or effectiveness to their efficiency or effectiveness. It says that we recommend that if the legislature considers placing some responsibility over school construction with DFCM, then the legislature should also consider authorizing a performance audit of DFCM. It is my understanding, because I spoke with the chief auditor today that he was at DFCM today trying to complete that audit. But we don't have those findings. We should wait until those findings are available before we take the responsibility from one entity to another. Thank you.

  26. Committee chair1:30:43

      Please, please state your name, who you represent, make sure you sign in.

  27. Aaron Metcalfe, Hogan and Associates Construction1:30:47

      Yes. My name is Aaron Metcalf. I'm a Vice President of Hogan and Associates Construction. We are the largest builder, dedicated builder of, of schools in the state. Also worked, uh, in various, uh, surrounding areas, Wyoming, uh, Nevada, and Idaho. And know all about, uh, the procurement methods and what those states do, right. And what they do, uh, incorrectly in our opinion. What what we really see, ladies and gentlemen, is just that, uh, there are 1000 lines of new legislation in the, uh, for these school districts to absorb. Uh, and they have approximately 30 days to implement those things. So really, uh, what we're advocating for is collaboration. Uh, Hogan Construction started us, the CMGC process was construction manager, general contractor, was really about cost control way back in 1988. And so we, uh, are very much in, in tune with this, uh, type of, uh, construction and saving, um, the taxpayer money. And so really what about, what is great about this, uh, procurement, uh, is that it's about, as I mentioned, collaboration with the LEAs, the architects, the contractors, subcontractors, even in this, uh, scenario. And so what we're just asking for as a pause is that, you know, it's been great to see these four gentlemen that have crafted this bill go around during this session, trying to work it out and meeting with, you know, we've met with them on various occasions, but doing this so quickly and changing everything so fast without proper collaboration with everybody that's involved, that's gonna be touched on this is, is really not the Utah way. And I would just really ask you to, to, uh, consider this. We're not against safe schools, we're not against cost effective schools. We just want collaboration with all the partners and stakeholders on this one. Thank you.

  28. Committee chair1:32:51

      Thank you. Is there any other member? Are there any other, oh, please go ahead.

  29. Ben Horsley, Granite School District1:32:54

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ben Horsley, granite School District Superintendent. Uh, I just wanted to provide some clarifying remarks. I'm not speaking in favor against the bill. Um, I have worked with the sponsor on some substitute language and I appreciate his collaboration. Some of our major concerns were addressed in the original substitute. I know there's some outstanding concerns here that are unrelated to Granite School District in a district of our size. And I don't wanna speak to those issues 'cause I'm not impacted by them. But I do wanna reiterate, uh, some of the comments that were made by Representative Welton. Um, just two days ago, um, actually last Friday, we spent time going to other school districts and evaluating other facilities. The last few buildings we've built have actually been, uh, variations of buildings and architectural designs used by both Davis School District and Canyon School District. I think, uh, I want to clarify that I think school districts and LEAs by, by and large, are working very hard to keep cost under control. We recognize that we're, we don't need to reinvent the wheel to have the best and the brightest, most beautiful buildings, but also the most cost effective structures. And we'll continue to do so. So thank you for letting me, uh, speak to that.

  30. Committee chair1:34:02

      Thank you. Please go ahead.

  31. Dan Pratt, Hughes General Contractors1:34:04

      Uh, my name is Dan Pratt. Um, I'm, uh, senior Vice President with Hughes General Contractors, and I'm also an executive board member for the Davis Education Foundation. And my entire career has been spent building educational facilities for both K 12 and, uh, higher education. And I also, um, have participated in a role that was alluded to earlier, um, where for many years we were on the state contract to provide CM services for small districts who needed to decide how to procure. Then we would help them through that. They would be able to procure the work and we would supervise those contracts. Um, but first of all, I think the local school districts are, um, being a little bit slighted in this, um, in my opinion because, um, we can't forget that Utah is the number five state in the nation, and we're surrounded by, with the exception of two states in the west. The next highest is 28th in the nation, going all the way down to 50th in the nation in particular, we've had experience also in Arizona, who is 45th in the nation. And Arizona does everything through a state facilities board, and it's a, it's a total disaster. So I'd encourage any of you to look into how education is in Arizona, but probably one of the most, uh, uh, applicable things I can contribute today, um, is we have the honor, I guess, of being a poster child contractor for both the DFC M1 of their poster projects and one of the first prototypes in the Davis School district. Essentially, the Davis School District in the same year, 2014 15, built an elementary school, 4,000 square feet bigger than the Southwest Technical College in Cedar City. Southwest Technical College boasts the, uh, high performance building cost of a dollar 55 a square foot for utilities per year. Davis School District builds their prototypes between 33 cents a year and 55 cents a year. And the savings between the two by the time you take the 75 year lifecycle is approximately the, the Southwest Technical College ended up costing almost double, uh, what the elementary school did. That elementary school has now been built eight times in two different districts. So organically, I want you to understand that where it works, the, the plan library is already working throughout the state. Thank you.

  32. Committee chair1:36:45

      Thank you. We appreciate, uh, the public comments here in person. We're gonna go online. We have one public comment online. Uh, Matt, please, uh, tell us, uh, your name, who you represent, make sure your camera is on. Tell make sure your microphone is on. You'll have two minutes. Um, Mr. Chairman? Yes, you need to, we need, okay. We need to, uh, Mr. Throckmorton, we need you to, uh, make sure your camera's on. Thank you.

  33. Matt Throckmorton, charter school advocate1:37:21

      Okay, go ahead, Mr. Chairman. My name is Matt Throckmorton. I'm a charter advocate. I'm not representing any individual school or entity. I have been in the charter school movement since the nineties. Um, my first thought I, I would express concern about this bill. You know, we have 145 or so charter schools in the state of Utah that have managed their facilities. Without a doubt there could be improvements and such, but in general, I don't know that they're needing right now a big solution. And I would suggest the comment was made that most charter schools would love this. I would suggest they probably wouldn't be too excited about it. It was also noted that costs would go up for us, and, and we already, um, we have to go through a different finance process. We already don't have as much money as the district when it comes to facilities. And so when it comes to increasing our costs, that becomes a, you know, a burden. We can't tax, you know, property taxes and such. So I would encourage us to, to consider that. And then two years ago, I was very much involved in the drafting of House Bill 3 0 1, which went through both the house and the Senate, United unanimously. It was charter school amendments. One of the things that we did in there, which was agreed upon by everybody, is we repealed a section of law that previously required charter schools to have all of our leases reviewed by the state. And it was unanimously agreed to because it was such a wonky, unworkable process that would take a lot of time, was not producing benefit to the charter schools. Um, that everybody after over a decade of that being in the law, they just agreed, let's get rid of that. And so I am concerned that this bill is actually taking us the exact direction, opposite direction as House Bill 3 0 1 from two years ago. So I, I would consider caution overall with this as the impact it could have on charter schools. Thank you.

  34. Committee chair1:39:06

      Thank you. Um, that concludes our public comment. Um, we're gonna go to the Committee for action items. Uh, lemme see if I can get this restarted. I've got multiple lights on, so we're gonna start with Representative Thompson.

  35. Rep. Thompson1:39:23

      Yeah. Do we, um, do we need to adopt sub two? It's already adopted. It is already adopted that, yep, that's correct. Then I would move that, um, that we favor favorably recommend, um, uh, Senate Bill 1 64, um, as substituted.

  36. Committee chair1:39:39

      Alright, that motion is an order. The motion is to favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 64 second substitute.

  37. Rep. Thompson1:39:46

      Would you like to speak to that motion? Yeah, I would. Um, I, you know, first of all, the notion that the sponsor's been frantically working on this during the session to just push something through. Um, not true. Um, this has been worked on since the interim. Uh, there's been a lot of work and energy and effort and conversation and collaboration that's gone in, um, to this bill. Um, you, you know, I was fortunate enough to start, um, a company that, um, with, with business partners that became a nationwide company. And, um, when we started out with our first couple branches, um, we, we spent a lot more money. Um, we weren't very good at it. Um, and, um, and, and over time, and I'm just gonna go through some, some, some themes from the legislation. Um, having a unified, um, statewide framework, having consistency, safety, transparency, fiscal accountability, oversight, um, planning and approval inspections, comprehensive, um, construction standards, cons, construction standards, uh, cost matrices, uh, reporting standard, uh, standardizing construction costs, reporting, just reporting back and creating a database. These are all things that I look back to my business life and I think, holy cow, these, a lot of these things, that's exactly what we did as we build our company and replicated the different branches in our company throughout the country, and we got better and better and more efficient. And, um, while I, I I recognize this bill is not, um, a silver bullet, it does maintain elements of local control and autonomy. Um, I think it provides, uh, a great benefit to the state. Um, DFCM is not taking on all these, um, uh, responsibilities. There is an oversight here that is, is a role that they can play. Um, I, I think that the bill, um, in, in, in its current substituted form is a, is a good bill that will lead to good outcomes for our state. And ultimately in the long run, um, we'll save our taxpayers money. And as I talk to, to, to constituents, um, I'll be honest with you, my constituents are not very happy about property tax rates and continual increases in property tax rates. And then a bond for this, a bond for that county rates going up, school district rates going up. Um, so, uh, for the state to say, Hey, let's, let's find a way to, to, um, um, uh, provide, gather some data and provide some consistency in the area of, uh, of, of building, of, of these schools, I think is a, a wise move on behalf of this body. And I, I appreciate the sponsor for his work on this, on this bill.

  38. Committee chair1:42:32

      Thank you. If your light's on to speak to the motion, uh, we're gonna go to Representative Voxer.

  39. Rep. Voxer1:42:36speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would just sp um, speak in favor of a favorable recommendation as, um, my representative from Cash, um, county said that this is something that we've been talking to a lot. There's 120 page audit that showed that due to oversight weakness, the legislature should review options for restructuring oversight. Out of 30, um, projects reviewed, 19 of them started without their permits in place, yet only four of them were actually compliant. And, um, one of the findings was that non-compliance with this can be a risk to school, property and life and safety of building occupants. This is a major, uh, a major issue that we should take seriously. And I'm glad that, uh, the senator from Cash County is, and thank you for all your work. I know that it's been a lot and I can see that you've, um, been negotiating and, and making some, some concessions here and there. But this is something definitely that I think we need to get out. So thank you so much for your work on that. Thank You.

  40. Committee chair1:43:32

      All right. Thank you. Elle Ox here. We're gonna go to Representative Moss.

  41. Rep. Carol S. Moss1:43:36

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm voting no at this time, um, for a couple of reasons. One, um, the audit hasn't been completed. Two, I've heard from a lot of people in rural areas, small school districts that are concerned about the cost for them, they think will be higher. Um, maybe there's more information that I need to get, but at this point, I, um, I still, uh, am concerned about the lack of local control. But, uh, this point I'll b and o.

  42. Committee chair1:44:06

      Thank you, Representative Moss. We're gonna go to Representative Eliason.

  43. Rep. Eliason1:44:09

      Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, one of the witnesses mentioned the three, uh, audit findings that the LEAs were to accomplish, and then there were five board items that were to be accomplished. Could, could you address, does this bill address those eight things? Uh, where, where were we at in completing those? And I've got those here if you want me to just read 'em out loud. Um, but I, I, I, I would hope that this would be addressing that as well, because that, that did seem like that would be reasonable, right? That we address that. Mr. Chair, if I can speak to that. Yes, Please. Go Ahead. Are you, I'm sorry. Are you talking about the complete list of audit recommendations? Well, they mentioned there, there were three specific to the LEAs, there were three recommendations in the audit, and then there were five at the state board. So the three of the LEAs were strict code compliance, standardized cost reporting, qualified inspection oversight. Is that the list you have there, Senator? Yeah, I I'm sure it's the same one. It came right from the audit, so, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I, I, And then there were, then there were the five, um, state board is, is that, and those were developed internal controls, enforcement mechanisms, et cetera, on that list. I, I would just like to hear kind of a response to that. 'cause I thought that was a valid argument, um, from that gentleman. And just that would have a little chat about that. Maybe I can address that. Even the gentleman that brought that up said that they were all in the, in the bill, which they are, the one recommendation that they're taking exception to is the, considering the oversight and who that should be. And that's the, that's the eighth one that they talked about. So, and that one is in this bill as well, and it's DFCM and that, you know, looking at that one that was in question, you, you really have the option of, you don't do anything. You have the state board who doesn't wanna do it, set up a new entity, or you've transferred that oversight to DFCM. Um, that's for the state board to do it. That would be very expensive, and it would take them literally years to be able to get up to speed and have the expertise they need to provide that oversight. Mm-hmm. So if you choose to postpone and wait for that oversight, um, I guess that's an option that you can do. But it will take a while. And in that time, you know, time is really being wasted there. So, but those recommendations are all in the bill. Okay. And so it is fair to say then the state board saying, Hey, our part of the audit, we're just handing it over to you, or D 50 D fm. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. All right.

  44. Committee chair1:46:36

      Thank you, Representative Eliason.

  45. Committee chair1:46:37speaker not certain

      Um, I've got to just wanna share a couple of comments. Uh, first of all, I'm supportive of, uh, a number of provisions in this bill. And I have a couple of reservations that, um, I'm hopeful that as we move forward, uh, we're able to, um, they, they turn out, I guess the, uh, they, they turn out in a positive way for our schools and our education, uh, education, uh, organization. So first of all, I'm supportive of moving the data collection from USBE to, uh, DFCM. I think there's some expertise there that I think that I believe will be very helpful. Um, I have some reservations about, uh, how the matrix implementation will work early on when we don't have any data. So how do you set benchmarks? We got, we had to collect some data before we can actually make the, make this MA matrix implementation. And then I'm also concerned about possible mean reversion, meaning that the goal is we've got some facilities that are way too expensive that we're trying to get the cost down, which I understand. We also have some facilities that I think that they do very well. And what we wanna be careful of is that those don't get averaged up because, uh, because of some, uh, impact in the process. Um, we don't, my, my, my concern there is, uh, potentially raising the cost of some of our most affordable schools. That's why I asked about specifically charters and small schools. Um, I appreciate the, uh, uh, over, over the course of the substitutes moving from a, a mandatory to an optional use of D-F-C-M-I, I think that there is some def some tremendous expertise and tremendous value there. Um, but I also recognize that, um, uh, that, uh, that providing that optional, uh, uh, feature is a, it's an important consideration for me in evaluating the bill. Um, one concern that I also have, and just express it, that, um, in the DFCM process, historically, it's the largest contractors that typically are most likely to win the bids. And I recognize in the, um, school construction space, it's a, there's a set of contractors who typically win those bids. But, but, um, one of the things I'm concerned about is just making sure that the process is open to anybody who has, uh, capacity and capability to work on those projects. And so, um, and so I just, I, I, I acknowledge that historically there, just like there's a, a small or a, a small subset relatively of general contractors doing facilities projects in the public education space, there's a small subset of general contractors doing DFCM projects. Um, and in some cases that's because of the unique technical nature of the facilities. And that makes perfect sense. But I, I just wanna make sure we don't have a process that makes it difficult for general contractors who want to bid and participate, uh, to participate. The last comment I'll make is, um, I, I have, I'm just, I have concerns about 50 year versus 30 year buildings. I understand the, the desire to build long-term, um, long lived structures. But I've mentioned this, uh, in a couple of different contexts, but I say it in joke, but I, and joking in somewhat in jest, but it's also very serious that the high school that I Uintah has been built three times since I left. Um, it's, uh, we're in the process of, um, rebuilding a middle school that was built 30, 35 years ago. Um, they're not 50 year buildings. Um, some of them are, some of them are being treated that way. I realize we have some buildings one right here in the neighborhood that's been around at least in some variation for a hundred years. Um, but I, but I also have reservations about the cost benefit trade off of building longer lived assets, particularly if they don't allow live that useful life. And I think today we have to be a little bit careful because while we will need facilities, there's no question we'll need education facilities in 2050 and 2075. What we use those facilities for in an education context is really not known. And so, while I, while I, while I think about the life of facilities as an important consideration and, and how much we're willing to invest today for a little bit longer life, we, we, we, there are, there are trade offs there that, um, I'm worried about lifting the cost of some of our most affordable facilities as we go, uh, schools as we go forward. So I'm gonna be supporting the bill, but I'm, I'm expressing those concerns and hopeful that as we go through this process, um, that, uh, and we'll, and we get data, we'll be able to make adjustments and continue to work towards that. So, uh, that concludes my comments.

  46. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:50:57

      We're gonna go back to the sponsor. Can, Can we just answer that question? Is that okay? Uh, Yes. The floor is Your way. Just if that's okay. Jim would like to, and I'd like to comment also. Yeah, Please go ahead. Well, well, I think the, um, concern about the mean you, you know, causing negative effects on the buildings that are built real well. I think those are the ones that are being to be held up as the example, right? On how you can do it. I don't think this cost, its matrix is a target on, on procuring or, or not allowing projects that are less, it's gonna be more on projects that are too expensive, not necessarily those that are, that are less and less, um, when they're doing the evaluation of the plans. And that if the, if it looks like the building just does not have, does not meet the needs, and that's why it's less expensive, then that might be brought up. But it's not really a target on buildings that would be less other than a concern in, in that way. And, and that's one reason why putting the bill, uh, Mr. Chair, is to return a report back to the education interim committee is So we can go through these matrices, we can go through what they're gathering, and, uh, there's no question this, this bill's going to continue to need work. And looking forward to the, the good chair and members of this committee to help, uh, as we form this going forward. I, there's no question that it's not done yet. If, if, if I could sum now, is that okay, Mr. Chair? Yep. It is. The floor's Yours? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

  47. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:52:21

      Uh, I just wanted to mention something that, uh, I, I will tell you, I have collaborated and, and met with a number of different organizations and associations. Last count I had was 15 or 16 different school boards. If I may mention, I would like to, uh, uh, show my appreciation, uh, to Lexi Cunningham. Um, just last, I, I have support of the Utah School Boards Association of the Utah School Superintendents Association and the Utah Association of of School Business Officials. As we've met with them, we've, we've, uh, fine tuned, we've taken out language and we fine tuned it, and I appreciate their support and knowing that this is a problem, knowing that we do want Safe Schools. Also wanted to mention, uh, Mr. Chair, that the General Contracts Association is neutral on this bill. You have heard from two contractors who have done most of the schools, and I'm sure that they don't want that to go away. But I have had other, um, contractors reach out to me and tell me, thank you very much, because I think it will open up more general contractors to be able to bid on these projects. And so I can see why these, these two, uh, contractors are here opposing the bill. But believe me, they're, the association is neutral. And there's, the reason they're neutral is 'cause there's many, many contractors that are supportive of the bill. And we've got two that are here today that are against the bill. So I just wanted to make sure that, clarifying that also, um, let me just read quickly. Auditor General's Best Practice Handbook for Student Achievement in Public Education. The core focus of education should be on student achievement and learning outcomes. And the other functions like facilities and construction are separate. Professional responsibilities. The handbook highlights that school boards and administrators should concentrate on improving student learning and academic achievement through clear instructional frameworks, teacher support and evidence-based planning, rather than focusing on ancillary task or administrative roles. And that dilu attention from core educational goals. And I'm sorry, let me just mention something. Somebody mentioned this, this before, this audit, DFCM is welcoming the audit, and I've talked to the auditors also. This is not a complete overhaul. This is fine tuning processes. The same auditors that did the audit K through 12 are doing this one. Also, my goal, and, and they are welcoming the audit, is to try and take information from the K through 12 audit and also the, the DFCM audit and try and mesh those together to try and make best, best, better processes, um, going forward. So, like I said, and I, um, it's not a complete overhaul. It's from talking to them that's, it's fine tuning processes. So just if I could mention that.

  48. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:55:23

      Uh, and also, well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna end there. Mr. Chair. I think we've talked enough. I appreciate the support. I've worked very, very hard on this bill. I have been collaborative. I do appreciate the support from the school boards and from the state school board as they voted in, in favor of this bill. Also, knowing going forward that making sure that our schools are safe is something we definitely owe to our students, our teachers and administrators. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Wilson. We'll go to the maker of the motion. To sum I'll waive.

  49. Committee chair1:55:53

      Thank you, Representative Thompson. The motion before us is recommend favorably Senate Bill 1 64, second substitute school construction amendments. We're gonna go to a roll call. Vote. Tisha. Representatives, er, aye. Eliason Hayes. No. Millard, no. Moss. Peck? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Welton? No. Vice Chair. Defay? Yes. Chair Walter? Yes. That motion passes six to four with, uh, representatives, Welton, Millard, Hayes, and Moss? No.

  50. Committee chair1:56:43

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Committee. Appreciate It. Thank you. Senator Wilson. Senator McKay.

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:46:06speaker not certain

     Second substitute Senate Bill 1 64 School Construction Amendments by Senator Wilson. This bill was heard in education with the vote. 6 4 5 Representative Gwen.

  2. Unknown speaker1:46:24speaker not certain

     Motion to circle. Motion is to circle. Would like to speak to it.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:46:27

     Uh, presenter is not on the floor. Motion is to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. The opposed say No.

  4. Recording clerk1:46:34

     Motion carries the bill as circled matter Rating Clerk

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch