Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Highway Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate shifting gas-tax shares to cities and counties; amendment proposed tying funds to road transfers
Summary
Senators discussed altering the gas-tax distribution formula so cities and counties receive a larger share, with concerns raised about timing, the Wilbur Smith study, and whether fund increases must be accompanied by transfer of road maintenance responsibility.
Lawmakers on the floor grappled with proposals to change how state gasoline-tax revenue is distributed between the state and local governments.
An unnamed senator who identified himself as a Utah state senator urged colleagues to correct what he called an historic unfairness: local governments have borne borrowing and maintenance costs for local highways and should receive a larger portion of gas-tax revenue. He recalled times when cities and counties received about 23.5 percent of the fund and criticized current allocation practices.
Other senators cited the Wilbur Smith study and cautioned that the study contains multiple elements; one legislator warned implementing a single formula now would be "premature". Senator McMullen said he would prepare an amendment that ties any new funding to the transfer of state-maintained road segments to local governments: "As we give the money, we also give the roads," he said, arguing the change must be equitable and not simply shift future costs to cities and counties.
Supporters argued the proposal would provide relief to municipalities that have issued bonds and used general funds to keep local streets maintained. Opponents warned about possible tax increases and urged implementation of the Wilbur Smith recommendations as a package instead of piecemeal changes.
Procedurally, the Senate moved the underlying bill forward: a motion to read the bill for the second time passed and the bill was placed on the third-reading calendar by roll call. Senators indicated additional amendments would be prepared for later consideration.
The debate put a spotlight on trade-offs between giving local governments more revenue and ensuring responsibilities and road ownership align with that funding.
