Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impound Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tax Commission flags broader statutory definition could mandate opaque fencing at more impound yards
Summary
The Tax Commission warned that a broader statutory definition of "highway" could force opaque fencing on many impound yards that historically have not been required to have it, potentially raising costs for lot operators.
The Utah State Tax Commission told the Senate Transportation Interim Committee that a statutory definition of "highway" may be broader than the Commission's historical practice and that enforcing the literal definition could require opaque fencing at more impound yards, creating increased costs for operators.
Jason Gardner explained that long‑standing practice interpreted "highway" as state, US or interstate highways for the opaque‑fencing requirement (cited as 41‑1a‑1101 in the presentation). But the statutory definition of "highway" (41‑1a‑102) may be broader and encompass any street whose width is measured from property line to property line. Gardner said making a stricter interpretation would impose fencing costs on impound‑yard operators, including yards bordering local dirt roads, and the commission did not want to unilaterally change enforcement practice without legislative guidance.
Committee members and UDOT representatives discussed whether clarifying legislation should narrow the definition or otherwise set the practical limits of the fence requirement. Representative Christofferson noted he intends to prepare clarifying language. The commission plans to pursue corrective statutory language if the committee directs that approach.
