Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate moves first substitute to corridor‑preservation bill after debate over local cost‑sharing and timing
Summary
First Substitute Senate Bill 8, creating a state corridor‑preservation fund seeded by local fees and returning funds to originating counties, advanced to third reading after extended debate and a withdrawn amendment that would have required localities to pay 10% of demolition costs for later‑allowed improvements.
Senator Kilpack introduced first substitute Senate Bill 8 (local corridor preservation), which would permit local legislative bodies to impose up to a $20 per‑vehicle fee to seed a state fund earmarked to support corridor preservation and related right‑of‑way actions. The sponsor and supporters said the model would return funds to the originating counties while providing a state mechanism for corridor acquisition.
Senator Stevenson and others argued the bill lacked sufficient local incentives to prevent encroachment: Stevenson offered an amendment that would require cities or counties to pay 10 percent of the cost of demolishing improvements erected after July 1, 2005, that later must be removed to build a state highway. He said the change would give local governments “skin in the game” to avoid development that forces higher state buyout costs.
Opponents warned the amendment could operate as an unfunded mandate or put local governments in an untenable position if corridor plans are not clearly indicated in master plans. Senator Thomas and others said the timing and effective date (the bill’s effect was tied to later project schedules and an effective date of Jan. 1, 2006) required further conversation with UDOT, League of Cities and Towns and other stakeholders.
Stevenson withdrew the amendment to allow more negotiation; sponsors agreed to move the first substitute to the third‑reading calendar so stakeholders can continue discussions. The Senate later recorded the roll‑call reading (first substitute SB8: 22 yes, 6 no, 1 absent) and left the proposal for further amendment before final passage.
