Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Installation Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves buffer‑zone bill for Hill Air Force Base after rejecting local‑contribution amendment
Summary
Substitute HB 227 to create buffer zones and buy noise‑compatibility easements around Hill Air Force Base passed the House 64–3 after lawmakers debated county cost‑sharing and defeated an amendment requiring Davis and Weber counties to contribute upfront funds.
Lawmakers approved substitute House Bill 227, a measure authorizing a state trust to acquire easements and otherwise support buffer and noise‑compatibility efforts around military installations, with the House voting 64–3 in favor.
Representative Sharp (speaker during the presentation) framed the bill as a defense of Hill Air Force Base and the Ogden Air Logistics Center, telling colleagues the installation generates an annual economic impact of "$2,300,000,000" for the state and arguing the runway and mission must be protected. Sharp described the bill’s mechanism as purchasing easements in high‑noise zones and pointed members to compatibility tables and maps distributed to representatives.
Representative Wright moved an amendment that would have required Davis County to contribute $100,000 and Weber County $50,000 to the fund before state money would be released; itemized payments over five to six years were spelled out. Supporters of that amendment said it reflected a local shared‑responsibility approach and could encourage county buy‑in. Opponents said it would effectively mandate county budgeting decisions, impose unplanned obligations during local budget cycles and unfairly single out nearby counties rather than treating the base as a statewide asset. Representative Chard and others argued counties would need those economic development funds to recover if the base closed.
After extended debate—during which members argued both that Hill provides statewide benefits and that local counties nearest the base have special obligations—the Wright amendment failed on the floor. Representative Chard expressed frustration that counties had not offered a loan or partnership proposal to share costs and said a modest county contribution could be reasonable; several members disagreed and urged the state to act without tying funds to specific county obligations.
With the amendment defeated, the House approved the substitute bill. Representative Sharp said the bill was part of a broader state effort—alongside the governor and congressional delegation—to protect the installation and the jobs and contracts connected to it.
Next steps: Substitute HB 227 was referred to the Senate for further consideration.
