Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heber Creeper funding splits Senate; panel advances and returns related bills amid procedural disputes
Summary
Two bills related to the Heber Creeper railroad — one to continue purchase/funding and one to repeal financing — drew sharp floor debate about state ownership and fiscal priorities. The Senate lifted one bill from Rules amid dispute about whether a two-thirds vote was required and ultimately returned the purchase bill to the second reading calendar.
A pair of competing measures over funding for the Heber Creeper railroad occupied extended floor time in the Utah Senate, producing sharp debate about whether the state should continue to hold money for purchase and what priority that spending should have in tight budget circumstances.
Senator Marine (sponsor of SB167) described SB167 as allowing continuation of funds already allocated for purchase and preservation of the Heber Creeper, noting the bill would lapse $370,150 back into the fund if not used and that private parties and county actors had been engaged in earlier negotiations. Senator Howell, speaking against state ownership, said the project risked becoming a long-term drain on taxpayer dollars and called the $1.6 million previously discussed a significant sum.
Senators also debated Senate Bill 152, which would repeal financing for the Heber Creeper. A motion to lift SB152 from the Rules Committee to consider it on the floor passed by voice vote but prompted a procedural dispute: several senators said the rules require a two-thirds roll-call to lift a tabled bill from Rules; others and the presiding officer ruled the motion valid. The body recorded mixed votes and procedural back-and-forth but ultimately placed SB152 on the third reading calendar while SB167 was later sent back to the second reading calendar and circled for reconsideration.
The exchanges included both policy arguments (whether the state should hold and expend $1.6 million for a narrow local project and concerns about operation and ongoing maintenance costs) and procedural conflict about whether the chair’s ruling and the floor voice vote complied with the Senate rule requiring a two-thirds vote for lifting bills from Rules. The chair ultimately ruled the earlier action valid; opponents noted that the proper remedy would have been to challenge the chair’s ruling at the time.
The Senate recorded that SB152 was placed on the third reading calendar; SB167 was later reported returned to the file after a roll call showed 14 ayes, 12 nays and 3 absent and was circled for further consideration.
Provenance: Debate and roll-call tallies for SB152 and SB167 occurred repeatedly on the Feb. 22 floor; multiple senators spoke for and against state purchase and financing.
