Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House dedicates 8.3% of general fund to Centennial Highway Fund; corridor-preservation amendment fails
Summary
The House passed first substitute House Bill 112 on Feb. 14, 2006, dedicating roughly 8.3% of general-fund resources (about $150 million) to the Centennial Highway Fund. An amendment to reallocate $40 million for corridor preservation of the Mountain View Corridor failed; the substitute passed 67–5 and will be sent to the Senate.
The Utah House on Feb. 14 approved first substitute House Bill 112, which statutorily dedicates approximately 8.3 percent of the general fund (roughly $150 million as described on the floor) to the Centennial Highway Fund to preserve commitments to a set of Centennial projects.
Representative Rebecca Lockhart, sponsor of the substitute, said the bill does not create new money but protects previously appropriated transportation funding and ensures the Centennial Highway Fund retains the cash flow needed to complete 41 projects already agreed to by the legislature.
Representative Hogue offered an amendment to set aside a one-time $40 million out of the Transportation Investment Fund for corridor preservation in the Mountain View Corridor (an area in southwest Salt Lake County that the sponsor and proponents said faces rapidly increasing development pressure). Hogue argued immediate corridor preservation would save the state and taxpayers larger future costs and preserve rights-of-way.
Opponents, including the substitute sponsor and others, said adding corridor-preservation language within the substitute would change Centennial commitments and create cash-flow pressure that could force bonding or delay projects. Debate included references to the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF), Centennial Highway Fund (CHEF), and how the statutory change would affect cash flow and project sequencing.
The amendment was defeated after a previous-question motion curtailed debate and a recorded voice vote; the substitute remained intact. The reading clerk announced the final tally on the substitute as 67 yes votes and 5 no votes, and the bill was ordered to the Senate for further consideration.
Supporters said dedicating the revenue guarantees long-term funding for a prioritized set of highway projects. Opponents cautioned against locking funding formulas in statute without broader consideration of other state priorities such as education and human services.
