Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Corrections Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate amends SB217 to place $619,000 into new law‑enforcement services account

Utah State Senate · March 8, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senators adopted an amendment to second substitute SB217 to allocate $619,000 (by bed) into a newly created Law Enforcement Services Account for FY2010–11 to be distributed by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice; debate centered on whether surcharges amount to a tax and how funds are prorated if collections fall short.

Senators amended second substitute SB217 to allocate one‑time funding into a new law enforcement account and debated the policy tradeoffs of a surcharge on fines.

Senator Jenkins explained Amendment No. 1 would generate $619,000 and place it into a Law Enforcement Services Account for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to be distributed by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice according to the rules in the bill. The sponsor said the allocation is calculated by bed counts at correctional facilities and that leftover amounts would be distributed according to percentages already in law.

Senator Butters opposed the surcharge on principle, calling a surcharge a tax and warning about the cumulative burden of fees on households and persons charged. Senator Greiner and other supporters argued the surcharge shifts costs to those who enter the judicial system, cited recidivism statistics and community impacts, and defended a modest 5 percent increase on fines to address local public‑safety burdens. Senators asked procedural questions about what happens if the surcharge collects less than $619,000; sponsor said it was never the intention to make up shortfalls from general funds and that a pro rata reduction would be applied to recipients.

The amendment was adopted and the bill amended. Sponsors noted the account is newly created and that further clarification about excess collections and pro rata reductions may be addressed in subsequent drafting as the bill moves forward.

What's next: The amendment carries forward; floor discussion indicated clarifications will be sought during the House and concurrence process.