Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Enforcement Officers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House defeats bill to codify ordinance enforcement officers after debate on scope and training
Summary
The Utah House rejected House Bill 166, 36–34, after members questioned language that could let municipalities designate ordinance enforcement officers with broad authority absent mandatory training or explicit limits.
The Utah House narrowly rejected House Bill 166, a measure to codify "ordinance enforcement officers" as a category of special-function officers, after extended debate over how the bill would define officers’ authority and training requirements. Representative Brent H. Goodfellow, the bill’s sponsor, said the intent was to clarify existing practice and not to grant blanket powers.
"I want to clarify anyone that has concerns because it is not the intent to give them all powers and all authority," Goodfellow said in summation, urging colleagues to support the measure and offer amendments later if needed. Supporters said the change would codify practices used by larger cities for animal-control and other specialized enforcement roles.
Opponents said the bill as drafted lacked sufficient limits and training mandates. Representative Howard and other members repeatedly asked whether municipalities could designate officers who would be empowered to enforce all state laws and city ordinances without required training. One critic warned the change could "superimpose this cost on our municipalities" and create unforeseen consequences. Sponsors replied the statutory framework contemplates training through POST courses but acknowledged the bill’s language could be clarified.
After discussion, the House took a roll-call vote: HB166 failed, 36 affirmative, 34 negative. The clerk recorded the outcome and the bill will not proceed from the House in its current form.
The debate focused on the distinction between codifying a narrowly defined, trained special-function officer and creating a broader, elective designation that opponents said could be applied unevenly by municipalities. Lawmakers debating the measure suggested drafting amendments to make training requirements and scope explicit if the proposal is reconsidered in the future.
