Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tollways P3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves bill authorizing public-private tollway partnerships after split votes on amendments
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 80 to allow public-private procurement and lease arrangements for tollways, approving a broad sponsor-backed version while rejecting an amendment restricting contracts to U.S.-domiciled companies and adopting parts of a Transportation Commission-strengthening amendment.
The Utah House passed Senate Bill 80, which establishes procurement rules and guidelines for public-private partnerships (P3s) on tollway facilities, by a recorded vote of 48 yes to 24 no. The bill enables unsolicited proposals, lease-type agreements, and guidance on toll-revenue use, with details of toll collection and distribution to be set in individual agreements.
Sponsor Representative Dougal said the legislation is intended to add tools to the states infrastructure toolbox and to accelerate construction of high-priority projects. "This is just one more tool for them to use," Dougal said, adding that private partners would typically collect tolls under lease agreements and that property would revert to the state at a specified time.
Floor debate produced several significant amendment attempts. Representative Hansen proposed an amendment to require that companies building and operating tollways be domiciled in the United States; Hansen argued the change would protect jobs and national-security interests. The House rejected that proposal—the sponsor and other supporters said limiting access to foreign investment would restrict capital and was unnecessary.
Representative Wallace offered a substitute amendment (Amendment 4) designed to shift more implementation authority and oversight to the Transportation Commission. The House divided the substitute amendment into parts; the first set of items (1through8) passed and the ninth item also passed after separate consideration. Proponents said the change would depoliticize road development and place technical oversight with an expert commission; opponents warned about local control and representation for communities where tollways may be built.
Opponents cautioned the measure could amount to a new form of user-based taxation and urged caution; Representative Mascaro argued the state had already increased transportation funding substantially that year and asked whether additional tolling was appropriate. Supporters countered the state's long-term transportation needs and a shortfall of available funding justify trying new approaches.
After divided votes on amendments and procedural motions, the House passed the bill and will transmit it to the Senate for further consideration.
