Senate hears extended presentation on statewide traffic-signal coordination bill; SB 69 circled for fiscal review

Senate Bill 69, proposing a statewide coordination program for traffic signals and creation of an advisory coordinating council, drew extended floor testimony in a committee of the whole and was circled for further fiscal review.

Sponsor Senator Moran moved the Senate into a committee of the whole to hear a multi‑part presentation. Gene Finley, a UDOT director, and Will Jeffries of the Wasatch Front Regional Council explained that coordinated computerized signal systems—already in place in parts of Salt Lake County—can reduce delays, lower emissions, and save fuel by adjusting signal timing in real time using roadway detectors.

Will Jeffries summarized the intent: a coordinating committee of local and state governments would advise the department and help maintain systems previously effective in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He said that coordination exists in Salt Lake County but not statewide; the bill would enable expansion and a formal structure for interjurisdictional work.

Officials provided fiscal estimates and staffing plans in response to repeated questions. UDOT representatives supplied revised cost figures: a first‑year capital estimate of about $245,000 for equipment and roughly $210,000 for personnel for a $455,000 first‑year total, with subsequent-year staffing increases; the program anticipates hiring eight initial FTEs (four year‑one hires, four in year two) and continuing staff thereafter. Officials said funds for hardware and salaries would likely come from the transportation fund and, potentially, federal matching funds, but cautioned that using those monies would compete with other transportation projects.

Several senators pressed for a corrected fiscal note and clearer local/state cost-sharing language. Senator McAllister and others argued the fiscal note as drafted did not break out anticipated local costs and that a formal fiscal analysis from the legislative analyst should be prepared before final action. Senator McAllister said he would not support the bill without an accurate fiscal note; Senator Finley and other presenters said some city and county costs would be incurred on local systems even if the fiscal note focused on state costs.

Given the outstanding questions, senators voted to “circle” SB 69 (postpone final action) so the fiscal analyst can prepare a corrected fiscal note; the motion to circle carried.

What’s next: SB 69 is postponed pending a revised official fiscal analysis that clarifies state versus local costs and the program’s multi‑year staffing and capital plan.