H.B. 17 Public Infrastructure District Meeting Amendments

What this bill does

The bill would require public infrastructure district board meetings to be held within the boundaries of the entity that created the district, where ratepayers live, or as close as possible if no suitable facility exists. It would also allow one annual budget retreat for these districts, similar to rules for other special service districts and municipalities.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 11 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Jan 21, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: Amendment Recommendation · Jan 21, 2026Who voted how
• 11 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 21, 2026Who voted how
• 70 yes, 0 no, 5 absentFinal House vote · Jan 23, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 30, 2026Who voted how
• 24 yes, 0 no, 5 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 5, 2026Who voted how
• 26 yes, 0 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 21, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (74 turns)

  1. Committee chair20:19

     Okay, now we'll go to the first item on the agenda. Item number one, house bill 17, public infrastructure district meeting amendments. Representative Welton, welcome.

  2. Rep. Doug Welton20:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. It's good to be with you today. Um, I am speaking to the amended version of the bill that you should all have a, there's a single line amendment. Uh, this bill came to me, uh, from a constituent, actually a, a, a neighboring constituent. And she was concerned that, uh, we had public infrastructure districts that were having their meetings in St. George, but the infrastructure district was in the, the South Utah County area. And even though it's televised, it's not the same thing. It's not the same public transparent access that we have. So this is a pretty simple bill that just says that public infrastructure districts have to have their meetings where rate payers live and exist. Uh, and that's what it is. Um, there has been some, some questions about, uh, lines 41 through 45, um, about a retreat. And uh, I'm happy to deal with what other, you know, if that comes up, I'm happy to deal with whatever the committee wants. But that is the same language that exists for other special, uh, service districts and, and municipalities. They're, they're allowed one annual budget retreat. Most of the time it's actually in their own city, uh, where they're holding this. And so, um, I don't see this as something that's extravagant or, or weird, but I will follow, uh, the, the guide on the district, the one line on the amendment, uh, just says we had one in one area where, uh, there's a public infrastructure district for the Delta Center and it's literally just the building of the Delta Center and nobody lives there. And so the, the amendment just says the location the board selects is within the boundaries of the creating entity. So in that case, it would be like you have to have your, your, your PI meeting in Salt Lake City and not in the Delta Center.

  3. Committee chair22:18

     Okay. Thank you. So you have spoken to the bill as well as Amendment one, is that correct?

  4. Rep. Doug Welton22:23

     Correct. Alright, thank you.

  5. Committee chair22:25

     Let's go to the committee for clarifying questions. I see none we'll close. Oh, Representative Hansen.

  6. Rep. Leah Hansen22:34

     Oh, oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so lines 41 through 44 are still a concern for me. Uh, I, I, um, I have trust issues. I'm sorry. So I am still wanting to see if there's a way that we could allow for retreats to still be held within the same district. Um, if, if the committee wants to amend the bill to strike that out completely or, or have some other language, um, I, I'm not opposed to it. Um, sorry, I'm not opposed to the bill the way it is. I think it's consistent with what we do at every other level. And I would argue that if you, if that's your concern, then maybe you should have the same restrictions for city councils and county councils and other government issues. But, um, it's still transparent. There's actually a whole code that talks about what they have to do and how they have to report it. That already exists and it's pretty lengthy. Um, but I, I'm a little ambivalent, but it, I wouldn't change it. But if that's what the the committee wants, then I, I'm also okay with it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

  7. Unknown speaker23:43speaker not certain

     Hanon, just to follow up on that. So they have to have their meeting near the public infrastructure dis district, unless it's not practicable due to emergency circumstances or within the boundaries of the creating entity. Also, they can have one retreat a year that's outside the area, is that right?

  8. Rep. Leah Hansen24:07

     Correct. Just one, correct. Yeah, it is, it is limited to one. No action can be taken. Uh, it's gotta be public, has to meet all the other criteria. Uh, broadcast, recorded everything else that we currently require.

  9. Unknown speaker24:21speaker not certain

     Okay. And I should say that we're talking about amendment number one?

  10. Rep. Leah Hansen24:24

      Correct. Alright, thank you.

  11. Committee chair24:26

      Any other questions from the committee? I see none. Let's go to the public. Who would like to speak to this from the public? Come forward please. We have two. And if you'll just give us your name and sign the witness sheet and tell us if you're representing an organization.

  12. Spencer Tuft, Saratoga Springs resident24:43

      Spencer Tuft from Saratoga Springs. I'm not with anybody. Um, I was wondering if we could clarify what is meant by emergency circumstances in this amendment.

  13. Committee chair24:54

      Okay, well we will address that after the public testimony. Thank you, sir. Who else from the public? Come forward please.

  14. Te Anu Tonga, resident25:09

      Afternoon committee and chair. Thank you for this time. So, um, I spoke in interim to this committee and, um, like Representative Hansen and her constituent, I have concerns about some of the verbiage in here. And I am an ordinary citizen here representing my family. I have no status. Okay. I have no clout, but what I have learned from coming up to the state legislature over the past decade,

  15. Committee chair25:34

      Ma'am, will you tell your, tell us your name again?

  16. Te Anu Tonga, resident25:37

      Tonga. Sorry about that chair. Um, representing my family. Okay.

  17. Committee chair25:44

      Okay. Just make sure you sign. I will.

  18. Te Anu Tonga, resident25:45

      Alright, thank you. Um, what I have learned from coming up to, um, session is that words matter and you as lawmakers, especially those who have been here for years, know that words can be expanded. They can be solidified unless there are boundaries put around them. Um, it changes from session to session to session and from whoever who's in seat in office. And so I know that, um, like the sponsor said, you know, this is clear and it's, um, there's maybe no ill will here, but I just have concerns looking forward that there could be, um, other people who come into office who change the meaning of that one word. And so if you could just consider that in your continued deliberation after this to put some boundaries around that. Because it just is frustrating for me as an ordinary citizen to see lawmakers, um, be so flippant on their meaning of language. Like in my culture, language is identity. And so like our genealogy, we just don't flippantly change it. So just put some, uh, put more of that in there if you could, or at least consider that. Thank you.

  19. Unknown speaker26:57speaker not certain

      I think I know what the word is, but what is, is there a particular word you're concerned about?

  20. Te Anu Tonga, resident27:00

      Yep. So he, um, referenced the emergency circumstances and then, um, one of them was, the other one was reason on line 36 reasonably expects.

  21. Committee chair27:19

      Okay. Uh, reasonably and expects whichever one you want to take. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public come forward please. No one online. Okay.

  22. Jen Brown, President, Utah Citizens for the Constitution27:48

      My name is Jen Brown. I'm president of Utah Citizens for the Constitution and I represent hundreds of citizens. Yes, we want to thank the sponsor for that common sense change that that meetings need to be within that geographic area. But there are concerns about just the word retreat. And I know it was said that it's in other places in the code, but you know, that could be meant to be different things. And so I just think, and a pit board is an unelected board. It's an appointed board. I think that it would be appropriate to just put a little bit more clarification with us so that there, this can't be taken advantage of. So thank you.

  23. Committee chair28:37

      Okay. Can you do that? Thank you for your testimony

  24. Unknown speaker28:44speaker not certain

      Amendment. Can I do You can just strike those lines. You can, you can remove much you want. It's just adding. Okay.

  25. Committee chair28:53

      Anyone else from the public? Okay, we'll close the public comment period and come back to the committee for action. Got Representative Ward?

  26. Rep. Raymond P. Ward29:07

      Yes. I I have an additional question for the sponsor. If I might go ahead. Might go ahead. Um, can you just remind us what is the usual habits about how often a PI board has to meet? Is it, I mean, is it possible that a PI board would meet, say, Hey, we meet exactly once a year and that's our retreat? Or, I mean, I'm just not familiar with underlying statute about,

  27. Rep. Doug Welton29:28

      That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. The ones I've talked to meet monthly, but I don't think they all do.

  28. Rep. Raymond P. Ward29:33

      What is there? I mean, PIDs are interesting because once they're set in, I mean there's some decisions that are made up front and once those, the results of those decisions fall on the homeowners Correct. At that point a bond has been issued and the homeowners are through their taxes responsible for paying this additional tax to pay that bond back. Once that happens, what other things does a pit board even do at a meeting? I mean, what other decisions are there even to be made other than wells are you gotta pay these taxes for the next 30 years?

  29. Rep. Doug Welton30:05

      That's a good question. 'cause in my understanding, there's not like a lot of flexibility once the bond is passed other than we're approving this subcontractor or whatever. But it's all in the, in the pre-approved bond that they have to pay for. I think it's just a, but but they're new enough that I haven't Sure. Been to one and I haven't seen one seen one take place. So that's a good question.

  30. Rep. Raymond P. Ward30:27

      Alright. It just is a a little bit of a question if over time it will just be a once a year meeting that they have. 'cause there's nothing else to decide is that people pay their taxes, but

  31. Rep. Doug Welton30:36

      It's possible.

  32. Rep. Raymond P. Ward30:39

      And yeah. And if that ends up being the case, then I think the re the retreat questions a good question as to whether you have it or not. If they only have to meet once a year and it's a retreat, then that does kind of undo the purpose of the bill. Um, right.

  33. Rep. Raymond P. Ward30:53

      I mean, the other question is, is if there are any other decisions to be made at all by anyone or if it's, I mean, what, once that bond is issued, what else is there for

  34. Rep. Doug Welton31:01

      Them to decide? Yeah, I know that some are meeting regularly. They, they have monthly meetings.

  35. Rep. Raymond P. Ward31:05

      Okay. So I'm going to offer a comment. So as the development goes forward, there's a lot for them to do. 'cause you're gonna, as each lot or structure is closed on and occupied, the bonds got to be repaid. So I can easily see how they, they need to meet to administer that during the process. You know, once the pit is complete is completed, then that's dissolved. The board is dissolved and there's a dissolution process does not go on forever For PIs or for infrastructure districts. I mean, that's certainly the case for infrastructure districts, but I thought the PID does the PI board, I mean, does that bond is going for up to 30 years after when it's issued? Is the pit board not still meet during that time?

  36. Committee chair31:58

      Nathan's checking and while he's checking, we're gonna go to Representative

  37. Rep. Karen M. Peterson32:05

      Peterson. Yeah, I got my line on.

  38. Rep. Karen M. Peterson32:08

      Yes, please. Thank you. I, I guess, um, I have a question for the sponsor. Um, I guess that was kind of my question, which is, uh, Representative Ward was kind of getting at, which is, uh, when you started presenting with the bill, you said the concern that was brought to you was that they were meeting in St. George and they weren't meeting close by. Correct. And if we're not sure how often they're meeting, my concern is if they're just being once a year, then they can keep being in St. George, which is this problem you're trying to solve. So, um, I I guess my question is, are you open when we get to committee action, um, just taking out lines 41 through 45 and they always just meet in their area? Yeah, like I said, I'm, I'm kind of ambivalent towards that. Okay. I mean, if they have monthly meetings, I, I, I don't have a problem, but if they're meeting just once a year, then, then yeah, we, They should meet, not meet there. They should meet, they should meet hopefully George in St. George. Okay. Absolutely.

  39. Committee chair32:53

      Thank you. Representative Ward.

  40. Rep. Raymond P. Ward32:57

      What I described as for an ed, There's no Automatic dissolution Process. There's no automatic dissolution process for a pit. Okay. Okay. So you're, you are, you're correct. Okay. And Ed is dissolved. Okay.

  41. Committee chair33:13

      Let's go to Representative Arthur.

  42. Rep. John Arthur33:16

      Thank you Chair. I have a question for the sponsor. Go ahead. Um, forgive me, I'm, I'm new to this and I've been, I've been learning about PIs as quickly as I could. As, as I understand it, you can have a PI without any resonance there, right? So within, you know, if, if this becomes law and it says that, um, pitch will file annual reports, uh, and, and we'll meet within the, the boundaries, what if there's no structure to meet in yet? So that's where the, the subsections are. Um,

  43. Rep. Doug Welton33:53

      They won't have any business once, There are no locations in the public infrastructure district that are able to accommodate the board. So this would be like, if you've got a developer that's got some land in the middle of San Juan County and nobody lives there yet, you're gonna meet at the, the nearest place where people can, can locate.

  44. Rep. John Arthur34:12

      Then would there be folks who have an interest in that pit who are not yet like living there, but have perhaps purchased some sort of like a, a lot or a property within that that would then want to, I, I imagine attend these meetings?

  45. Rep. Doug Welton34:28

      Correct. So like once you Yeah. So if you're intending to buy a lot, yeah. You're not part of the pit, but once you buy, buy a lot, that's what we're trying to address is those people that own it Right. Need to be able to, to have reasonable access to those making decisions.

  46. Rep. John Arthur34:43

      Right. So yeah.

  47. Rep. Doug Welton34:47

      In, within the bill it would be someplace as, as geographically close to the pit as possible to accommodate the folks who would be ultimately residing there.

  48. Rep. John Arthur34:56

      Correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Yep.

  49. Committee chair35:00

      Okay. Representative Kohler. Oh, sorry, I didn't, okay. Mistake. Okay. If there's further discussion now, go ahead and press your button. All right. If you, uh, so we're, we're in the action phase now, so if somebody wants to do some action, Representative Peterson,

  50. Rep. Karen M. Peterson35:23

      Um, I'm gonna move my amendment first and we'll move the sponsors if there's an interest in doing that. Um, uh, I'd like to strike lines 41 through 45.

  51. Committee chair35:38

      Okay. The motion is to amend by Representative Peterson, which is to strike lines 41 to 45. Would you like to speak to it?

  52. Rep. Karen M. Peterson35:45

      Yes, please. Um, I, I think we, as we had the conversation today and, and trying to meet the sponsor's intent of the legislation, which is that people can access these meetings, um, if, if it was reasonable, especially when these boards are not, um, necessarily, um, public officials that we, we, um, we just say when you're meeting meet close by. I think that works. So that's my motion.

  53. Committee chair36:07

      Thank you, Representative Peterson. Clarification. All right. Staff has a clarification. Mr. Brady, just Technical clarification for the record.

  54. Mr. Brady, staff36:16

      For, for those who are listening in and for the members of the committee. So we're striking lines 41 through 45, that would require us also to strike on line 40 the semi or, and insert a period.

  55. Committee chair36:27

      Yes. Thank you Mr. Brady. Okay, let's go to Representative Welton to comment on the motion to amend.

  56. Rep. Doug Welton36:38

      Eh, I'm supportive of that.

  57. Committee chair36:39

      Okay. To the committee discussion, to the motion to amend Seeing none, Representative Peterson for summation,

  58. Rep. Karen M. Peterson36:49

      I'll waive submission is waived. I'll restate the motion to amend the bill by striking lines 41 through 45 with other punctual and grammatical clarifications.

  59. Committee chair37:02

      All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries. The bill is amended.

  60. Committee chair37:08

      Further discussion or action to the bill representative board?

  61. Rep. Raymond P. Ward37:19

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I'll go. Would like to move, um, amendment one that's on the system in the sponsor's name. Okay. The motion is to adopt amendment number one. That's in order. Would you like to speak to that? I'll Waive.

  62. Committee chair37:34

      The motion is to adopt amendment number one, Representative Welton to the motion to amend, uh, That meets the intent of the bill. Thank you. Discussion to the committee.

  63. Committee chair37:45

      To motion to amend Seeing none. Representative Ward for summation.

  64. Rep. Raymond P. Ward37:50

      Waive summation is waived.

  65. Committee chair37:51

      I'll place the motion to adopt amendment number one. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries unanimously. The amendment is adopted.

  66. Rep. Raymond P. Ward38:19

      I, uh, the chair brought up a good point. I just wanna clarify for the members that the amendment one shows that language that we struck in Representative Peterson's verbal amendment. That doesn't put the language back in. That's just existing language. So for the record, we're adopting Amendment one, which adds in the, uh, the new language that is underlined on the amendment. The rest of the language is just there for informational purposes. Represent, represent Peterson's verbal amendment to strike lines. 41 through 45 still would apply. So what we'll show on the committee report is you'll see two amendments, the new language being added in, in amendment one and the 41 through 45 struck out in the verbal amendment. Just one of clarification.

  67. Committee chair38:58

      Thank you. Further action on the bill.

  68. Rep. Karen M. Peterson39:05

      Representative Peterson, I'd like to make a motion to move out, um, house bill 17 as amended with a favorable recommendation.

  69. Committee chair39:14

      The motion is to recommend Favorably House bill 17 as amended.

  70. Rep. Karen M. Peterson39:19

      Would you like to speak to it? Yeah, I think anytime we can increase the public's a access and opportunity to, to meet with their board, I think it's a good thing and I appreciate him bringing this bill.

  71. Committee chair39:29

      Thank you to the motion to recommend favorably discussion from the committee. Seeing none to the bill sponsor for summation.

  72. Rep. Doug Welton39:38

      Uh, I would agree. Public access, transparency, being accountable, uh, to those who are making the decisions to the, to the right payers, I think is, is an important part of, of government and Utah government. And so I appreciate your support.

  73. Committee chair39:51

      Thank you, Representative Peterson for summation, I'll waive submission is waived. The motion is to recommend Favorably House bill 17 as amended public infrastructure district meeting amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries. The bill will be recommended favorably.

  74. Committee chair40:07

      Thank you representative. Welcome. Thank you. Appreciate Your time. We'll next go

• Jan 23, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker27:44speaker not certain

     House Bill 17. Public infrastructure district meeting amendments by Representative Welton. Ms. Be was heard in political subdivisions with the vote of 11 0 1.

  2. Speaker (presiding)27:55

     Representative Welton

  3. Rep. Doug Welton27:58

     Yes. Motion to not circle, uh, HB 17. This is a bill that was brought to me as, as many of you know, we have public infrastructure districts also called PIDs, and they have been given, uh, essentially taxing authority that we give to municipalities and other state political subdivisions. Um, but one thing I've found out over the years is they do not actually have to hold, uh, their, their meetings where their, their rate payers are at. And so what this does, this bill just simply says that like a municipality or a county government or anyone else, you have to hold your meetings where your rate payers reside. And that's, that's what this bill does.

  4. Speaker (presiding)28:37

     Thank you Representative Welton discussion to the bill. I see none. Representative Welton for summation,

  5. Rep. Doug Welton28:47

     I'll waive. Thank you.

  6. Speaker (presiding)28:48

     Nation is waived. Voting is open on house Bill 17. Public infrastructure district meeting amendments seeing all president having voted voting will be closed. House bill 17 having received 70 yay votes and zero nay votes passes the house and be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter. Meeting Clerk

• Jan 30, 2026 Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (21 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:26:14

     We will call House Bill 17 public infrastructure districts meeting amendments Senator or represent Wilton.

  2. Rep. Doug Welton1:26:26

     Sorry. No one likes my bill. Every Oh, I know they're all leaving. It's because my bills are so good. They know they don't have to stick around 'cause it's not gonna be controversial.

  3. Committee chair1:26:38

     Okay. I've got some questions then. Go ahead. Okay.

  4. Rep. Doug Welton1:26:43

     All right. Uh, simple Bill that came to me, we had, uh, constituents down in my area that were complaining that there were PIs in the area and they were meeting in St. George and not where the rate players were at. And that seemed like a real problem and inconsistent with our open and public and transparent meetings, uh, that we have. And so this bill just seeks to rectify that situation that says that you need to meet where your rate payers are, where reasonable, if there are no facilities, uh, then you have to meet as close as as possible. Uh, so you can be open there. There has been some questions raised about the ability to participate online, and we are working on some language that would kind of mirror, um, what we allow municipalities to do, where you have an anchor location. Uh, particularly this is particularly important in areas where it's just a piece of dirt right now. And you've got investors, developers who don't actually live in the area and there's no rate payers there. Uh, so I think that's reasonable. We're working on that language. Um, and we'll have something ready. It's just not ready yet. But other than that, it's a pretty simple, pretty straightforward and pretty consistent with what we're asking everybody else to do in the state. Thank you to the committee for clarifying questions.

  5. Committee chair1:27:52

     Senator Winterton,

  6. Sen. Wilson Winterton1:27:53

     I don't want this to be too easy on you. I don't think the bill goes far enough. Oh, I, I understand there's other bills out there that might touching those areas, but I think this is a good start because I know when you start talking about the rural water districts and that requirement is you have to meet within the district. Yeah. You cannot be outside there because that's not right. The citizens have to travel to keep up with whatever they're trying to do. Yeah. The dark and that. And so, yeah, I would look forward to, I would agree to Further, uh, modification of this. Okay. I, I'm all about having transparency and access to the public, so,

  7. Committee chair1:28:37

     Okay. Thank you.

  8. Sen. Winterton1:28:38

     Um, I have a ques question representative. Okay.

  9. Rep. Doug Welton1:28:42

     Okay. This goes through and applies to existing. It does not deal with the process because if you have a, an existing district, you might have a place within it. Maybe it might be raw dirt, but it could be someplace right next to it. But when you're creating it, it's hard to have a meeting.

  10. Sen. Winterton1:29:03

      Correct. And that does not address what happens before correct

  11. Rep. Doug Welton1:29:07

      Creation. Yeah. This is when, when the board exists in their meeting.

  12. Committee chair1:29:10speaker not certain

      Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Uh, signal further questions.

  13. Committee chair1:29:15

      Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address this bill? Saying none. We'll bring it back to the committee.

  14. Committee chair1:29:22

      Senator Winterton gt.

  15. Unknown speaker1:29:28speaker not certain

      Oh geez. Look, she's gotta modify your bill. Make it Better already. There it goes.

  16. Sen. Winterton1:29:37

      I'll make a, a motion then that we favorably recommend House Bill one seven.

  17. Committee chair1:29:45

      Okay. And the question is, favorably recommend House Bill 17 discussion to that motion.

  18. Unknown speaker1:29:51speaker not certain

      All I, the question I have is, is you may be open for some amendments to clarify. Yes. A couple of those items. Okay. Yes.

  19. Committee chair1:29:58

      Uh, seeing none go ahead, representative for summation.

  20. Rep. Doug Welton1:30:01

      Uh, I'll wait. I think this is a good start. I think, um, uh, a process to dissolve PIs is also important. That came up in the house committee. That was not anticipated. Um, I don't know if we'll get it into like a substitute on this one, but I think there's a lot of work to be done in this area. Okay. Thank you. The winner. Okay.

  21. Committee chair1:30:20

      All in favor of passing out house bill 17 with a favorable recommendation. Say aye. Aye. Aye. And you post, I'll rule that passage unanimously. Okay.

• Feb 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (11 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer7:32

     Yeah. So this bill arises from, uh, public infrastructure districts. Oftentimes they're created and there are various attorneys involved. They were holding their meetings in downtown Salt Lake at attorney's offices, uh, on a couple of them rather than near where the public infrastructure district would be impacted. So what this bill does is it requires a public infrastructure district to hold their meeting at a location within the boundaries of the public infrastructure. There are certain exceptions, uh, those exceptions would, uh, allow them to hold them nearby and there's certain virtual issues, but really the point is to try to create it so that if you're going to do a pi, you need to hold your meetings near where the PI will would impact people. And I'm open to any questions on that? Senator Sandall?

  2. Sen. Scott D. Sandall8:23

     Thank you Mr. President. Uh, sponsor yield. Senator Brammer, will you yield?

  3. Sen. Brady Brammer8:29

     Yes, go ahead, Senator Sandall.

  4. Sen. Scott D. Sandall8:31

     Thank you. Uh, thinking about what are those parameters if, uh, if a pit is established, it may be, uh, it may be just a a quarter of a block. Uh, there may not be anywhere to hold a meeting. Uh, just describe to me. It may be undeveloped quarter block and and where would you hold that meeting? Under this?

  5. Sen. Brady Brammer8:54

     Yeah, so if there, go ahead. Oh, I apologize. If there is not a, a suitable location to hold a typical meeting, uh, what the, what this says is it needs to be nearby. Now that, that can differ, and we've left it a little bit vague on purpose because there are different scenarios where nearby, for example, if you had a, a, a pit within a city boundary and they held it at city hall, that would be nearby. But you could have an, uh, something out in the West desert and there is nothing nearby in terms of a mileage ratio. But you'd want to go, you know, to a, a nearby city or county hall or, or something like that, just so that, uh, we, we want make sure that the public that are impacted by this have an opportunity to have their voice heard. And this is more about the convenience to those impacted and not to the, the convenience of those creating the pi. Um, we've worked with several of those that have an interest in this. Um, uh, you know, a lot of 'em are, have different statutory authorities that don't fall under this. But, uh, the, the point is it, it can be held nearby. Um, but that is a flexible meaning on purpose because that can vary. Thank you. Follow up. Go Ahead. Yes. Thank you.

  6. Sen. Scott D. Sandall10:04

     So in your example, a PI that exists in and around or in somewhere in the Salt Lake City area, uh, somewhere close could be, uh, the capitol to, to hold a meeting. Is that correct? Yes. Senator

  7. Sen. Brady Brammer10:19

     Brammer. Yes, that's Correct. Thank you.

  8. Sen. Scott D. Sandall10:21speaker not certain

     If that's alleged legislative attempt or, uh, uh, intent, I'm very happy. Thank you.

  9. Senate President (presiding)10:29

     Thank you. Looking for further discussion. Saying no further discussion to you. Senator Brammer, I'll call the question. Thank you. Thank you. And the question is, shall house bill 17 be read A third time? Roll call vote.

  10. Senate clerk10:40

      Senator Vickers. Baldy Aye. Lein Aye. Brammer bus Comore. Ms. Kaia? Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins. Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay Mikel, Your mic's On Milner. Musman Owens Go ahead. Pitcher. Stand up thumb. We're done Here. Okay. Rebe, I Sandal. Stevenson Stratton Vickers Vicar Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  11. Senate President (presiding)11:30

      Aye. House Bill 17, having received 24 yay votes, zero na votes. Five being absent shall be read a third time. Senator Rebe.

• Feb 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer25:53

     Brammer. Thank you. This is the bill we heard yesterday. This is providing anchor locations when a public infrastructure district holds a board meeting. And if there is not an available anchor location, uh, then it needs to be nearby. The affected area. This is to make sure that when there are tax implications for an area that the citizens that are around that area have access to, uh, to give their thoughts and participate in the process of a public infrastructure district. So with that, I'm open to any questions. Thank you.

  2. Senate President (presiding)26:26

     Thank you for the presentation. Looking for discussion to this bill on third reading, not seeing any. I'm gonna go to you. Senator Bra fraction. Alright,

  3. Sen. Brady Brammer26:34

     I would call to question to move that we pass, uh, on the third reading calendar, HB 17.

  4. Senate clerk (roll call)26:39

     Thank you. And the question is, shall house bill 17 pass Roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Lein B Brammer Bus Cullimore Es Camia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson a Johnson Juab McKay, Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Ru and I Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  5. Senate President (presiding)27:43

     Aye. House Bill 17, having received 26 sha votes, zero na votes, three being absent passes this body and will be signed by the president returned to the house

  6. Senate President (presiding)27:53

     for the signature of the speaker house. Bill 77, House Bill 77. Tax modifications. Senator McKay. Senator McKay.