Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Fines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects change that would divert some interstate speeding fines to state
Summary
After extended debate and an amendment narrowing coverage to municipalities, the House defeated Senate Bill 54 (law-enforcement amendments) on Feb. 24, 2006, by a 21-49 vote; supporters said the bill addressed perceived revenue-enhancement, opponents warned it would disincentivize local patrols on interstates.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Feb. 24 considered Senate Bill 54, a measure to change how revenues from speeding violations on interstate highways are allocated, but ultimately voted to file the bill after extended floor debate and amendment votes.
Sponsor Representative Urquhart described the substitute version as addressing revenue flows from local law enforcement agencies that issue speeding citations on state interstates. He said the substitute also prohibits part-time highway patrol employees working for local agencies from using division vehicles or uniforms while on local duty.
The floor debate focused heavily on whether the proposal was aimed at revenue redistribution or public safety. Representative Bowman, a former highway patrol trooper, said, “Traffic revenue is the bottom line. The top line is saving lives,” and argued local officers were not out to raise revenue but to protect motorists. Several rural representatives warned that taking half of local forfeitures would penalize small counties asked to patrol interstates and could reduce local willingness to respond to incidents when state troopers are far away.
Supporters argued some jurisdictions may be using interstate enforcement as a revenue source, and the bill would return more revenue to the state. Representative Harper said local officials have asked for new revenue but that the bill should be honest about its effects.
A motion to substitute the bill's title and body failed on a roll-call vote (27-44). Representative Noel offered an amendment to remove counties from the allocation change (leaving municipalities subject to the change); that amendment passed (43-26), but on final passage the amended SB54 failed in the House, 21-49, and was filed.
The debate included multiple procedural votes and elicited requests for data on county citation volumes and how revenue is currently distributed; no detailed statewide fiscal breakdown was provided on the floor. The bill’s defeat means current statutory allocations remain unchanged pending any future legislation or conference action.
