Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House members circle bill to extend local road-closure authority to 120 days amid county concerns
Summary
Lawmakers debated Senate Bill 38, which would extend a local road-closure limit from 90 to 120 days to address damage to lightly maintained roads; members raised concerns about whether the change could force counties to open roads normally closed for months. Lawmakers voted to "circle" the bill for further work.
Representative Lockhart introduced Senate Bill 38, explaining it grew out of concerns raised by local highway authorities and a Utah County engineer about damage to lightly maintained and dirt roads when repeated access occurs in wet conditions. Lockhart said the original text removed the existing 90-day limit and that the compromise amendment before the House extends the limit to 120 days.
"The original bill completely took out that, the 90 days and would have allowed them to close the road for as long as they wanted at any time," Lockhart said, describing the change to the statutory language and the intent to protect less-maintained county roads from repeated damage.
Several representatives questioned whether the bill would apply to state highways or only to locally maintained roads and voiced practical concerns. One lawmaker said extending authority to 120 days could mean closures that span summer months in some high-elevation areas. Representative Urquhart, speaking in favor of holding further discussion, said he represents numerous counties that could face problems under the bill’s current form and supported circling the measure to work out details.
Members debated whether the amendment’s 120-day measure would be counted across a single calendar year; proponents said the change gives counties practical flexibility within a year to protect roads. Lockhart emphasized the bill targets roads that are not highly maintained and is not intended to address freeways.
After the exchange, the House voted on a motion to "circle" SB 38 — effectively tabling it so sponsors and affected counties could resolve outstanding questions. The motion to circle passed by voice vote, and members directed that the bill be set aside for further work.
Next steps: SB 38 will be revisited after sponsors consult with county officials and stakeholders to clarify scope and any necessary statutory language changes.
