Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate passes transportation task-force bill after amendments on developer impacts and local matching

Utah State Senate · February 23, 2005
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Utah Senate amended and passed First Substitute Senate Bill 25, a Transportation Funding Task Force measure, clarifying when development triggers state road impacts and adding a parity rule for local matching funds; the bill passed 25–0 and was sent to the House.

The Utah Senate on Feb. 23 amended and approved First Substitute Senate Bill 25, a wide-ranging measure from the Transportation Funding Task Force that includes jurisdictional transfers and a new framework for weighting road projects.

Senator Gene Walker (Senator Walker) led floor debate and explained Amendment No. 9, clarifying that notification requirements apply when a development is the cause of additional traffic on a state road. Walker said the change was intended to make clear the development—not merely the potential for traffic—must cause the impact. The Senate adopted Amendment 9 without recorded debate.

Senator Kilpack moved a separate change (Amendment No. 10) to address parity for local matching dollars. Kilpack said the amendment ensures counties are treated fairly when some jurisdictions already levy additional sales taxes for transit and others do not; the amendment clarifies local matching should not be counted unless counties have equal opportunity to raise matching funds. Senators discussed a related bill expected in the Revenue and Taxation Committee that could offer parity without requiring counties to withdraw from the Utah Transit Authority levy.

Senator Thomas, who had delayed the bill earlier while negotiating related funding in a separate House measure, told colleagues the parties had reached an agreeable funding mechanism and supported final passage. Senator Walker called the question and the Senate approved the bill on a roll call vote, 25 yes, 0 nay, with 4 absent. The measure was transmitted to the House for its further action.

The Senate also appointed a three-member conference committee earlier in the session to address a separate House request concerning House Bill 43 (school land trust program funding). That procedural action does not change SSB25’s referral to the House.