H.B. 436 Moderate Income Housing Infrastructure Amendments

What this bill does

The bill adds a new home-building measure to the moderate income housing plan that gives cities a second bonus point for transportation funding if their housing supply grows 2.5% or more, usable on regional transportation projects. Cities already in compliance get a one-year freeze before the new requirements take effect, and the overall bonus is capped at 7%.

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

• 8 yes, 1 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 6, 2026Who voted how
• 65 yes, 0 no, 10 absentFinal House vote · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 20 yes, 8 no, 1 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 64 yes, 0 no, 11 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 6, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Committee chair2:31:00

     Thank you representatives. Thank you. Next we'll go to item number six, house bill 4 36, moderate income housing infrastructure amendments. Representative gracious, the best for last.

  2. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:31:11

     I was just gonna say that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, no, I think this one, the title might be longer than the actual bill. I don't, I don't like what's happening over No. Thank you chair and committee for spending your Friday evening with me. Um, so as you all know, I represent a very fast growing district, but also a district that really does have the ability to absorb the new homes that we need to, to build, to meet housing. We all know that housing is the number one issue that Utahns are worried about right now. Um, and in thinking about that over the last several years since I've been up here, I've always kind of wondered why we don't really tie infrastructure to it. Infrastructure's the main cost of development, but it's also the main pain point for residents when new development goes in. Um, and so in kind of working through this, what we figured out is our modern income housing plan, the summary version is we provide a list of check boxes in code. If a city meets those check boxes, they get what's essentially a bonus point with udot. I'm not gonna pretend to understand how exactly UDOT works that into their formula. That is way above my pay grade. Um, but what we found is that 100% of municipalities that this applies to are in compliance. So every single city gets a bonus point. And if everybody's gonna getting a bonus point, then there really is no more incentive to actually build units. And so all this bill says is that in addition to meeting your check boxes and getting your bonus point, if you also grow at a two point a half percent rate, then you get a second bonus point. And statewide average is 1.9%. So that is an above average growth rate. Um, but again, just trying to incentivize by also providing a tool that municipalities can use. Um, there's no sticks involved for cities. We really tried to do this in a way that kind of worked for everyone. And I'm happy to answer questions.

  3. Committee chair2:33:08

     Thank you representative breaches to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Peterson.

  4. Rep. Peterson2:33:14

     Thank you. So in your bill, how are you, um, like on line 1 98, when you say demonstrates that they have, um, a percentage change of new residential dwelling units. So when does the dwelling unit count? Is it when you certificate of occupancy? Like what, how do we determine

  5. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:33:30

     that it counts, I guess? Yeah, It is certificate of occupancy. Okay. Um, and then it's a two and a half percent on top of what that municipality already has. We didn't wanna put a static number because large cities and smaller cities are going to have different amounts. People, they're gonna have different capabilities, and we wanna leave things flexible for those local governments still. Um, but with this modern income housing plan, they already submit that on an annual basis. Okay. And so we'll already know how many units they've had, how many they are adding. All of those data points are already part of that.

  6. Rep. Peterson2:34:01

     And then my second question is, it gives priority to consideration to a significant regional transportation project. So it's not necessarily just that city, right? It's, it's really the region. Right. Do you wanna speak to that at all?

  7. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:34:12

     Correct. So I'll just use my area as an example because I know it the best. Eagle Mountain State Roads are our main roads. But you, I mean, as fast as we're growing and as many new homes as we're putting in, we could spend all the money in the world in Eagle Mountain. And it won't do me a single bit of good because I still have to get through Saratoga Springs and through Lehi to get to the freeway. So what it's saying is it needs to service that municipality. So for me, a project spent in Lehi on an east west corridor is a major bonus point for Eagle Mountain. And so that first Udot point does stay within the city, but the second one for those faster growing areas can also be used on those more regional roads to help move and increase connectivity. It doesn't have to stay just within the bounds 'cause it won't necessarily be beneficial. We wanted to open that up. Yeah.

  8. Unknown committee member2:34:58speaker not certain

     Thank you. Thank you. I have a, a question. So let's say municipality increases by the two and a half percent, they get a extra bonus point. Mm-hmm. How long does that last? I mean, let's say the next year they don't hit the threshold. So what happens at that bonus point that got the prior year?

  9. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:35:15

     Yeah. So the Transportation Commission funds in five year increments. I do know that, but I also know that they can tweak it every year. And that there is a degree of review that's already going on every year. And that is really like statistician, um, modeling crazy that I do not pretend to understand how they make it all work. Um, but it's essentially good for one year. Um, and it just gives you an extra shot so it doesn't guarantee funding. Um, maybe you're several points, and I'm using the word point, I don't know their formula. Um, but say if you're several points behind the project in front of you, it's not gonna make a difference. You're not gonna get funding. Um, but it, if there are two that are really similar in priority, then the one that's adding units would get that little bit of bump. Um, but the answer to your question is, it is written as a 12 month plan right now.

  10. Unknown committee member2:36:07speaker not certain

      Okay. But let's say you get bonus points for two years and you're on the list and you creep up a little bit and then you don't get it for the next two years. Is somebody gonna leapfrog you, frog you, and get ahead of you potentially if they're, if their compliance or they're, um, meeting the two and a half is more recent,

  11. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:36:24

      Potentially? Yes. So the MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations, um, are the regional planning organizations that do the initial base layer of transportation planning. They resubmit their plans every single year. So for that region, it would automatically be reorganized every single year. Now, those plans then go up to the UDOT level who prioritize on a statewide basis, and then that eventually goes to the Transportation commission. So there, there are a lot of different steps. So the answer is yes, however it would be captured in that initial plan coming up from the MPO on an annual basis. Okay.

  12. Rep. Dunnigan2:36:59

      So I, I applaud you for using carrots and not sticks. I, I like that. Uh, but for municipalities that are built out and they're just gonna be extremely difficult, they're not gonna be able to hit this metric. So I'm thinking of a community that I live in and it definitely, we're a pass through community. Okay. We have a ton of traffic that's going to get somewhere else like you've described. Mm-hmm. And yet we're not gonna hit this metric and yet we have, uh, significant transportation needs. So that's just a comment. Okay.

  13. Committee chair2:37:28

      Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, let's go to the public. Who'd like to speak to this and who else wants to speak? We have one, two. Okay. Come forward. We'll each have two minutes.

  14. Cameron Diehl, Executive Director, Utah League of Cities and Towns2:37:38

      That's great. Hello again, committee. Cameron Dale, executive director of the Utah of Cities and Towns. Um, first Mr. Chair and Representative Peterson, thank you for your questions. Uh, we've been working with Representative Grisha and appreciate her efforts on this. And we're actually working with her on a few, um, minor clarifications, um, to the billboard. We're appreciative of the effort and, and think it fits, it fits within the current MIHP framework, which is the spirit of partnership. I'm just gonna quickly address a couple of the questions, uh, that came up a moment ago. So first, Mr. Chair, Representative Peterson asked the, the question about how to measure and what the metrics would be. And actually within the state housing plan, this has been a conversation topic as well as what should those metrics be? So part of the conversation we're having with Representative Grisha or the state housing plan is to focus on certificates of occupancy. 'cause that shows if you're actually seeing that population increase. So that's one of the clarifications that we've been talking about. The the, uh, we're working with her on to, uh, to amend when, when the bill moves forward. Representative Dunnigan, to answer your question about a high growth area versus an established area, you're, you're really hitting this, uh, this interesting dilemma around moderate income housing plans and how it fits into regional growth in general. So right now there are 84 cities and towns, for those of you who are, who are new, 84 cities and towns are required to do moderate income housing plans. Basically, it's a city of 5,000 residents or more in the urban areas and 10,000 or more in the rural areas. So those cities are required to do moderate income housing plans. They select from the, the menu and there's a base level of eligibility in order to, to, um, qualify for those udot dollars. Then there's the above and beyond criteria, which is what we're talking about here. If you go above and beyond, and that's by selecting additional menu items. So right now, a community like Taylorsville can qualify for above and beyond 'cause you can select additional menu items. So you have the baseline eligibility and then you have above and beyond. So this brings another piece into that, above and beyond criteria. So there is the possibility that if you have a high growth city and an established city, and they are, their projects are identical. And they, both of those cities have done above and beyond that. This could be a tie goes to the runner type mechanism, which again, is trying to align that infrastructure, uh, where the needs are. But a, a developed community still can qualify for above and beyond through what's in the existing statute now. Okay. But they wouldn't have this metric to, They wouldn't have, well, they wouldn't have this metric. Uh, potentially there are quite a few high growth cities that do have this metric. In fact, as we've been kinda running data about how many communities, I'm talking About built out cities. Okay. Right. But even, even a built out city that has significant redevelopment could actually hit this at, at different points in time. This is my concern, and I appreciate what Representative Gricius is doing. We have communities who have made an effort to provide moderate income housing over the years, not right now. And they're gonna be penalized. 'cause they're, they may, there's not much, there's very little new land, not probably enough redevelopment to qualify. They've done their part. Mm-hmm. And now they get no credit. And somebody that's coming in late or growth, they're gonna get this little bonus. My, my response is that I think it's a fair point. The response though with Representative Che's bill, is that you as a community like Taylorsville City still can qualify for above and beyond. This is just another metric to qualify For above. I understand they probably wouldn't qualify for this one, but they have other tools. They have Others they can try that's try to use. Yep. 'cause there are multiple men, there are multiple tools that a Taylorsville or West Jordan could pull. This would be a tool that would apply to those rapid growth communities.

  15. Committee chair2:41:14

      Thank you, Kim. Mm-hmm. Okay. Go ahead, Taaz.

  16. Taz Besinger, Utah Home Builders Association2:41:17

      Thank you Mr. Chair. Taaz BS with the Utah Home Builders Association. We strongly support this bill. We, we, I hate to admit it's a good idea representative and we probably should have thought of it and used it implemented a long time ago. We, we think it's critical to the state and we hope you'll support the bill. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair2:41:36

      Thank you. We'll close the public comment period and come back to the Committee for consideration. Representative Fati Manu.

  18. Rep. Jake Fitisemanu2:41:45

      Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair. I would move that we, uh, pass favorably house Bill 4 36, uh, with a favorable recommendation.

  19. Committee chair2:41:53

      Thank you. The motion is to recommend Favorably house Bill 4 36, their discussion to the motion seen. Yes. Go ahead. Representative Peterson.

  20. Rep. Peterson2:42:04

      I'm gonna support that motion, but I, I do have some, HES, You don't have to, I know you don't have, but, but I, this is my hesitancy. Similar to what, uh, Representative Dunnigan, like, I ha I have a community that I represent. I have communities that actually, um, some of them could do more. They could do more than they're currently doing. Some of them have been very ambitious and have done a lot, but they're also communities now that are pretty built out. Like they're, but um, everyone's driving through them to get somewhere else. Right. And, um, and so I appreciate all the work that they have done, and I, I don't want them penalized on, on projects. The other concern I kind of mentioned to you when we talked about this initially is we have communities also that are not growing. Um, that, um, maybe they're kind of a little bit more rural, but they have, you know, 10,000 people or something. But they're not really growing. But because they're rural, they're so dependent on the state infrastructure and, um, that those state roads are vital. They are their main street, they are their roads. And, um, and so I hate to penalize communities that are literally not growing. People are not really moving there. Um, they'd be happy to have more people, but it's just not a part of the state that's growing. But our but the state infrastructure is so critical to them. So I, I guess I'm, I, I understand what you're trying to accomplish. It will help probably two of my cities. It would probably be a wash for two of my cities that I represent. Um, so anyways, I appreciate what you're doing. I think I'm happy to move it forward, but I, I'm not sure exactly where I'm at, so I just wanna give you a heads up on that.

  21. Committee chair2:43:35

      Thank you Representative Peterson. Representative egregious for summation.

  22. Rep. Stephanie Gricius2:43:41

      Thank you. Um, and just to kinda respond, um, I also represent some rural areas. You know, I have the town of Genola, I have Cedar Fort, I have Fairfield, and those are all predominantly state roads. Um, and, and that's part two of why we wanted the, the regional component included. You know, Genola is down on Highway six, that's a big deal. Um, and while they may not be growing, there is development that is pushing down to the west of them that will someday will still benefit kind of remotely, I guess. But, but yeah, it is, it is something that we're trying to figure out. Um, but really right now, the biggest goal in this, and I know that the modern income housing plan is going to be receiving a deeper look over the next couple of years. But the biggest goal is to try to help triage those communities that are really struggling right now. Um, to keep up with the infrastructure as they are trying to do their part here. And, and to the chair's point, I think that your community has done a wonderful job and I really hope that they can meet some of those other above and beyond metrics and still get the love that they need. Um, because they have in the past done a great job. And I'm, you know, hope to see my community, honestly do the same.

  23. Committee chair2:44:47

      Thank you. Representative Gricius. Well said. Representative Fati Manu for summation. Nope.

  24. Rep. Jake Fitisemanu2:44:52

      I think it's a measured approach that's, uh, focused on incentive. And I think that the regional parameters to it could have, uh, residual benefits for communities that might not immediately qualify for this point, but are in an area where a thoroughfare, uh, where others, their neighbors might and they would still benefit. So, thank

  25. Committee chair2:45:09

      You. Thank you. The motion is to recommend Favorably House bill forwarded 36 moderate income housing infrastructure amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say Opposed. Say No. No. Motion carries with done. Again. A opposed. Okay. Somebody pushed their light. Let's get outta here. Representative Fati Manu Motions adjourn. Motion is to adjourn in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries Unanim, please stand. Adjourn.

• Feb 18, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)57:35

     House Bill 4 36, moderate income housing infrastructure amendments by representative gracious, this bill was heard in political subdivisions with the vote of 8 1 3 Representative gracious.

  2. Rep. Stephanie Gricius57:47

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. So we have a moderate income housing plan that is required in code. It currently applies to 84 cities and the purpose of this plan is to help create new products so that we can meet the housing demand for the state. Now, one of the things that got left behind as we started building houses was the infrastructure component. And so all this bill does is say that if a city that this plan applies to is also growing at a 2.5% rate, which is significantly above the 1.9% state average, that when UO works their bonus point system that they do for those cities under this modern income housing plan, that growth will be prioritized. And the purpose for this is to, one, reward the cities who are actually building homes and contributing to the solution. But two, as growth comes, we also know infrastructure is the biggest pain point. And so it helps the residents in that way as well. And I'm happy to answer questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)58:40

     Thank you Representative Gricius discussion to the bill, back to Representative Gricius for summation. I'll waive. Thank you. Summation Has been waived.

  4. Speaker (presiding)58:51

     Voting will now be open on P 4 36 scene all present and haven voting. Voting is now closed. HB 4 36 passed this body with 65 yes votes zero no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 26, 2026 Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee
• Feb 27, 2026 Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (18 turns)

  1. Committee chair48:48

     We will start off with House Bill 4 36. Representative Gricius, welcome.

  2. Rep. Stephanie Gricius48:56

     Thank you. I apologize. We were stuck in a very interesting floor discussion that included multiple calls of the house and yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Uh, so I'd like to speak to the substitute, if that's all right, Mr. Chair. Yeah. You have a substitute that you want to adopt the first substitute 4 36, correct? Yeah. If you can tell us what, uh, the whole bill does and the changes in 4 36, that'd be grand. Perfect. So the bill itself is modifying the modern income housing plan to actually add a home building component. So right now, if you essentially check off all of your boxes, you qualify for up to three, what I'm gonna call bonus points with udot. Their equation's very complicated, so it's not technically correct, but for the purposes of this conversation, it's the best way I know how to describe it. Um, so you can qualify for up to those three bonus points. And then that is that. Now this applies to 84 cities, a hundred percent of cities are in compliance. So this goes to the concept of if everybody is special, then nobody is special. And so really all we're doing is saying you can still, you still get points for checking off your boxes, but we're just going to reshuffle those points just a little bit so that if you're actually building new units based on occupancy permits, which is one of the clarifications in the substitute, that you can qualify for that maximum amount. So we're not adding more weight to the moderate income housing plan, we're just reshuffling. Um, the average state growth rate right now is now is 1.9%. So that two point a half is an above average growth rate, but I felt like the moderate income housing plan should actually have a home building component attached to it because there's not actually a new unit component as part of this plan currently. Um, because this year is already in process and cities are already submitting reports, we did also in the substitute do what's essentially a one year freeze. So if you've already met your qualifications under the current law, this will not change it for one year and then the new requirements would kick in for the next year. And then in the interest of keeping the code clean, we also added an auto repeal for the portion with the dates and the separate reporting. So then this would just kick into, um, that new reporting process. And then we also online nine 13 clarified what is already the existing practice with udot, but it says that this modern income housing plan as a whole will not exceed 7%, and that that's the current process. We asked UDOT to give us more words to tell them to do what they're already doing, just to make sure that we're really clear on exactly how that works. Um, and that concludes my presentation. Mr. Chair, Thank you very much to the committee.

  3. Committee chair51:32

     Senator Kwan.

  4. Sen. Karen Kwan51:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like me to move the sub now Whenever Senate Committee

  5. Committee chair51:39speaker not certain

     does? Yes, I think that was be appropriate.

  6. Sen. Karen Kwan51:40

     Okay. I move, uh, sub one in, uh, representative gracious name. Okay. The motion is delete entitled and Body House bill 4 36 and replace with first substitute house bill 44 36.

  7. Committee chair51:53

     Discussion. That motion. Seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passage unanimously.

  8. Committee chair52:00

     Now further presentation.

  9. Rep. Stephanie Gricius52:01

     That is the whole presentation. Really? That Was too short. Do you want me to keep talking?

  10. Committee chair52:05

      No, that's fine. Please don't, don't talk the bill to death. Yes. Okay. Alright. To the committee for discussion. Seeing none to the public, anyone in the public interested in speaking to this? The league is here. All right,

  11. Karson Eilers, Utah League of Cities and Towns52:21

      Senator, uh, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Carson Eilers with the Utah League of Cities and Towns. And Senator Harper. You know, I, uh, can't go a session without talking about MIHP, so I know. Thank you for entertaining me. No, uh, the league is supportive of this bill. There's a couple important changes like Representative GR has alluded to. It's, uh, starting to create kind of a, uh, uh, objective metric within modern income housing plans. Um, so that's an important piece of it. Another important piece like was mentioned is the freeze. So House Bill 68, as some of you are aware of, is reorganizing the state agencies overseeing state housing policy and plan from the Department of Workforce Services to the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity. And in this transition, the timing will, um, overlap so that there's not really a correct place to submit IHPs this year. So, um, that's one of the important pieces is reports. There's not a, it's it's freezing in place while we, um, move agencies. So it's temporary change and reports will continue as normal afterwards with that component. So I'm happy to answer any questions or share a longer history about MIHP than you wanna hear. But, um, thank you for your consideration and we support the bill.

  12. Committee chair53:30

      Thank you very much. Make sure you sign in, please. Thanks. Okay.

  13. Chris Sloan, Utah Association of Realtors53:34

      Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Committee. My name is Chris Sloan. I'm a past president of the Utah Association Realtors, and I'm here to represent that organization today and speaking in support of this bill as well. And I, I won't get into the, to the substitute necessarily, but in the, the basic concept which we were in support of, um, we don't necessarily have a problem with the housing plan. I think you all know that we're pretty much on board with, uh, addressing some of the shortages in housing in this state. Uh, there is no silver bullet. Uh, if there was one, we'd have found one, you'd have found one. But the reality is this is one of those spokes in the wheel that'll make things get better. We love the reporting part of it, and we love the, the incentive, the carrot rather than the stick approach. Uh, the carrot being, uh, all the communities that I live in, work in, uh, need help with transportation and infrastructure, and this goes right to where they live. So, uh, with that, again, we're very much in support of this bill. Thank you. Thank

  14. Committee chair54:26

      You very much. Make sure you sign in. Okay. Anyone online saying none will bring it back to the committee. And in public comment. Senator Kwan.

  15. Sen. Karen Kwan54:38

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we pass out favorably HB 4 36. Uh, first sub

  16. Committee chair54:45

      Discussion. That motion, seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any you opposed? I'll rule that pass you unanimously. Sorry, I didn't let you do summation, but you got the bill. Senator Kwan,

  17. Unknown speaker55:01speaker not certain

      Uh, how are we with the consent calendar? Is this not a It won't, yeah, it, it'd be read in and it would be Friday. Will it keep it from willing to give it a go? If you are, will it keep it from being wiped though? It would in my side, we're not wiping consent. Yeah, well That's a, I'll leave that committee. I haven't, It's kind of a big bill. There might be some discussion, so let's not put it on consent. Okay. Thank you. Thank You. Committee. It's a good bill, but yeah, thank you. Don't wanna risk it that way, quote. Okay. All right.

  18. Committee chair55:35

      Thank you. Uh, next up is, uh,

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Senate President (presiding)17:09

     The bill is Uncer. Senator Musselman.

  2. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman17:12

     Thanks Mr. President. This bill is a fairly simple policy adjustment and I wanna emphasize adjustment. Um, but I I want to briefly explain, uh, why it's important. First, the bill does not rewrite the transportation prioritization system that the Transportation Commission uses. They have their underlying formula that does not touch that, that does the lion's share When I, it probably doesn't even do it just to say it does the lions share. Most all priority is given under that formula. What the bill does do is add an additional pathway, uh, for communities that are actually producing housing. And this is how it, it does it Specifically, if a city increases it's housing by, by supply by 2.5% or more in the previous year, um, the city may qualify for some priority considerations that currently exist under the Strat strategy system. So in other words, today we recognize that cities adopt housing strategies on paper. Um, the bill also recognizes communities where housing is actually being built. So I also want to address the concern that sometimes, uh, comes up about whether we, this would somehow override the transportation prioritization formula. Again, I I said it the early, it does not state laws limits how much of these priority considerations can affect the ranking of a transportation project. The adjustment is capped as exactly 7%, which means the core scoring factors, safety, congestion, mobility, still dominate the decision making process. Uh, so the bill does not replace the existing system, and it does not dictate transportation funding. It simply adds a performance space option for communities, uh, where housing growth is occurring and infrastructure demand is increasing. With that, uh, that concludes my presentation. Mr. President. Thank you.

  3. Senate President (presiding)19:02

     Thank you. Do we have discussion to the bill? Senator Vickers?

  4. Sen. Evan J. Vickers19:07

     Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, we'll sponsor yield. Senator Musselman, will you yield?

  5. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman19:12

     I will. Thank you, Mr. President.

  6. Sen. Evan J. Vickers19:13

     Senator Vickers, When we talk about transportation projects and transportation commission, I'm always sensitive because, uh, when we get into rural Utah, oftentimes, uh, it's really difficult to get a project. You know, for example, it took us five or six years longer to get a freeway interchange done in Cedar City than maybe would've done on the north, the Wasatch front. So my question is, because I'm, as I understand the bill, if I read it correctly, it it does incentivize towards a fast-growing area, which, which I understand the needs for the infrastructure in those fast-growing areas, but how can I go back to my constituents and say, we're still just as well off as we were before? If there is, if this does seem to move up projects in a faster growing area, Senator Musselman,

  7. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman20:08

     There are of course priority funding that is, is that is especially like the TTF for the rural areas. And, and so I recognize that, that this may give additional concern. But again, I point out that there are specific funds that are available for those more rural areas. But I would just, I would just answer this by saying if a city is truly experiencing a 2.5% growth, which is a significant growth, they are going to stand in need of greater transportation needs on an immediate basis. That's, that's the idea behind it. But I want to clarify, and I, I, I did this in my, uh, kind of my presentation, but I, I think it can't, it can't be clear enough. The lion's share, the majority of, of prioritization is given under that underlying formula. We're only talking about really marginal movement, and it can't even move more than 7% in total. Um, let alone whether or not this would get one tick point or two tick points, it's only marginal. So I suppose if you were to give it a, a real world circumstance, if we had two cities tied at 70 and one was experiencing two point half percent growth, they might get priority by one tick.

  8. Sen. Evan J. Vickers21:26

     Yeah. Thank you Mr. Senator. Go ahead, Senator. Mr. President, like I say, I just, you know, I have to be a little skeptical by nature, so thank you for the answering question.

  9. Senate President (presiding)21:34

     Thank you. Discussion to the bill. Well, seeing none, I'm gonna go to Senator Musselman for summation and, and motion.

  10. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman21:44

      I, I I I, I understand those concerns and I, I recognize 'em, but I also recognize of when I see sound policy, I wanna support it. And this is sound policy. There's where you have two and a half percent growth or greater, the need for, uh, for transportation is greater. That being said, this is such a marginal, small amount of movement. We're not talking about it leapfrogging in any kind of significant way. It's really almost viewed maybe as a tiebreaker, um, as it pertains to two municipalities that may be just head against the head under the prioritization list. That would be it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

  11. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman22:24

      Oh, I would, I would call the question Mr. President. Thank You. Thank you. The question

  12. Senate President (presiding)22:27

      is under suspension of the rule, shall first subject to house Bill four thirty six pass, roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy. Senator Balderree I'D to explain my vote, Go ahead.

  13. Sen. Heidi Balderree22:41

      Uh, I'm an aye. I am a earned strong support for this bill because Utah is at a crossroads. We're the fastest growing state in the nation, and that growth is both our greatest strength and our most pressing challenge. And for too long, we've talked about housing affordability as a distant goal. With this bill, we make it a priority of our state's infrastructure. This legislation does something simple but transformative. It aligns our state's transportation investments with our housing reality by providing priority consideration for transportation projects to municipalities that proactively implement moderate income housing strategies. We're telling our cities, if you plan for our children and grandchildren to have a place to live, we will help you build the roads and transit to get them to work. This isn't about state overreach, it's about partnership and accountability. We're asking for data, we're asking for progress reports, and in return, we're offering the infrastructure backbone that makes growth sustainable. We cannot expect our economy to thrive if our workforce is priced out of the neighborhoods where they work. We can't expect our quality of life to endure if we don't plan the infrastructure to match the density. HB 4 36 ensures that the Utah way planning ahead, staying fiscally responsible and looking out for the next generation remains the law of the land. It's time to stop treating housing and transportation as separate silos. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on house Bill 46. Let's build a Utah that isn't just bigger but better, more affordable, and more accessible. Thank you. Senator Vickers Blu in

  14. Unknown speaker24:14

      Aye. Brammer bus Aye. Colmore Escamilla Fillmore Rover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton. Aye. Vicar Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

  15. Senate President (presiding)25:10

      First substitute house bill 4 36. Having received 20 a votes eight A votes, one being absent passes, this body will be returned to the house for further consideration.

  16. Senate President (presiding)25:24

      Second substitute house bill 3 21 Second substitute house bill 3 21. Inmate medical treatment rates amendments. Senator Stratton. Senator Stratton.

  17. Sen. Keven J. Stratton25:36

      Thank you Mr. President. When someone enters our correctional facility system, the state becomes responsible for their medical care. And the challenging thing in this space is, uh,

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

  1. Reading Clerk3:25:57

     First substitute house bill 4 36. Moderate income housing infrastructure amendments by Representative Gricius.

  2. Speaker (presiding)3:26:04

     Representative gracious.

  3. Rep. Stephanie Gricius3:26:08

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to concur.

  4. Speaker (presiding)3:26:10

     Thank you representative. That motion is in order. Would like speak to it? Yeah.

  5. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman3:26:13

     We added a little bit of clarifying language. The only policy change, um, that we made in the Senate was adding essentially a one year freeze. So that if you're currently in compliance, you're still in compliance. Um, the new prioritization will take effect after the next reporting period.

  6. Speaker (presiding)3:26:29

     Thank you Representative Gricius Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on first substitute HB 4 36. See none. We'll go ahead and place that motion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes voting now. Be open for final passage on HP 4 36. Seeing all present, having voter warnings now closed. First substitute HB 4 36 pass passes this body with 64 yes votes, zero, no votes and will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Or sorry, sent to the Senate for the signature of the President representatives. Let's bring the volume down a little bit, please. Okay. Madam Reading Clerk