S.B. 242 Transportation Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Uh, Senate Bill 2 42 is, uh, um, kind of the omnibus cleanup bill. We run one each year from, uh, the Transportation Interim Committee. And, uh, it contains a lot of stuff rather than running, uh, 15 or 16 bills. We've, uh, put a lot of stuff into the bill. Um, basically it, uh, takes care of number of items that, uh, that were brought up during the interim. It revises distribution and allow uses of, uh, local option sales tax for transport, transit, transit increases bonding authority for the Utah commuter or, uh, for, uh, potential UTA front runner bonding that is only a backstop in case we don't get the federal funding. Um, clarifies uses of corridor preservation funds using TTIF, uh, defines and creates the Utah Trail Network, which is something that is very important in code, uh, expands the, uh, um, or clarifies the eligibility for using, uh, rail, uh, uh, for rail infrastructure funds for, uh, repairs on ut, on UDOT and DNR owned, uh, railroad tracks, uh, goes through and provides a sales tax exemption for construction materials used in major transit capital project, uh, clarifies that school buses and public transit vehicles contemporarily park in a bike lanes for routes, uh, management and pick up and drop off people. Um, there's the clarification on towing dispatch, which I thought we had to come to an agreement on Friday. And on the hall I was told that no, not all parties had agreed to that on towing, which means that we'll have some more discussion on that. Um, uh, clarifies udot, uh, uh, leadership, uh, roles on emergency transportation funding during, uh, disasters, uh, clarifies, uh, road, uh, usage charge ca, uh, caps for, uh, heavyweight, uh, vehicles, um, requires reporting by local governments who receive county of the first class highway funds. Um, establishes a permanent coordination framework between Salt Lake City and UDOT for highway reduction or highway safety. And, uh, other strategies, um, go and basically it goes through and beyond that puts in place a framework for how we operate in the future going forward between udot and Salt Lake City and the, and the capital city. As you know, uh, Salt Lake City has more roads that are of regional significance and owned by, uh, the state and more, um, uh, state facilities than any other, uh, city in the, in the state. Um, what we're doing in here, we request stakeholders, we're revealing repealing Senate Bill 1 95 from last year, and then we're going through and putting into place a framework where Salt Lake City and, uh, UDOT can enter into, um, an interlocal agreement of how to move forward with that. Uh, the changes between the sub two and the sub three is we've incorporated the amendments that were made in floor amendments from sub two into sub three. Uh, we, uh, put in some additional language that is of, I thought of Saturday was agreed to on, uh, the towing, uh, clarifies, um, uses of food trucks that the cities can go through and, and if there's like a big parade or event or something like that, they can say, okay, this road is closed, there's no food trucks on. It just helps them manage things. And then it, uh, clarifies two projects in Salt Lake County that are being used by Salt Lake County, uh, highway funds. And that's the difference between the first, I mean the third and the second subs.

Yeah. Okay. I'm having trouble getting my, okay, there we go. Um, I was curious about line seven, I think it was 7 27, there was something in there about towing, um, and, and collecting data into a database. Is that one of the things that you were, that you said you still had work to do on?

Go ahead. So yeah, we, the tours, um, the tours do not want to and personally identify identifiable information into a database. This goes through and says that they shall not, and it also says that if they inadvertently do it, then the, uh, towing dispatch software, we'll delete that information so there's no liability for the tows.

Okay. So that's being addressed then. Thank you. So along those lines, while we're on that subject, they've asked that there be maybe some stiffer penalties for those who violate that. Is that something you'd be, uh, willing to

Address? Yeah, the way that, the way that that was, and I, sorry, I don't remember the line, but yes, on the, on the personally identified by identifiable information, yeah, there's, there will not be a penalty for the tow, but there'll have to be, that'll have to be handled by the software. There's also language in here to go through and address the, uh, if they're bad actors of how the, they're taken care of and they can be, you know, taken off the toe rotation and things of that nature.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, can you help me understand on lines 2164, um, when it says use funds for construction of a park and ride facility, is there intentions to build a park and ride facility somewhere?

Um, or what's the need for that in this bill There? That was a clarification was asked by, uh, I believe the representative was from Davis County saying that they need to do a park and ride and they wanna make sure that the funds, it was clear that they could use the, those funds for that as an eligible use.

Okay. Thank you. And one more question, if I may Remind me what that last line was.

Uh, 2164, The third's up.

Oh, oh, oh, oh. Then I take that back. Thank you very much. I'm on the second one. 24 70. 24 70 Is the, Is that where it's at? Same language, different Same language, isn't it? Okay.

Um, and then one more question. Um, when we're talking about the weight of the electric vehicles uhhuh, um, at 6,001 pounds, that actually is including like the F-150 lightning, like the, the half ton size pickup truck. I'm just wondering what, what is the need or want to lower that to, to include those commercial vehicles

That is not intended. The, the F-150 are not a, you know, they can be a commercial vehicle, right. But they can also be a passenger. Right? These, these are intended to be like the equivalent of the, uh, you know, the u your UPS delivery trucks, but they, I see that, that type of cha chassis and framework, but they're electric rather Than like the Rivian trucks that we're seeing out There. Yeah. Rivian and, and other models. Yes.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Um, the language in sub three is the same as in sub two.

Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Uh, my name's Chris Wharton and I am the District three representative for Salt Lake City, which includes Capitol Hill. So welcome everyone to district three. Um, I would like to offer our sincere gratitude to the bill sponsors for working in earnest and good faith with the city for months on this legislation. While we prefer local control over our roads, we understand that there is statewide interest in the capital city. We know that, uh, there's a lot of community concern about the provisions of this bill. The city is committed to hearing those concerns, um, and the concerns of all stakeholders and working towards a transportation solution that supports a vibrant network. We're hopeful that the provisions in this legislation will add more engagement to the already robust community process that Salt Lake City uses for all of our transportation projects. The city has been and will continue to be committed to ensuring we have a world class transportation system that is safe and efficient for all users. We look forward to continued partnership with the state udot, UTA and the community. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Um, my name's Dave Ti. I represent cycling Utah. Um, in 1998, I was hit on 700 East, which is a tier one road by an inattentive driver. The crash shattered my knee and 26 years later I still have pain every single day. People are killed on hurt on our streets from cars far too often. Um, this bill takes us in the wrong direction with that. Um, and I've also, um, just, that's a general comment I just gave Senator Harper, um, a minor amendment to change the, um, uh, lines about parking structures to a new or existing parking structure or lot. Uh, and if the aggregate availability of parking is adequate for existing needs, there's a 2016 study showing that Salt Lake City downtown has, uh, overabundance of parking. And then lastly, um, looking towards the Olympics to create a world-class transportation system in Salt Lake City in advance of the Utah Olympics. All transportation decisions will aim to create a legacy of sustainability, safety, transit, first car-free, eco-friendly accessibility, technological innovation, and best practices in accordance with Olympic ideals. Thank you.

Hello, Kyle Hollands Salt Lake City resident. I biked here of course. One year ago, Senator Harper brought forward Senate Bill 1 9 5, the precursor to this bill with similar provisions regarding udot control of Salt Lake City maintained, and Salt Lake City funded streets. In that meeting, a substitute that limited the scope of SB 1 95 to the east side of Salt Lake City from I 15 to Foothill, was adopted by this committee representatives Christofferson, Erland, and de Fay then applauded the compromises made in the substitute and passed it out. With that in mind, I ask that this committee does not allow the sponsor to walk back that compromise. His new bill expands the scope west to redwood and south to city limits, which would materially hamper much needed street safety programs on the west side and potentially conflict with the power district transportation plan from the Wasatch Front Regional Council. This was an important compromise and it needs to stay. Thank you.

Uh, good morning. Uh, I'd just like to ask each of you, how many Utahans coming up here on a workday morning would it take to change how you intend to vote on this bill? Looking around this room, every single person here is against the language. Uh, tell us who you are. Sorry. You represent Julian Kois. Uh, I'm from Salt Lake City. I'm part of Sweet Street, Salt Lake City Volunteer Advocacy Organization. Um, so again, looking around this room, every single person here is against the language in this bill. You know, at the Senate committee, we were flowing out into the halls into an overflow room online, every single person against. As someone sitting across from you, it seems as if there's no number of people who could come up here and change your mind on this bill. Perhaps you feel that you need not respond to us because we're not your constituents, and indeed many of us aren't. But I can't take contention with that. I do take contention with this language strictly and specifically restricting one municipality, which most of you do not represent. If you aren't accountable to us, how can you specifically govern us? It's antithetic antithetical to the principles this nation was founded upon. Either be accountable to the citizens of the city you're trying to specifically govern or take this language back to the drawing board and apply it statewide as your state representatives. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. Uh, my name's Soren Simonson. Some of you know me as the executive director of the Jordan River Commission. I just wanna be clear, I'm just speaking today in my capacity as a resident of Salt Lake City in the Sugar House area. I just sent an email to you, it may be at the top of your inbox with some information about Downtown Rising, which was a Salt Lake Chamber led initiative completed in early 2007 to foster a safe, beautiful, prosperous, and vibrant downtown Salt Lake City. City leaders spanning several administrations and numerous city councils have been consistently engaged for the past two decades, implementing this vision through policy changes to align local plans, ordinances, and many projects from new housing to critical transportation and mobility projects, to the further development of defined downtown districts encompassing arts and culture, sports and entertainment business in urban neighborhoods. A copy of the one pager and a newspaper insert and the entire document were included in my email for your review. Notably, this plan highlights and encourages major transformation to Salt Lake City's transportation arteries and city streets, including Grand Boulevards, new and expanded transit corridors and park-like avenues with a pedestrian focus described as the green loop. This plan was curated and strongly and fully endorsed by business, civic and government leaders and local residents. And much of it has been implemented last year, Senate Bill 1 95 and some elements of this year's Senate Bill 2 42 seemed to contradict many transportation and mobility, safety and usability enhancements of the Salt Lake Chamber's vision and plan. I've included some specific language for a possible substitution in my email and encourage you to review that and incorporate that into this before you move it forward.

Hi, my name is Annie Dayton. I'm a Salt Lake City resident living on the west side in Rose Park. Um, I am a driver, but um, I also ride my bike to things like the farmer's market, the gym, my children, um, take the bus to school or ride their bike or walk to school in 2019. Um, my son was hit by a car on a block from our home on the way to the park riding his bike. He was wearing a helmet, but he suffered a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull. Um, so this is something that has affected me firsthand. We still deal with the repercussions of that today, and to see a bill that wants to mitigate traffic calming measures. Um, if any of you have ever had a child, a grandchild, a relative in a car accident, um, or having been hit by a vehicle, um, if you, for me, I understand that street design is very important and that traffic calming can help protect pedestrians and cyclists. And to see a bill that wants to mitigate those traffic calming measures is really heartbreaking for me. And my other worst fear is as a driver hitting someone. And so I would encourage you to vote in opposition against, um, this mitigation of traffic calming measures. Thank you.

Hi there. Um, how do I turn this on? Just pull it forward, forward closer to you. Oh, crazy. It's on. Cool. Um, my name's Ryan Hurst. I'm a citizen of Salt Lake City, central City, um, area. Um, I wanna talk about highway reduction strategy and what that means exactly. Um, so in the bill it says that, um, has the potential to permanently decrease the number of vehicles that can travel on an arterial or a collector highway per hour. Um, a way to reduce, um, the amount of vehicles is reducing speed. And so I have one question, which is, would a, um, a speed limit sign installation require approval by the state of Utah on a tier one road? Uh, I guess that's for you, Senator Harper. Uh, uh, he can, he can answer that. I'll address that in wants to in summation. Yeah, you can go ahead and keep, uh, keep describing your comments. Okay. Thank you. Um, a speed limit sign is not going to significantly reduce, um, vehicle speed. It's been shown time and time again, so I would assume that it wouldn't be required under this bill. Um, reducing vehicle speed is the main goal of traffic calming, but traffic calming has a lot of other impacts. This bill aims to reduce impacts of traffic calming. Some of those impacts are a reduction in vehicular manslaughter, uh, reduction in fatalities, reduction in, uh, injuries, reduction in severity of injuries. Um, this bill is trying to increase fatalities, increase, um, all the other things that traffic calming prevents. Thank You. That's the end of your time.

Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, my name is Eric Ringer. I'm a computer science professor at BYU in Provo. Greetings from the Provo Central Station bench. Next to the train. Uh, my comments and opinions are my own. Uh, we've chosen to live in the avenues of Salt Lake City for its walkability and commuting on bike and train are near daily experiences for me. Uh, greetings again from the frontrunner station thanks to Utah, to the DOT, to Salt Lake City, to Provo and other jurisdictions for the investments made in safe transportation. I share a dream with all of you for safe, uh, and livable travel and life on our streets and in our neighborhoods, whether on foot or on any kind of wheels. Traffic calming is by far the best way to ensure safer streets for all. And DOT zone evidence underscores this. I oppose the language of section 29 of SB 2 42, an act in Utah code section 72 dash 20 dash 1 0 2 because I care about safety for people on our streets. And this language undermines Salt Lake City's rightful responsibility to implement traffic calming on its non-high roads. Uh, to be specific, I ask that one of the representatives on the committee make a motion to the following effect. That section 29 of the current substitute bill enacting Utah Code section 72 dash 20 dash 1 0 2 be amended as follows. All of section 29 of the bill should be deleted in its entirety with the recommendation to refer the matter to this Summer's Interim Transportation Committee for further discussion. Thanks again for your service and your work.

Okay. Can you hear and see me? Yeah, Go ahead. Hi, my name is William Dietz. I work at the Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective, but I'm not here representing them. I'm here as a constituent. Um, uh, at my time at the collective, I have noticed how many people are interested in bike commuting and how many people depend on a bicycle to get around our city. Both of those groups would benefit greatly from the traffic calming that this bill seeks to delay, restrict, and possibly reverse. On a sunny Saturday, people come into the bike collective and comment about how busy the bike lane is in a positive manner. I don't think that's been the case for any of us when we're in heavy traffic and vehicles. Um, that traffic comes from following too closely, speeding inattentive drivers, but not in my experience or based on studies around the world from the existence of bike lanes or traffic calming, removing bike lanes, mandating lane capacity over safety and impeding the ability of the city to make decisions for the people that live here is an awful choice. It's one that can be fixed by removing this section of SV 2 42. Thank you.

Hi, good morning and thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Brett Reeder. I'm a tow company owner, uh, and a constituent in the state of Utah. Um, the reason I'm here today is we had another bill that a good representative was running, uh, in working with me and it was in conflict with Senator Harper's bill. And so we came together with the parties to see if we could make, uh, agreements. And we've done that several times now. And, and there's been two or three times where we've left a meeting and I felt really good about it. We gave a lot and I thought we gained some back. And every time the language came out, it did not reflect that. Uh, the major specific part of this bill that I would ask you to hold is the requirement that they may require us to enter information into a database. Um, this is a third party database in the state of Utah. Tows are required by statute to enter it into a database already that the state runs. Um, and that is for any and every non-consent tow in the state of Utah, whether it's a city police department, a highway patrol, police department, any and all agencies, as well as any non-police generated non-consent towing. That database houses everything. Now, this database in particular is a third party and an additional database that would require the teller's time and effort to enter into. We feel there are concerns about entering information that we should not be sharing. The database specifically is for only one agency in certain parts of the state. It does not cover them all. And, um, that website for that database specifically is very clear that it does share and sell all the information and retains that right to do so. Uh, we ask that you remove the language that says they may require us to enter any information in a database. And if the state wants that database to have the information, let them get that from the state. Thank you.

I think it's almost impossible to enforce. So the best option would just be to remove that requirement because it's only one of the vendors and one agency that doesn't even use it entirely across the state of their agency. So it's a very, very small part and the, um, state already has it. They can get all the information on the backend themselves without requiring the tows to do it.

My name is Neil Schultz and I'm here serving as the president of the Ogden Weaver Tow Association, as well as the legislative representative for the Utah Professional Tour Alliance. Um, I'm retired out of the industry for about four years, but I feel compelled to protect the industry. We have worked with the Good Transportation Committee for a good solid 13, 14 years to prevent towing horror stories, to enact good legislation and to keep the bad actors out of the towing industry. And, and then in large part, this is a good bill and we're for it, with the exception of what Brett just expressed. We don't wanna be compelled by, uh, state statute to break federal statute in, in reporting personal information. Now, I know that that language has been modified within the bill to say, okay, you're only going to enter this, this, and this, which isn't considered to be personal, but there's no provision to patrol that or penalize it, or there's no provision to, um, highway patrol. We just had a discussion and they're not sure whether the information is being sold or not. The, the policy of the vendor that's been, this is being given to specifically states that they can do and will sell that personal information. We are not saying that they are. We simply don't know. And so from that standpoint, we're just asking for modification. I think there's still time to modify this before tomorrow, and that's all we're asking for is let's modify that so that we don't compel an industry to break federal statute. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, Greg Hawley, serve as the Colonel Highway Patrol. I want to thank, uh, uh, Senator for his good work on this. Uh, we're very happy with it. We've worked closely with the towing agency and, and felt that we were in a very, very good spot starting this morning. Um, as been discussed, their concern is the, the selling of the information, the contract with the vendor we currently use, uh, prohibits selling of the information. Um, and the backend, uh, data that we're asking for is, is very useful for us. When a citizen comes with a complaint that they were overcharged or whatever the accusation may be, we're able to pull that information and, and show 'em exactly, you know, what they're billed for. Um, GPS tracking of, of these third party vendors or apps. Uh, it goes a long ways in helping us, uh, sell disputes or complaints from, from the citizens. Um, and it's also the, the app itself we show is saving about 10 to 20 minutes of getting a tow truck on scene of a crash quicker than we were when a dispatcher had to do it. Uh, that's kind of what, what this third party vendor is. It's an application like Uber. Um, the whole idea is to save dispatcher time and then, uh, towing, uh, uh, trucks on scene sooner to get crashes cleared, which 10 to 20 minutes on I 15 traffic. As you know, blocking lanes is a very, very big deal for us.

Well, the, the, the enforcement would be internal administrative. If we find that, you know, someone is selling information, uh, contract to our contracts, same as any of their contracts, we would, uh, uh, it'd be administrative. We would no longer do business with, uh, that certain vendor.

Thank you committee for the opportunity to address you today. Um, my name's Candace Daley and I'm representing Stuffer Road Solutions. And we met intensely for the last week with this sponsor, um, and with several other entities on this particular issue. And, and this bill, um, we have come to a very good conclusion on this. We like the language in the bill. I do have a couple suggestions on line 41 41, it could say shall not, not, may not, but if it said shall not, that would make it a little bit stronger on that particular end. Um, right now it only requires them to add the information that would deal with, um, the VIN number and the vehicle number and any information about the accident that is there. It, if you put the shall not in there, it says they shall not share the information with the third party. They shall not sell the information. They shall not use the information for any purposes other than the dispatching. It, it is, it's very clear language that we've come to an agreement. The only other thing that could make it stronger is, is what chair you suggested possibly putting a penalty in there. But then the colonel just mentioned that if they were caught or found not doing this or, or sharing this, then they would have to deal with them with the contract. Um, we appreciate the sponsor and, and, uh, thank him for working with us on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I've not been able to find a good clean way to put in a penalty. That's why it's not in here. But to her question, I've reorganized and restructured this, the, the prohibition on personally identify by entering personally identifiable information the way that, uh, I thought was agreed to. I don't mind changing ma to shall that is more of a legislative staff drafting style using may rather than shall, but I don't have a problem with that. But, uh, on the auditing, I'm not sure. I would have to check with the, uh, I have, uh, the colonel check with the, uh, software company to see what audits can be done.

Is that right? Yeah. So may not means, But if you look down on line 7 45, I had 'em put in shall there? But the, the, the challenge is, is that over the years I've seen the drafting manuals go back, they do shall and then they change to May and then they go back to shall. And right now, I think we're in May, but if the committee wides, I'm comfortable with using the word shall and making a floor amendment on that.

Uh, Representative Shelley? Yes. Thank you. Thanks.

I can ask additional questions, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you Chair. Thank you so much for this. I know you've been working really hard. It's always, it's always a big feat for you. Um, I had a question about, um, mobile businesses with this just expand and give jurisdiction to the cities about temporary permits or, and who would be, it would be lines 1 0 1 to one 30. Um, the only reason why I ask the question is because I know a lot of businesses don't have a kitchen and they bring in, um, food trucks and they park 'em outside of their businesses. And of course it uses public walkways. So I just wanted a little bit of clarification there.

Yeah, thank you. On that, uh, this was brought, uh, brought to us. There's times that you have like a, a parade or a street event, things like that. And there was some question of whether a city could actually go through and stay with a mobile food truck or that you can park here, but you can't park there because of safety and traffic and, and pedestrian safety issues. This simply clarifies the fact that they actually can do that. They don't have to, but it's another tool for safety during the, the programs.

Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I'm just checking. Do we need to, these substitutes already adopted, right? No, the third is not. Oh, and we want to, yes. Okay. And then My motion is that we adopt the third substitute to SB 2 42.

I'll waive. Okay. That's waived.

Sure. Do you wanna continue? Sure. Uh, I make a motion that we pass out, uh, third substitute SB 2 42.

Thank you. I do appreciate everybody's participation in this. We've had extensive discussions, uh, since May with Salt Lake City, trying to get things in the place where we take this from, where we just have statutory guidance in the bill and put it into where, uh, uh, Salt Lake City deals with, uh, udot. And we've, uh, reduced the amount I believe of, of, uh, control that UDOT has. We're just going through and focusing on key things. Um, there's been some questions on the Power District. I don't see that, that this does much with the Power District. You've already got the, uh, green line going through there. So it's, it's already in place. Um, we are dealing with the capital city and working with them and, and, uh, there's been a lot of, uh, give and take. The uh, uh, bicycle community has given me a number of, uh, comments and recommendations. I've taken those, which I believe I can. This last amendment I will put in as we go through. I think it's a good catch on their part. Um, there is, to be clear, there's nothing in this bill that says to remove. The only thing it says is to look at these roads and see if what has been put in is safe or if other places need to have bicycling. Its and prove the safety and the, uh, and the needs of, of the city. Um, along with the tows, if you take a look at the language, um, they're on seven, Uh, 23. They, um, ask to make sure that if you take a look at the construction there on line 7 25 to 7 33, items one and two are currently in code and we moved what used to be, uh, b within that, uh, it used to be a little three I down to B at the request I put into towing entity may not require tow truck driver entering that information. And then further clarification, safeguards on 7 35 going down, that if it is accidentally put in there, the third party, uh, may not share the information, sell the information, or use the per, use it for any other purpose than the tow dispatch. And then they shall delete any inform personally ident identifiable information that they receive. So I've tried to work with that. It looks like we've got a couple other tweaks that I plan to work with them on. But, uh, I think overall, um, this is a bill that needs to move forward and I'd urge your support of it.

Yes. Great. I appreciate the, uh, committee's, uh, patience and indulgence, and especially bringing this back after lengthy discussions. There's a lot of good important things in this bill. Uh, there were two issues that were, um, presented as not quite being in, in, uh, agreement. Uh, what I've done is I have Amendment one under my name that goes through and addresses the, uh, towing issues. Uh, and that goes I one through seven or items one through six. Um, item seven is, uh, one of our good, uh, Salt Lake City residents brought that to me, is it, uh, needed to be fixed. So we made that amendment per his request, I think was a good catch. So where we are here now is the, that once that's adopted, it changes the, uh, the bill and gets us in a position where I think where we can move forward. Now, I'm not gonna do a lengthy presentation 'cause we've done that already, but I would ask, as part of my presentation, we have, uh, mayor Mendenhalls online who wishes to address that. And then I've got a couple people from the Towing Association and then that, uh, will conclude my presentation.

Okay, good. Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to zoom in. I'm Mayor Mendon Hall from Salt Lake City, and I really appreciate the committee bringing this bill back for consideration. SB 2 42, both sub three and what will be sub four, are a better bill for Salt Lake City than where we are with SB 1 95 from the 2025 legislative session. This current bill further solidifies what is really a strong relationship between UDOT and the capital city, and we appreciate that this bill provides additional, uh, engagement opportunities between the city and stakeholders, while it also allows projects to continue moving forward in the city. In addition, this legislation requires the city to continue to look at safety for all modes of transportation. And while this is something that we already do, we appreciate the focus on ensuring the capital city roads are safe and efficient for all users. And I'd like to thank Senator Harper and Representative Christofferson for their willingness to sit at the table with me and have, uh, the hard conversations about roads in the city. They've been excellent partners to work with in this process. Uh, they have also accepted all of the city's requested amendments on this bill, and we're grateful for their willingness to work with us on this legislation. And thanks again to the committee for allowing this to come back.

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And thank you Mayor. Appreciate your work on this as well. I know you spent a lot of time on it, and, uh, my question to you is, I think there's some misunderstanding on this bill. Uh, some of it is taking away parts of last year's SB 1 95 and modifying the way, uh, the relationship there. Do you think, would you recommend that this is better than if we didn't pass it? We'd go back to some of the issues we had in 1 95?

Yes, it is better. And that's what I, I tried to, uh, articulate a little bit. Probably not well enough, but what this bill does for Salt Lake City and our ability to acknowledge both the efficiencies of the transportation network, the safety issues that come up, and the fact that we're the fastest growing city in the state of Utah right now, um, is much better under the bill that you have before you today than where we sit right now with the impacts of SB 1 95. And I'll, I wanna acknowledge that SB 1 95 brought about a really good, very thorough process for both UDOT and Salt Lake City and many of the stakeholders that weren't at the table enough before. So, um, we've met in other committees and I've expressed our support for the outcomes that UDOT rendered through that process. But this bill puts Salt Lake City in a much better position than where we sit without the bill.

I know I have a couple more people. Perfect. It's perfect of my presentation.

My name is Brett Reeder. I'm the Vice President of the Utah Professional Towing Alliance. Uh, you heard from me enough yesterday, I'm sure. I just wanna sit up here and thank the senator and the representative and all the work that they've put into this. Uh, they have proven and shown that they're willing to work with us, listen to us, and, um, you know, come to an agreement that works out for all the parties. Thank you for the committee and all your time and effort, uh, in this session as well.

My name is Neil Schultz, and I'm speaking on behalf as p as President of the Ogden Weber Tow Association. And I first want to thank the committee for your support yesterday in allowing us to get these changes made. They are critical to the towing industry and we support that. And then thanks to the good, um, representative and good senator for making these changes and, and listening. Uh, we as a tow association statewide, have worked for 12 or 13 years to make sure that we have good tow builds and without horror stories in the state of Utah. And that's where we wanna stay. So, thank you.

Good afternoon, committee and chair. Uh, my name is Barbara Christiansen. I am the president of the Utah Professional Towing Alliance. And I wanted to speak today to not only thanks Senator Harper, but all of the stakeholders that have gotten together to speak on behalf of this bill and to work through some of the very hard discussions because we all have different ideas on how we wanna get stuff done, but everybody has come to the table, had great conversations and worked through the hard things that, that unfortunately come up in our industry. So I wanted to thank Representative Christofferson and Senator Harper. They have been fantastic, so thank you. And that will conclude my presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so lines 4 37, 4 39, uh, change when a school bus or transit vehicle is allowed to be in a bike lane. And the old language was to load or unload passengers and the new language says along the buses or transit vehicles planned route and schedule. Could you just comment as to what the intent?

Yeah, the, the intent was is that, uh, UTA had asked for the change because sometimes they get ahead of schedule on the routes, and so if they do that, they wanna pull over so they don't miss people who are supposed to be there on the routes. If we need to make a technical clarification of that, we can, but that was the intent, so that if they're ahead of schedule, they can actually stop and not miss somebody further along the

Route. Great. Thank you. I, I can follow up with Uintah.

Paul Ray representing UTA. So Yes. Representative. So on that is what happens is, is the buses will sometimes get ahead of schedule so they could just wait at the route, pick up or pull over along the route and, and stay on that timing because they can't get there earlier. If they do get early, they wanna be able to wait and not just load and unload passengers that we say stay on schedule.

So it's not your intent. 'cause the way I read this, a motor vehicle may not drive in a bicy lane except along the bus's route. And so it sounds to me like that they can just drive in the bicycle lane along their whole

Route and That would Yeah, definitely not our intent. Okay. Our intent is to actually be able to just to wait at the stop or pull over at some point along the curb and wait to get back on schedule.

Okay. So we can have a conversation about that later. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks. I was wondering if we could have, uh, Colonel Hawley come up and just, uh, give us his input on the changes made to the towing part of the bill.

Uh, yeah. Thank you Chair. Uh, Greg Hawley, Colonel used Highway Patrol. You know, yesterday we were at odds a little bit with the, uh, towing, uh, industry. And, uh, that's all been resolved overnight. Um, we're happy with, with it the way it is. Um, it, uh, provides great opportunity for us to, uh, use a third party vendor to tow or dispatch tow trucks, which saves us a lot of time and gets tow trucks on scene sooner. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Mike Christensen. I have been a Salt Lake City resident for over 20 years now, and recently finished a four year term on Salt Lake City's Planning Commission. And I actually have not owned a car and almost a decade now. I get everywhere by riding my e-bike or riding UTA And, uh, I would prefer that the legislature would leave Salt Lake City's control of Salt Lake City's streets up to Salt Lake City. And I, uh, feel that there are many more helpful things that the legislature could be doing, uh, than micromanaging issues in Salt Lake City. So thank you for your time.

Alright. So I'm a Salt Lake resident and 72 dash 20 dash 1 0 2. Can you give us your name? Yep. Nate Turner. Thank you. So, 72 dash 20 dash 1 0 2 says that, uh, the city is to include plans and timelines for the city to mitigate the impacts of traffic calming measures and highway reduction strategies for 200 South. From 300 west to 300 East. Now I use 200 South every single day I'm driving on it, I'm walking, I'm biking, taking the bus. And I will say that the traffic calming measures as they're laid out, I have been a non-issue for me personally. I drive on it, it's not a problem until I have to cross State Street and I'm waiting at the light and it has only become better for me if I'm walking or I'm biking or I'm taking public transit. So I would like to see that removed from the list. And don't just take my word for it. You dot says the exact same thing that the mitigations have, uh, have not been a big issue at all.

Great. Thank you. Kurt Fisher of Salt Lake City. Um, this is Bill is symptomatic of a larger problem that, uh, Salt Lake City is a city of general legislative. It is not a charter city under the Utah State Constitution. Article 11, section three. As a result of that over the last few years, the uh, legislature has continually inappropriately, um, preempted Salt Lake City municipal authority and governance over, um, local affairs. Therefore, I would ask that you table this bill, uh, at least the section regarding the Salt Lake City transportation amendments and refer it to an appropriate committee to discuss the constitutional implications of the overall preemption by the state legislature in that regard, I have formed a committee to, um, I guess my time is done. I have drafted a constitutional amendment to stop and reduce the state's authority to preempt Salt Lake City. And I will leave copies up here. I doubt any of you will be interested in it, but maybe members of the, uh, media and, uh, other parties would like to see a copy. Thank You. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sam Thomas. I live and work in Salt Lake City. Uh, I primarily get around by E-bike. I also ride UTA regularly. I do not own a car. Um, I would like you to remove, I believe it's section 34 from this bill. I believe that's the section, um, that concerns Salt Lake City and traffic calming. Uh, because these traffic calming measures have not been shown to have any impact on congestion. And they have also had a real positive effect on people like me, um, who want more freedom of choice in how we get around. Um, and what that language in the bill does is it prevents us from having more of that freedom of choice and, and it prevents us as a city from making, making decisions that, um, are best left to us as a city. And, um, really, really what it does is it puts us at greater risk for, um, injury. Some, you know, some other people have have spoken to that personally, I've been lucky enough to avoid that, but thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Sarah Looney and I live and work in ballpark neighborhood of Salt Lake City. I utilize the bike lanes on main on Main Street between 21st and 13th South twice daily to commute to my job as a school crossing guard for Wi Whittier Elementary School. As someone who uses a bike infrastructure to get to my crossing at Kensington and State Streets where I facilitate safe passage for school children across six lanes of traffic, pedestrian protection from vehicles is a daily concern. I'm here today to voice my opposition to SB 2 42, in particular, the portion that seeks to stop. And in some cases, undue areas where the city has implemented, implemented traffic, calming measures that help people outside of cars travel safely through the city. Infrastructure such as bike lanes are crucial to that end as bikers and drivers do not need to compete for space in the same travel lanes, making it safer for everyone. My concern is that the state takes the decision about making projects, uh, both for both drivers and pedestrians away from the city. Only people in vehicles will benefit while people outside of cars, uh, will be more vulnerable.

Good afternoon. My name is Dawn Wagner. I'm a licensed civil engineer here in the state of Utah, and I have worked for Salt Lake City in the past, and I'm here to speak in opposition to Chapter 20. Um, the fact that it's better than state Bill 1 95 from last year is a very, very low bar. And, um, having the state overreach and having UDOT oversee is just more burdensome and more bureaucratic. And we're supposed to be all about smaller government here in Utah. And this bill goes against that. Um, I'm sure Carlos has excellent engineers, but their engineers aren't beholden to their local community and local elected officials. The way that engineers that work for the cities are, I'm not here representing any professional organization, but I am a civil engineer who's very concerned that this overreach is inappropriate and I'm here for safe roads and anyone who crosses a UDOT right away to get their kid to school, 33rd South seventh East State Street, et cetera, knows it's not safe. And UDOT has lots of room for improvement.

Hi, I am Juliana Landis. I live and work in Salt Lake City and I am opposed to the parts of this bill that add red tape and cost and state oversight to Salt Lake City, trying to make, um, safety improvements for our roads. I don't know the exact part of the bill, but I think that part adds a ton of extra layers of the state getting in the way of the city, trying to keep families and children in my neighborhood safe. Um, and I think that makes me think twice about staying in Utah, starting a family where I can live and be safe with kids. So I would just hope that people can consider that. Thank you.

Can you, I'm Laura Martins. I've, uh, resident of Salt Lake City, actually Marmalade District. I've been riding the downtown roads and other roads in Salt Lake City for decades. And I would like to say that they're much, much safer for pedestrians and for cyclists, and it actually helps car traffic that they, people don't have to ride behind me when I'm going slow uphill. Um, it used to just be a nightmare and that the improvements are just amazing. Um, the parts of the bill that concern me are anything that deal with mitigating things that don't need to be mitigated because they're actually improvements. And also the, the lane width 11 feet requirement doesn't make sense. 10 feet is just fine for 35 miles per hour, and it inhibits our ability to add more, um, safe infrastructure. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. My name is Ben Whiteman. I am here representing myself and my family as well as my friends. I am a resident here in Salt Lake City, and I think the task of this group is noble. I think it is extremely difficult to balance safety, transportation needs, business needs, um, as well as all the things that allow us to enjoy this wonderful place. I think that's a tremendously difficult task. And, and, uh, I also believe that in balancing those things we have to understand the weight of each of those items. I'm here speaking out against the complications red tape and the limitations of the city to manage traffic calming and other public safety measures, because in my belief, that priority needs to be weighted most highly above any others? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Carlos Braceros, executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation. I've been listening to the comments and I take these comments very seriously. I want you to know as a committee that it's my commitment. We're not stepping in to make decisions for Salt Lake City. We are gonna be partners with Salt Lake City. We're gonna seek to understand what their goals are, and we're gonna be, hopefully, technical experts to help Salt Lake City achieve their goals of all of their citizens. It's my goal that people can go where they want, when they want, how they want, and to do so safely. And I don't know if there's a much bigger advocate for active transportation than myself. I'm the one that has, you know, really promoted the idea of the Utah Trail Network. And so we're committed to work with Salt Lake City, um, to be able to make this work for everybody. We're not gonna step in and take over anything. This is about helping enable Salt Lake City move forward. Thank you.

Um, director. Thank you. Uh, so, uh, one of the big, uh, questions that I've had, I've had a lot of people call me and concerned about the idea of mitigation. And so some improvements have been made by the city and they're worried that this everything's gonna be pulled back out. What, what, when you, when somebody says mitigation, what does that mean to you?

Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair for that, for that question. Uh, it's not our intent to step in and pull anything out. It would be what are the things that we can do to enhance not only the safety, but the mobility, if there's a mobility challenges there. So it's not the intent to remove anything, it's the intent to be able to work with the city to try to make it, again, improve mobility and safety for all users on the system. It might be a, it might be a sign. So it's, this is not, we're not gonna Be stepping backwards.

Hi. Can you, uh, hear and see me? We can't see That. Hello? We, we still can't see you.

I have my camera. Oh, sorry. I got pop up there. There you are. Uh, hi. My name is Julian Jaco. I represent Sweet Street, Salt Lake City. I just wanted to make clear, uh, the trade that you guys are gonna be making today. If you aren't aware, all traffic calming does is naturally slow cars down to the design speed limit of a road. The only reason to be against it is because you want to drive faster than the speed limit on a street, which is in insane behavior in city where you're just going to hit a red light. So this language that you're going to pass is so you can speed up faster than everyone to slow down, faster than everyone and be at the same red light as everyone. And the trade we're making for this is our safety, our air quality, our public health, our sense of community, our small businesses, and we are even trading traffic reduction. The only way to meaningfully reduce traffic is to get people off the road. Building more lanes, bigger lanes does not help. Look at Los Angeles. I'm not making this up. I encourage you to look it up. The evidence is overwhelming. We're giving up all this in our principle of local control to satisfy the ego of people who want to get to the next red light faster.

Okay. And Carlos, I would just ask, uh, I'm glad you're on our side, but why are the most dangerous roads in our city U Roads? Thank you.

Yeah. My name is Emily Hardy and I am a Salt Lake City resident. And, um, I was not in the meeting yesterday, so I'm not sure if this part has been addressed, but I feel like, uh, I appreciate Mayor Mendon Hall speaking today about why, you know, this bill is better than what was there before. But, uh, if she did not right, there's gonna be retaliation from the legislature and that is really frustrating watching that happen in our city. Um, who is the legislature trying to please and why is Salt Lake City being punished by the legislature and our safety being punished? And I think that that is very serious, that especially when it, it's not a flag, it's about the safety of our lives and it's really frustrating. So I hope you consider not affirming this.

I'll, I'll, uh, move Senate Amendment one.

Yeah, I, that handles the concerns that the Tollers had. That, uh, makes it a lot better. That way everybody can accept that. And then, uh, it does make, it does add one suggestion that, uh, on, uh, from someone from Salt Lake City made yesterday. So we've added that.

Any discussion? See Representative Peterson? Uh, thank you. I I appreciate the changes that have been made for, uh, for the towing and for, uh, yeah. 'cause several in the towing and, uh, uh, section were fixed. I appreciate that.

I'll Waive. Okay. It's already been Stated. Great.

And then if you jump down to lines 3, 4, 3 0 to 3 4, 3, 3, it's specifically rep, uh, referencing the Bluffdale project, the Midvale project and the Taylorsville project. Those were, uh, if you look and the assistant goes out of the, uh, I've got it here. Yeah. Yeah. Um, Yeah, you take a look at those. Um, there's a, there's funding that was given before to go through and address certain things. Um, taking that out. What, what we did here is there's some expend money within that grant and loan program. Uh, the, in order to, the biggest one on there is the, uh, the, the Bluffdale railroad crossing, which is on 146 South. That's short, tens of millions of dollars and we're trying to get some money into that. The other two are new projects at the request of a couple of the municipalities to go through and deal with those. Um, yes, there are other bills that deal with that, but since we're just working internally, I thought that was appropriate to do. Um, beyond that, I, you know, I appreciate the heads up right before committee on this. I, I think those projects need to be done, uh, whether it's in this bill or another one, they need to be done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, in talking with UTA, I have some simple amendments that we'll address those lines. I'm just gonna describe the amendments while we're waiting to get the final drafting. But on line 400, the amendment would change the word operating to loading or unloading passengers or making a time point adjustment. So, in other words, they can't just impede the bike lane because it's on their route, they have to actually be doing something. And then, then a similar change on 4 37. It would similarly say, uh, re reinstate to load our unloaded passengers or make a time point adjustment along the vehicle's planned route or schedule. So those, that's be the amendment and we're trying to get that so that it's not a verbal amendment. I don't know. How much time do you need? Um, I can make it public right Now. Okay. Give me 30 Seconds. 30 seconds. 29, 28. You, you need to explain it more while she's, I will explain this while, so the, the motion is to adopt an amendment, but the, um, impact here is, I, I understand what the language was intending. It's just saying, Hey, if you're a, if you're a UTA driver or a school bus driver, we know that you're gonna be in the bike lane from time to time. Everybody understands that. We accept that. Well, but there was the unintended consequence of saying, well, it's okay if times get tough or whatever. You can just pull out into the bike lane and drive along the bike lane. We don't want that. We don't want school buses or, or UTA buses thinking that it's somehow okay to use the bike lane as their transit travel lane. We understand that they're impeding sometimes 'cause they gotta stop or if they have to make a time point adjustment. Uh, and that's what the amendment will do.

Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend third substitute Senate bill 2 42 as properly amended.

Yeah, I do. I wanna thank the sponsor for, and this is, um, something that we do every year. Look through the transportation code. We find stuff that's broken, we try to fix it, we try to make it better. It's a thankless job. I'm appreciative that the center's even willing to do it at all. But at the end of the process, do we make everybody happy? No, that's not possible. Um, but does this move the ball forward in the good direction? I think so. I think that's, and that's how, I mean, if, if nobody's happy, it's probably a good compromise. But I do appreciate the fact that our Salt Lake City leaders and the mayor were able to get to a point where they felt comfortable with it, with it. And that that, uh, the commissioner of transportation is also comfortable that this is gonna work out well for him. And I think, uh, you know, there's, there's something in here for the citizens as well. It's like you look at it on its entirety. There may be things that people like and don't like, but there's good stuff in here for people as well.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And, uh, I just wanted to clarify in amendment two, I don't know the genesis of that, but those projects do need to happen and may be a little bit, I am uncomfortable having them removed at this point, but we need to get those back in at some sort of or fashion. Now with that being said, um, as has been asked by the community that's represented online and here, they wanted senate bill 1 95 provisions repealed. This bill does that. This is bill is not intended for speed. It is intended to bring all stakeholders to the par, to the table to go through and deal with safety of all parties. The word mitigate in there is not to remove or rip out everything. There's anything, there's nothing in the bill that says to remove, mitigate means. When I have a business come up to me and say, Hey, there was this thing was put in front of my business, it blocks my loading dock. Or somebody go, comes through and says, Hey, I'm not sure I have the clearest crossing that I need to, when we're talking about meditate, mitigate, it's looking at all things were put in to make sure that they're safe. And if those things need to be modified a little bit, do it. If there needs to be signage put in, that's what mitigate means. Um, again, nothing removed. And as, uh, the good, uh, director of, of UDOT stated, um, we believe in safety and we also believe in transit. Representative Christofferson and myself were the sponsors and fund insured the funding with the Active Transportation Investment Fund. So, uh, that would be available. And now that that's in place, we're creating this bill, the, uh, Utah Trail Network to tie in all local and regional and national trails together. So there's darn a lot of good things in here for people who like all mo to modality. And with that, I appreciate your time and, uh, support of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking out SB 1 95. I didn't vote for that bill, and I personally can't vote for this, this bill either. I, I think it's the message that sent to Salt Lake City employee, Salt Lake City residents, and just I've heard from all my constituents and I just don't, um, feel comfortable with, um, us telling municipal government what to do on their streets. And so with that, I, I appreciate the work people have done behind the scenes, but I have to stand with my constituents and I won't be voting for this bill.

Let's see. Okay, there we go. Thank you very much. I appreciate, uh, Canadian's indulgence on this. And first of all, I want to thank Salt Lake City and a number of other stakeholders who've had input on this bill. Um, just as a way of background, instead of running about a dozen or 13 different bills, the interim committee decided to roll all the different issues into one bill to have, uh, fewer bills that we have to deal with. And with that Mr. Chair, we have, I have a substitute Senate Bill 2 42 that I would like to move.

Um, this bill is in, uh, response to long discussions, again with, uh, Salt Lake City and a lot of other stakeholders, UHP, uh, business communities, udot, UTA, uh, several different counties to put everything in there. Um, I want to go through and clarify the differences between, uh, 2 42 and the, and the substitute. Um, and I didn't. Anyway, uh, basically it goes through and, um, the discussion, it, it implements more than a dozen additional changes, uh, per the request of Salt Lake City clarifies that road width, uh, only re apply to tier one and two roads, and it removes 12 feet and inserts. 11 feet clarifies. Tier three and four roads are managed by Salt Lake City does not remove any re install improvements in Salt Lake City, um, which I have some people that are very happy that it just says you have to look and see what those impacts are. I have some other people that are not happy thinking that, uh, we should be forcing Salt Lake City to remove that. Uh, the other things in the bill clarifies that fifth, fifth funds in the, uh, fifth quarter 0.1 stays in the county of collection and has to be used for transit. Um, and it also goes through, uh, that says salt, uh, the parking, the state has no authority over parking fees and regulations in Salt Lake. City Streets, uh, goes through and removes and puts a review and revocation of tow companies into further study clarifies the, uh, how to fees are, uh, are charged and, uh, requires a replacement parking bi defense identified. Now, one of the things I want to clarify on this bill and the, and the substitute is that, that, that the Senate Bill 2 44, 2 42 establishes the framework and that all the implementation of all the things that are called out or other things that came out of the, uh, study, which had been done over the interim, will be done with an, uh, agreement between Salt Lake City and udot. So it goes through and, and does that stuff got definitions? You got framework, things of that nature. Um, again, uh, Salt Lake City's made some policy calls on, on, uh, changing roads and things like that. Uh, we need to remember, well let, I'll get in the presentation, but that's, that changes there between the, the substitute and the main bill.

Yes, I do. Delete and title and body sent Bill 2 42 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 2 42.

Thank you. Now, a couple other things to the bill, if I may, in matter of, of, uh, the presentation. Um, it, this goes through and clarifies provisions on land transfers. Um, talks about regionally select significant roads in Salt Lake. Um, creates definition of highway reduction strategy. The definition is, is what I believe Salt Lake City has requested, um, requires Salt Lake City to look at any potential negative IMP impacts of, of roadway improvements and make mitigation, if any, are found, uh, create, uh, directs the, uh, or describes the UDOT Director's authority to respond to national DI disasters. Uh, updates r uh, charges for larger vehicles clarifies that B and C road funds can be used for park and rides, um, uh, updates or includes a annual reporting requirement. I by cities who receive the Salt Lake County quarter of the quarter as to what they're doing with those funds Updates. The uses of t TIF funds for corridor preservation creates and establishes the Utah Trail Network and allows t TIF to be used for that. Net network, uh, creates a pilot program for one-time funds for rural bus replacement. These are the larger transit buses, uh, expands udot authority to pursue NEPA assignments for transit and railroads, uh, clarifies uses of the railroad restricted accounts for u that it can be used on, uh, on state owned rail lines. And again, uh, updates to dispatch fees. One of the things that I want to highlight is, is that per everybody's request, this bill also repeals Senate bill 1 95 from last year, all the study and the other provisions and enables the framework to go through. Um, I just want to clarify a couple things. There's been comments. This, this is a state takeover of city roads. I do not think so. I would, uh, ask each one of you to look and see what other city in the state has the state investment in it and the number of roads, number of state buildings, um, number of recreational facilities and things like that, that the state either supports or owns. Take a look at the number of people from all over the state world coming in for entertainment. Entertainment. The jazz, the mammoths performance, its conventions. What other city has the state capital? I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure the framework's there, that the needs of all people are met in whatever form of transportation they, they, uh, choose to use walking, jogging, biking, motorcycling, transit cars. We need to make sure that the delivery vehicles can get into businesses and, and supply them with what they need. We need to make sure that emergency vehicles are able to get everywhere they want. Uh, next que item is a statement that forces removal of installed medians, bike and bustings. It does not, the word removal is not in there. Mitigate is generally considered be if you go need to change something minor. Um, repeal Senate Bill 1 95. It's in there. Um, the concept is that, uh, anything that Salt Lake City's installed in the, uh, last couple years should not be, um, modified Salt Lake City and every city around the state go through and modify their roads as needed, um, when they feel they need to and have the, uh, um, and have the, uh, ability to do so. Last thing is that Salt Lake City was kept in the dark in this bill. I wanna clarify that. Since August I've been meeting with the mayor's office and staff on this bill and the draft of the, of this bill ha uh, Salt Lake City had it nearly two weeks before it became public. And I incorporated quite a number of changes in the bill in that. Um, so with that, Mr. Chair, that is the presentation on the bill. And I'm open for questions.

Senator Kwan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify, looking here at the, um, there was some language in there that moved money from the county into the TTIF, but I think in this new sub, something else is happening. Would you, um, describe that a little bit more for me?

Oh, on the, on the T TT F? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. What it does is if you have, for example, Salt Lake County and Utah County have imposed the fifth fifth, and right now the way it's structured is, is that 0.1 of that, uh, second quarter goes into the TTF after discussion with stakeholders, they wanted, since they imposed it in the county, they wanted to keep the money in the county to handle transit needs within their respective counties. It will stay in the county. It

Will stay in the county, But specifically for transportation. Is this

For transit? Sorry? Transit. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, for clarification, since you just dropped the second sub in that, and I read the original bill many times trying to, uh, figure out what the emails were all about as I read it. Is this no more than just putting udot in the room with the city to decide this transportation going forward is more of a study than a shall that you're gonna have to do all this stuff?

Uh, excellent question. It sets up the framework upon which Salt Lake City and Udot will operate and discuss things going together on certain roads in Salt Lake City. So all

You you've mandated is they sit down together and de and decide this

Correct. And I'll create the definitions. Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I received a lot of emails about section 72 dash two zero dash 1 0 1, and, uh, I, the emails are, the emails are saying that we are taking away the ability for people to have bike lanes and use the roads instead of cars. And it seems like a 72 47 to preserve motor vehicle capacity. Um, is there anything in here that would take away our bike lanes or, um, make it less, uh, desirable to ride your bikes? I mean, uh, I think that getting more people outta their cars in Salt Lake City would be great. So this is one of the emails that I received the most complaints about.

Thank you. There's nothing in here that requires those bike lanes to be removed. Matter of fact, I think now that, uh, the study's been done and things of that nature, Salt Lake City can work with Udot to potentially expand the bike lanes.

And, and Mr. Chair, Salt Lake City has asked to make a statement as well.

My name's Dave Ti. I'm with Cycling Utah. Um, I appreciate that the committee has made some changes to the bill, but I believe that the bill itself, other than repealing or the section of the bill regarding Salt Lake City, other than repealing SB 1 95 is unnecessary. Salt Lake City's transportation division are full of, of experts on this. And the bill itself, um, is really an overreach by the state. We wouldn't have, um, UO going in and telling Taylorsville or Lehi or St. George exactly what they can do with their own streets. Salt Lake City residents don't have any representation either on this committee or they, they also don't have representation, um, at, at the state level. Um, for this, um, this bill is going is anti Olympics. It's, um, micromanaging, um, whereas other cities go forward Two time's up. Okay. Thank you. Other cities go forward. Uh, Salt Lake is going backwards. Thank you.

You. My name is Alejandro Hui. I'm the chair of the Salt Lake City Council. Uh, and I wanna start by thanking sincerely, uh, Senator Harper, uh, Representative Christofferson, uh, for, uh, uh, the, the work that we have done together on this bill. Um, everybody, everybody has worked in good faith, uh, and the sponsors have been open to amendments from the city and our input, uh, which in government is always, uh, work acknowledging, uh, the city has also also worked lead to implement SV 1 95 from last year. Uh, this, this bill strengthened partnerships and give us a chance to better analyze and coordinate on major transportation projects across the city. Uh, and we're grateful for the progress on the council. We're, we're constantly hearing About Will you hit the button on the microphone On the council? We're constantly hear from neighbors about the, the, the core issue. Thank you. Uh, safety, while balancing community needs, uh, people see con concrete, uh, paint and changes that they're not used to. Um, and sometimes a lot comes, uh, the real motivation here is to prevent from people getting hurt. Uh, but as elected officials, we continue to advocate the transportation decisions should be made as close as possible to the communities most affected by them. We appreciate that This bill codifies time's up enhancement. Uh, thank you so much. Will You state your name and who you Represent? Alejandro Pui from the Salt Lake City Council. Thank you.

I do. Mr. Chair. Um, I'm hoping that we can hear, uh, the rest of what, um, Mr. Poy was saying. I do have some questions for him, but maybe after, if that, if

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to finish. Uh, you know, we continue to hear, uh, you know, from our communities, uh, the issues of, of safety, but we appreciate that this Bill codifies enhancement of community outreach. Uh, we see that that is an opportunity for residents, business cities, and state partners to be meaningfully involved in shaping transportation projects. And we look forward to continuing strong partnership, uh, between udot UTA and others. Salt Lake City is committed to being accessible for everyone, residents, commuters, students, and visitors. Uh, with the temple reopening in 2027 and the 2034 Winter Olympics ahead, uh, we won a world class transportation, uh, system that impresses visitors and keeps the residents safe. And, and just, uh, at the beginning of my co comment, I wanted to tress that, uh, the Senator Harper and Representative Christofferson have been incredible and receiving the feedback and, and working together with, with the city, uh, to, to shape this bill. Uh, so thank you.

Juab? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I know that, uh, Salt Lake City has worked hard to make sure that they were implementing 1 95 from last year. Um, and I'm wondering, uh, I, I heard, uh, somebody say that this is an unnecessary bill, but I also know that there are some changes in some policy here, um, that might be useful. And I'm wondering if, uh, if Mr. Poi would, uh, explain, uh, whether or not he feels that this, the work that is done in this bill can continue to be done without the bill, or if those changes in policy need to happen in code.

I, I will say that it is, it is important. There's one of the things that I really care a lot about this bill, uh, that en enhances the, the community engagement. Uh, we, between all the partners out there, you know, the business community, uh, the, the neighbors, uh, and the state and udot and, uh, you know, the municipality itself, uh, because there is a lot of push and pull, uh, between what is good and what is bad. I think this codifies this transparency, uh, and I think that we, we can yell a better product and a better service for our neighbors and, and all the partners. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yep, it's on. Okay. Um, yes. My name is Matthew Morris. I'm a resident in Salt Lake City. I'm also a scientist. Um, and I wanted to speak in, uh, regards to this proposal and proposed bill, including the recent substitution. Um, I'm by no means a local control absolutist. I support housing preemption, for instance, that applies equally to all cities in the state. Um, but the sponsor of Salt Lake City, this bill says that Salt Lake is different because of state investment and regional traffic. Every city in Utah receive state transportation dollars, and Provo has BYU St. George has tourism. All of these cities receive a lot of traffic. I've looked at 17 different red state capitals. Cities like Nashville, Atlanta and others handle their commuter volume in a different, in much the same way as Salt Lake. Currently by retaining full local control on emergency access, Salt Lake City Fire Department is already already participating in street design reviews. UDOT doesn't dispatch fire trucks. Last Session, SB one 90.

My name is Julia Lyon and I am PTA President of Wasatch Elementary at K six Public School located on South Temple, we have been closely following this legislation because last year's law hampered our community's ability to help students with disabilities. During the 24 25 school year, engineering students at the University of Utah studied South Temple to determine how we could increase access to our playground for students with disabilities. We have a historic underground tunnel, which for nearly 100 years has allowed students to safely cross under South Temple to our playground. But for students in a wheelchair or students on crutches, the only option has been to walk further east to another intersection, limiting their time on the playground with peers thanks to thanks to the youth students, we now have preliminary designs of how to add an a DA appropriate crossing next to our tunnel. We were in the early stages of talking with the city when the legislature passed the law preventing new traffic calming measures on South Temple. As a result, we were unable to move forward to help these students with some simple changes that would make it simpler for them to cross the street. I believe each of the members of this committee would want all children to be able to cross the street safely. Remember that time up, that sweeping legislation trusted to this overlook. Time is up. Individual school children. Done.

Hi, my name is Julian Juab COIs, I'm a homeowner in Salt Lake City that represents Sweet Street Salt Lake City. Uh, I'm here today because I'm struggling to see which of our shared Utah values. This language in this bill represents if we value facts over feelings, data over desire. Did the study you commissioned last year from udot not show that these improvements have had no impact on vehicle traffic? I promise you, if you do your own research, all evidence reinforces the fact that making our cities more walkable, bikeable, and transitionable is not only better for our health, our safety, our air quality, and our economy, but it is the only way to reduce traffic. If you're still under the illusion that adding more car lanes reduces traffic, you need only look at Southern California to dispel that myth. I wonder is this legislation links to our shared value of cultural heritage? It seems unlikely. After all, the pioneers did not come here on a freeway. Throughout our shared history, everyone, peasants and kings alikes got where they went on their feet. Driving everywhere is not normal. We wonder where our sense of community has gone. As we drive past our neighbors at speed so fast, we have to make 20 foot signs to trick our brains into feeling like we're going slower. Kids used to explore the world around them. Now we ask where our teenagers are addicted to video games and staying indoors are speeding cars. Not the reason we've driven them to stay in. Hi, miss up.

You. My name's Elizabeth Converse. I'm a lobbyist here, but I'm actually representing myself. Um, about three weeks ago, the Thursday before the legislative session started, I was hit by a car while biking across a udot um, intersection. So I was on a protected bike lane in a protected bike path. But because Udot and, and City Streets cross, I was actually hit in a specific udot area. Um, I wanna make sure that the committee as a whole understands that I see what Senator Harper is doing in his trying to work with the city. And I greatly, greatly appreciate that. I think it's really, really important that we understand that this is an ongoing conversation, but I also want people to understand that there are other laws that I think could address many of the issues, especially the financial impact on the state when it comes to actual health concerns. Right now in the state of Utah, we have a $3,000 personal injury requirement, which doesn't even cover an ambulance ride to a hospital. I recently found that out. I had to have a surgery that was $95,000, and the person who hit me who did take responsibility only had a $50,000 liability. There is cost here and there is cost that we can mitigate. Thank you. Thank you.

Identify yourself. Yeah. My name is Justice Marath. Um, I am, uh, the chair of the Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board. I'm also an interim board member of the West Side Coalition. Now, while I'm not speaking formally for those organizations, I'm speaking as my experience working with them. Uh, the idea that there is not collaboration between UDOT and uh, Salt Lake City is simply not true. Uh, we have always, the city has always collaborated with UDOT and thought about all the potential impacts. Uh, this goes back a very long time, including two organizations such as the Wasatch Front Regional Council that has existed for over 50 years. This new framework only creates more hoops to jump through, slows down our ability to be responsive to the needs of our community, especially in places like the West Side. Uh, we have so much going on right now that we can't be gunked up with another bureaucratic hoop. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, my name's Catherine Alimony. I'm a resident here in Salt Lake City. Um, I am here to speak on SB 2 42 because my daughter and I, we bike to school every day. Um, we depend on bike lanes and neighborhood byways to get there safely, um, and securely. And I'm, um, so appreciative of those byways and safe passage for us. Um, I am concerned, my main concern is on the, um, some of the negative language around traffic calming in this bill and other bills like this and that in putting, sorry. The, um, sort of vehicle mobility, uh, at or above, um, you know, human safety about the safety of my family and other families as we use these, these safe passageways. And I just would really appreciate seeing more concern and more language put in that, that directs, um, care towards the safety of us, rather over just getting vehicles. Thank you. More safely. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alec Conal. Uh, I'm a resident of Salt Lake and I can't drive. So my primary form of transportation is taking transit and biking. And I'm incredibly concerned by this bill, but not for the reasons that you might think. Um, so last year's SB 1 95 was an agreed upon approach to our changing urban form. We studied the effects of Salt Lake City's infrastructure improvements, and udot found that there was no impact on the traffic flows in Salt Lake City. This bill aims to take that knowledge and discount it entirely. As a city, we decided on critical pedestrian cycling and transit infrastructure improvements. As a state, we affirm those decisions to mitigate working infrastructure is a waste of taxpayer money. As a conservative state, we should be ashamed by this fiscal irresponsibility. Additionally, language in this bill strictly targets Salt Lake City. Yes, we are the capital city, but does that mean the state should override our choices? It's a slippery slope. We are embarking on one day. It's my city. And the next it's yours. Utahans, believe in local control. This legislature believes in local control. Thank you.

Hello, my name's Glenn Campbell. Uh, growing up in Salt Lake City, or sorry, growing up in Utah, uh, I actually grew up in Taylorsville. I Uintah Taylorsville High School. I had to ride my bicycle to and from high school to junior high. Uh, one of the main things as I grew up, I knew I wanted to get out of those cities so I could continue to actually have better infrastructure for cycling, for walking. Uh, my commute now looks like a bike, ride to work, bike ride to grocery store, walking to banks, anything else that I need. Um, so to pander, to adding udot to make the choices for Salt Lake City, when Salt Lake City should actually be looked at as example, not the expectation within our communities just seems backwards. Uh, I think that other places such as Taylorsville could learn a lot from, uh, the Salt Lake City active infrastructure, um, as well as just making sure that the continued growth of transit, uh, that's all the stuff that we should be looking for, not just having more single occupancy cars on our roads. Thank you. Thank

Let's see. It looks like, is this on? Yes. Okay, thanks. The green light wasn't coming on. Good afternoon. My name is Soren Simonson. Some of you know me as the executive director of the Jordan River Commission. I just wanted to clarify that I'm just speaking here as myself this afternoon. Uh, I've been a, for, for most of my professional career, I've been a, um, transportation planning and, and, uh, urban design consultant. For the last several years I've been working around the Jordan River and implementing the blueprint Jordan River. We're very, very grateful for so much support for that. I wanna just share a little bit of context. Um, last year's bill, Senate Bill 1 95 was a bit of surprise. I think there are, understandably, some folks in downtown and Sugar House and other places, uh, that may be concerned about change. Change can be difficult. I want to just remind you that many of the changes that are being proposed and are happening in Salt Lake City are a result of the 2006 Downtown Rising Plan. I remember standing at the Galvin Center with Lane Beady and, um, Keith Ratty as that plan was presented. Projects like the Green Loop, uh, complete Streets, transit corridors, they're all part of a master plan that was developed in 2006 and is being implemented now. Uh, it's a great plan. Had the great support of the business community and we encourage you to continue to follow the vision of that plan. And I'll send a copy of it to each of you so that you have it.

Alright. My name is Tim o Christensen. I am a civil and roadway engineer in training from Orem. I regularly travel into Salt Lake City for work, school, and daily activities. Uh, I wanna focus on that transfer of street design to authority towards the state. I appreciate the changes proposed in the substitute as the center outlined earlier, but I believe these provisions still have issues. The stated goal of the bill is to prioritize commuters and improve mobility, but based on engineering practice in the state's own data, I'm concerned that this provision will fail to meet that goal of reducing safety data doesn't support the idea that local safety driven street designs harm commuters in a measurable way and providing udot with this extra burden of oversight that the city could do. When the engineers at both UD DDOT and the city have the same professional license and use the same standards is unnecessary. Uh, though I understand the Senator Vickers earlier suggestion that the state is a major stakeholder and investor in Salt Lake City and their streets. I respectfully disagree with the notion that this justifies the veto power these provisions bring to the state. I respectfully ask the committee to consider whether this provision truly advances commuter priorities or whether it undermines both safety and performance by overriding proven local engineering decisions. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Sam Tresco. This summer I was hit by a car while riding my bike. The car ran a stop sign and launched me into the middle of the road. I was crossing from a street without a bike path, making my way to the safety of protected bike infrastructure. This accident would've been prevented if the cycling infrastructure were designed properly, separating bike lanes from traffic and making it easy for drivers to spot cyclists. Cycling infrastructure doesn't just make our city safer. It also supports local businesses. The nine line is a perfect example of this. It's full of families stopping at new shops and restaurants, meeting their neighbors, and building community. What does SB 2 4 2 hope to accomplish? Ideally, a reduction in traffic. This is great, but adding lanes and making them wider doesn't work. This is an engineering principle called imposed demand. When you add lanes, more people drive instead of choosing other options. This means when you add lanes, there are more cars on the road and traffic does not improve. The best way to reduce traffic is to reduce the number of cars on the road. This means giving people options. Your time is up. Thank you. Like commuting and protected bike lanes.

Hi, my name is Dana Holmes. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City. Uh, I've lived here since 2014. I've owned a home with my wife in Liberty. Well, since 2020, uh, we've watched many of the streets around us transform for the better. With the addition of safer bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, especially the 900 South and 300 west corridors. Like most residents, I also own a car and drive almost daily. And as a driver, I've also seen nothing but benefits from the improved infrastructure. Uh, allowing dedicated space and clear flows for non vehicular street users has improved my experience as a driver on roads with dedicated bike lanes. I never find myself stuck behind cyclists or reacting to erratic drivers passing cyclists, uh, beyond for the benefits for the city. I ask the committee to consider the image and branding of our city in the years leading up to the place on the world stage is the host of the 2034 Olympics leading up to an event that will draw thousands of national, international visitors, many of whom will navigate the city without a car. Do we really want to undo this progress and present Salt Lake City to the world as a city that a is actively hostile towards visitors without private vehicles. Thank you for your time. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank

Hello, committee. My name is David Shum. I'm a resident of the Salt Lake County. I wanna cite a recent Johns Hopkins report from 2023 that found that 12 foot lanes not only make roads more dangerous, they make drivers drive faster 12 feet, which is the standard width of the interstate highway. According to the Utah Department of Public Safety, um, most crashes or the highest number of crash attributes in Salt Lake City is speed related. This proposal to mitigate traffic calming measures and ensuring that lanes are at least 12 feet wide, goes against and contradicts safety and the goals of this committee. Utah's grid system means that streets are straight medians and barrier barriers famously don't move. The modern car has no problem driving the straight line. If drivers cannot navigate a straight line with unmovable stationary barriers, the drivers are the problem and not street design. And I hope that this committee can take a step back and reconsider. Thank you. Thank you.

Floor is yours. Hi, my name is Tom Merrill. I'm here as a downtown resident. Um, most importantly, as a dad, I've been authorized by my 11 and 14-year-old to come here and advocate on their behalf. We moved to downtown about 10 years ago when they were real small. And I have children that have grown up walking to the planetarium, to the Galvan Center, to the Delta Center, often on their own. And we're now reaching an age where they wanna bike places. We go to the nine line bike park. Quite often, a lot of these routes are the, um, is the only safe way for my kids to get out. Like the legislature. I'm concerned about children, their screen time, and spending time at home. Bikes are the way that children can get out and experience the world, and so I urge the legislature to keep our children in mind as you go about refining this. Bill. Thank you.

Bon Juab. Uh, my name's Brenda Shear. In 2003, as Dean of Architecture at the University of Utah, I saw the need for Utah to have a CAD cadre of carefully trans trained and educated professional planners. And since then, there have been many grad, many graduates, and they have been put to work adopting and guiding community plans and best practices all over the state. I'm so proud of these folks. I sometimes call myself the mother of all planners. I urge you to amend this bill to allow the best practices of multimodal and rough streets wherever it is needed in Utah for an impatient out of towner or someone who just wants to barrel through. Yes, it may slow you down. This is after all a city with vibrant and attractive things going on. It's not a small town with a single highway, although we ought to train our planters to provide some rough edges there to keep people like me paying attention too. 'cause I'm one of those people who likes to drive fast too. And several years ago, I, I'm in the middle of a rural town in southern Utah. I was pulled over. The officer said, did you not see that, that sign? And I said, what sign? What town? I didn't see the ma'am Narrowing of the street. Ma'am, you time this up. It gives me the cue to slow down.

Your time is yours. Thank you. My name is Amy Jesse. I am a lifelong resident of Salt Lake. I live in the Sugar House area right now. I am a driver. I commute into downtown Salt Lake. I'm a caregiver to somebody in an assisted living center. I am incredibly grateful for the ability for, um, in many ways to be able to transit into the city. I know that that makes my commute a lot easier when there are less people in the road and taking different, um, modes of transportation through the bus routes, through, um, biking. And I just would urge this committee to be able to reconsider this and know that this is something that I can see as wildly unpopular. Thank you so much.

Just making sure this is on. Yep. Um, good afternoon. My name's Austin Whitehead. I am a graduate student studying transportation planning at the University of Utah. Speaking today, because of the language in this substitution bill still threatens to preempt traffic engineering best practices, specifically regarding lane widths and parking. These are technical decisions that must rest with qualified transportation officials, not the legislature. We have a current framework that allows udot UTA and Salt Lake City to collaborate on balancing regional flow with local safety. Without the legislature stepping in, please allow them the flexibility to use our right of ways to make us safer and to improve our quality of life. Thank you.

Paul Zuckerman, Salt Lake City. Um, I'm a voter. I wanna thank the senator for being, uh, receptive to the many emails that have come through and, and his efforts to amend it. I'm a voter property owner and taxpayer in the city, within a county, within a district. And as in any district in the state, I feel my interests are best represented by those in office closest to me and where I have the best access. When wishing to express my concerns of support, I believe that the decisions made regarding traffic calming in Salt Lake City have been adequately researched and created and I support them in going forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Evan Den. I'm a proud fifth generation Utah pioneer immigrant, Salt Lake Valley resident and homeowner. Although I grew up in the Salt Lake Valley, I spent my training and career elsewhere only deciding to return to my home city at retirement age. Among my top reasons for relocating here is Salt Lake City's multimodal and transit friendly urban development. I have an automobile but will soon be unable to safely and legally drive it because of my deteriorating eyesight. However, I have been an avid bicyclist all my life and now rely increasingly on my bike for transit. Salt Lake City's bike friendly streets are increasingly essential for my survival. I know I'm not alone. Thousands of newcomers to Utah are bicycle commuters, shoppers, and are recreationists who also walk and enjoy public transit. This is a strongly upward trend, weakening our progress and allowing safe and proven transit options for all or even mitigating long, avoided street improvements are financially and politically bad ideas. Please, let's keep alternative transit options strong. Thank you.

Hi, uh, Jonathan Young. I'm a landscape designer and planner. Um, oh, hold on. Uh, I just wanted to reiterate that SLC already has really excellent master plans studies in place. Um, the sponsor of the bill stated that this doesn't require the removal of any infrastructure, but I wanna point out that it puts significant burdens in the point of, in the way of putting more infrastructure in, in the form of studies. Um, I do those studies, they're really expensive. Um, and I'd rather that SLC has more, uh, freedom to do what they want. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, Kyle Holland, Salt Lake City resident. I'd like to request a couple technical changes on the bill. First of all, the lane width. I appreciate the reduction to 11 and 10. That's more in line with industry best practices. However, that should be 11 feet for outer lanes where the trucks and buses drive and 10 feet for inner lanes. For example, on the recent four south project, the city did 11 feet outer lanes, 10 foot any lanes. That's industry best practice. And then on the parking section, it should take into account existing off street parking. For example, second South, the city reduced available on street parking on the order of a hundred spaces to make room for the bus lanes. Whereas there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of preexisting parking garages. The build text here would have required the city to replace those spaces in kind, even though they're a single percent of existing parking. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Anna p Just

Thank you. My name is Anna Perna P**n. I am a resident of Central City Neighborhood here in Salt Lake. Um, I'm also a graduate student at the U so I commute regularly on 200 South. And while I regularly bike, walk, and bus on this route, I'm actually here today to talk about how Salt Lake's road improvements have made it easier for me to drive. Um, when I drive to work. Um, I prefer the improved roads. Um, I find 200 south, which is my main route to campus. Um, even though 100 south is technically faster, um, much safer and easier for me to drive on, um, after it's been limited to two lanes, it's a lot smoother. It's a lot more predictable, and I'm a lot less worried about hitting someone. And after a lot of the people we've heard today, I think it's really important that us as drivers consider the safety of our route, not just how fast it will get us there. Um, I am terrified of accidentally hitting someone when I drive. I'm afraid that if I turn right and it's not a protected intersection, I'm gonna miss and hit a bike or a person. Um, I couldn't live with myself if that happened. And it's really important to me that the roads be safer. Thank you. Thank

Hi, my name is Margie McCloy. I am a resident of the ninth and ninth district of Salt Lake City. I'm, I'm gonna speak on something completely different in the bill. I, I noticed while I was perusing the bill that the, there's going to be increased registration fees for commercial electric vehicles and that, that concerns me. Uh, well, I, we've owned an electric car for 12 years and our registration fees are very high. And I believe that, um, when you have an electric car, you pla you, you, you buy your gas from the, uh, electricity company. Not, you don't buy it at the tank, but you pay the electric company. And I don't see why the electric company can't contribute to the roads because with the percentage of people who own electric cars and to discourage commercial vehicles from being electric, we should have electric buses in town. The Amazon electric vehicles are wonderful. They're always on the streets. Thank you. I strongly encourage you to support electric vehicles, commercial and residential.

Go ahead. Um, hi. My name is Sophie Christensen. Um, I recently graduated from Utah State University in political science. Um, so I'm here as a political scientist and also as a, uh, commuter. I work in Salt Lake City. I commute from Orem. Um, sometimes I drive and sometimes I take the train and my bike. Uh, so I appreciate in, in both cases, I appreciate the safety of the streets in Salt Lake City. Um, I'm also concerned about this bill as a political scientist because of the government overreach and the ways that the, um, that we're taking away local control on an issue that really should be local control, especially when the city has been doing such a good job on it. Um, I'm also wanting to speak for some of my clients. I work in homeless services and many of my clients, um, are people that have to ride their bike or walk around. And I, I worry that if we are not able to provide that infrastructure for those, uh, people that are already having a hard time, it's gonna make it even harder for them. Um, so for those reasons, I ask that you, uh, amend or don't support this bill.

Hello, I'm Rob Kramer. I represent myself. I'm a Salt Lake City resident and I've grown up in Salt Lake, uh, Murray area, uh, my entire life, um, in Salt Lake City, just over a thousand residents commute every day. Can you guess how many of them commute? Commute by means other than driving in Taylorsville? The number's around 4%. In Lehi it's 2.5 in Salt Lake City, the number's almost 19% of daily commuters, um, go other by car. If that surprises you, it's probably because you don't live here. Um, we need to make these streets safer. Obviously. I biked here, I bike with a helmet, I bike with a, this, I don't get the safety that cars do. I did the hard thing. I biked here. You get to do the easy thing. You get to do the right thing and get rid of this antis safety commuting bell. Thank you. Thank

Yeah. Hi, my name's Emily Hardy and I'm a Salt Lake City resident. I live in the Liberty Wells neighborhood. I have three boys and they, um, are, two of them are on the local mountain bike team. Um, and we, they walk everywhere. They walk to Sugar House. I can let them like my 16 and 13-year-old, even with my 10-year-old, they will walk from our neighborhood or bike into Sugar House. They'll go downtown. My oldest doesn't drive, and he can ride from our home in Liberty Wells safely. And I feel confident that he can do it safely with the skills he's learned. Um, with bike riding and with the infrastructure on the streets. He will ride to high school in Rose Park. He takes a bus home every day and walks the remainder. And I feel like, um, something we need to pay attention to is like some others have addressed, putting human lives and our personal safety above convenience for drivers. The research, if we really look at it, really shows that that is what elevates overall quality of life. And my quality of life and my family's quality of life has improved drastically with the improvements that have been made by the c.

Hi, my name is Carrie. Do, I'm, um, speaking for myself as a resident of Salt Lake City. As a former employee of UTA and a current member of the Salt Lake City Bicycle Advisory Committee. With my short time and all the other comments, I think what I'd like to focus on are the two phrases in the bill highway reduction strategy and traffic calming, um, lane widths, um, speed bumps, uh, shortened curb lengths are all part of highway reduction strategies. And as those may be restricted, even on tier one streets, it reduces the options for safety and basically slowing down cars. So I think that the thing for me is this is a city. We wanna slow down cars. It's not bad to slow down cars. It's okay that cars can go faster on the freeway. Uh, subsequently it's the, the, the, the congestion that we're worried about could be spread out. There's always a choice to avoid congestion by time of day or route. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. Um, as a planning commissioner, a professional planner, and a commuter to Salt Lake City, uh, I'm also concerned with some of the language in this bill. I believe strongly in giving people the liberty to choose the mode of transportation that makes sense for their journey, whether that's car bike walking or riding the bus. And I urge this community to let cities continue to plan for their residents and to balance those needs of everyone. Um, one example that was brought up is that I 15 has a 12 foot lane width. Our downtown has no business utilizing 12 foot wide lanes, and the design dictates the behavior, um, of the people driving on them. When people have 12 foot wide lanes, they drive like they're still on the freeway. And as a multimodal commuter in Salt Lake City, I don't want people behaving that way. Even the 11 foot minimum feels excessive. Um, and I would urge the legislature to not regulate the way that city's designed their street networks. And I don't like the precedent that this sets for the rest of the state. Thank you.

Thank you. You, are you ready for a motion or where are we? Or do you want any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just wanna thank all the people that showed up today to speak to this bill. Um, I know that, um, connectivity with bicycles is very important. Uh, I spent some time in Copenhagen a couple of years ago and it was incredible to bike all around the town and have that infrastructure in place for that. Um, I recognize that some of your major concerns are the ability to, um, impede traffic and not support bike bicycling. I I don't think that this is what we're trying to do here, but we're gonna keep working on that. I also understand that the connectivity in the state of, I mean in the city of Utah and the city of Salt Lake isn't great sometimes, and we're trying to work on that as well. The RA Trail Network mentioned on 1658 is really trying to work on creating a connectivity plan. So, um, and then also thinking about the state and local funding as being partners. Uh, I I just wanna recognize that I've heard your voices. I am very concerned about these things as well. It's great to see you all here and being a part of this process. Um, I, I know that Senator Harper has worked with many people on this bill and is continuing to work with people on this bill. So, um, I I'm trying to get most of your concerns addressed and heard. And, uh, I think that this is something that many of us want. And as a resident of a county of the first class I recognize sometimes we feel like our voice isn't heard because we are the only county of a first class. And I am very, very aware of that. And then being a city of a first class in a county of a first class is also very concerning for you guys. I understand that. So I know that I, we will be working on this bill and your, your voices have been heard and your concerns. I will try to address. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. And I appreciate those that have come out and, and spoke and that, and I want you to understand that we are concerned about safety here. We all also are concerned about how do we safely get people around this city. And, uh, I think that, uh, most of us have been very accustomed to having wide lanes or three lanes of traffic and, and now, um, to give that up to a bicycle and parking, there's consideration there. If I was a business owner and I lost some parking in front of my place, I would be concerned. But, uh, we're hearing you, I do have a couple questions for the sponsor and, and it from everybody. It sounds like the state's taking over this project's making all the decision, but I thought this is a partnership. Isn't the city the one that's making that in conjunction with, with udot using the funding that comes from the Highway fund?

Correct. Uh, Salt Lake City, like every city gets, uh, b and C road funds. There's, uh, been instances also where we have done special allocations, the request of City for, for the Roads and, and Transit Pro projects. But yeah, this is, I mean, one of the, one of the people said, well, we want some technical changes to the bill. That's not the intent of this bill. It's to establish a framework. And then Udot and the Salt Lake and Salt Lake City work together on implementing it. Salt Lake City puts everything in place and reviews that on the tier one roads with, uh, udot, make sure that it is in conformance with a statewide, you know, transportation and TIF program.

Okay. So we're not making the decisions here. It's locally based in conjunction with our transportation specialists and then the funding that comes and the strings attached to that. It, we don't own all the streets in this city. Correct. And so the state does have an interest in which streets we do put, you know, at risk if we're putting bikes on high traffic ones, we don't want that. And so the city has a lot of say, so I appreciate your efforts on this, but I don't want people to think that we did not read it or we're not concerned. We are concerned and we want to make the best possible traffic around, uh, survey that we can do. So that going forward, I mean, if, if we had a plan in 2006 and we're just getting there, I mean, it's been long in the process of trying to establish where we're gonna do that. It'll be safe. So that's all I have to say.

Senator Kwan, Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question for the, for the sponsor. Um, just, um, wanted to make sure and, and let me thank you for all of the work that you've done on this. I know that you've done a ton of work in making sure that stakeholders have been there and have, uh, given input on here. And it is apparent with some of the testimony, um, from the city council members. Um, here, I'm, uh, just wanting to know if the work is still continuing this, is this your intention to be the final bill or are you still looking at maybe some tweaks?

I don't think you have Bill is ever final bill until it's signed by the governor. Yeah. There's, there's things that, uh, you know, have been brought up here and other, other information I have. We'll continue the dialogue.

Great. Thank you. It's good to hear that. I, there are some things I think that can be tightened up, um, in, in language or I would suggest later, uh, to do that. But thank you. Thank

Thank you. And move that we pass out first substitute Senate Bill 2 42, the floor with favorable recommendation. And if I can speak to that, you can. Okay. Thank you. I just, first of all, I wanna thank Salt Lake City for the Loa many, many months of dialogue and productive dialogue that we've had. I appreciate everybody who's come here to speak. I've taken a note from everybody and all their names, and I'll be reviewing that as, as well as to what we can do. This will be an ongoing conversation. People know that I and everybody in the legislator have a passion for safety. I believe this bill supports multim multiple transportation. Uh, this doesn't do anything to widen or add lanes. And I think looking at my history, I've run the bills to establish Utah Trail Network, the Active Transportation Investment Fund, the Transit Transportation Investment Fund, and other things like that to make sure that people have choices. And I think this bill goes through and enables things in the capital city to run for move forward in a productive basis. Um, and with that, uh, I support the bill.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, I actually wanted to explain my vote before we actually vote, if that's okay with you. That'll

Thank you. So, um, my, my thinking is that this, this bill will, will move forward. Um, I, uh, appreciate, again, I wanna make sure that everybody here understands how much I appreciate the voices that have been heard today have been, and, and those that weren't able to give a testimony for whatever reason I've heard, uh, much, uh, from, uh, people in emails and texts and phone calls. And I appreciate those. Um, I appreciate the input from the Salt Lake City Council that really helped me to understand the amount of work that has been, uh, put in here, uh, by Senator Harper. Um, I also want to, uh, point out that the differences between the first sub and the second sub has been, I'm sorry, by the original bill. And the first sub has, has been tremendous. It's a really a, a good move in, in the right direction. Um, and I appreciate that. Uh, I think many of the concerns that were brought up today, uh, were actually taken care of in the first sub. Um, and, and I think that the first sub allows the residents to continue their voicing their concerns and working on the issues that they're concerned about with the city where it, the decision should be made. Um, however, um, I think that there is some language that, that it needs to be, um, or can be tightened up a bit. There's some vagueness that gives me pause. Uh, to, uh, see how that some of the language might have impacts on, on decisions, uh, in the, in the future. Um, also, I, uh, am, uh, you know, we, we got this sub just before, you know, just before committee is as I know Senator Harper's been working on this, um, up until, you know, the, the time of our committee. So I, I understand that, and this is not faulting him. I would like to, as Senator Riebe, um, perhaps has said, uh, publicly to pump the brakes, right? And no pun intended or maybe, right. Um, and so, uh, that's why I will vote in the way that I will, I'm, I'm gonna, uh, be a no now, but I could absolutely change should this move forward to a yes. Uh, I'm not now.

No, I already summed. Okay.

Um, after the first substitute came out, there was some additional discussion with stakeholders including Salt Lake County as to, uh, not, I'm sorry, Salt Lake City. As to some of the technical wording. As we move forward with the, uh, repeal of Senate Bill 1 95, it, uh, go through and increases the, uh, bonding authorization for commuter rail expansion from 2 32 to 530 million that is not intended to be used, but if we don't get all the money from the federal government for double tracking, it's a backstop, uh, goes through and, uh, clarifies some of the use of these, uh, Salt Lake County, uh, infrastructure loan bank, uh, fund that is there, who it goes to, uh, goes through and, and clarifies some of, uh, with, in conjunction to the stakeholders some of the, uh, towing, uh, language that's in the bill. Um, and then, uh, goes through and clarify some of the duties of goo in regard to HD h DZs.

Yeah, there's, there's been a lot of discussion on that and I really appreciate the people who have been involved with this. I think it's a good bill going forward for transportation deals with, uh, UTA, uh, clarifying Road user charge, um, conveyance of property by udot, uh, direction of the fifth, fifth and things like that. So with that, I'm open for any questions.

Senator Cullimore. Thank You President. I have a floor amendment

So this amendment just, uh, in, in the good sender's bill it, it moves some money around related to the fifth of the fifth that was recently imposed. And this just clarifies where that, that, that, that the money will still get spent for transit, but that it will, uh, move to an account that will be administered or, or at least appropriated by the legislature.

It's, it's online but it's uh oh, It's exactly online. Yeah.

I was gonna try to follow you online. Uh, seeing that it's actually amendment one in your name. Senator, that helps me a lot.

I think it's a friendly amendment.

Thank you. Uh, that completes my presentation.

Thank I'll waive summation to move that second substitute Senate bill 2 42 as amended. Be read for a third time. Thank

Thank you Mr. President. I'd like to explain my vote. Um, I am very, uh, uh, thankful, uh, to the good senator for all of the work that he's done on this and making sure that the stakeholders had a say in this. He's worked very hard with stakeholders who, uh, often don't agree and I think he's done a really good job in that. Um, I will also be meeting with stakeholders tomorrow, but because of all of the good work that he's had today, I'm going to be an eye on too.

Yes. There were some changes that were made, uh, on the, uh, fifth, fifth funds, uh, in the bill. We are undoing those changes and clarifying that the money from the, uh, 0.1 that goes to the, uh, uh, into transportation, into transit, half goes to the county. There half goes to the TTF, and the clarification is into the commuter rail, uh, fund.

Thank you. This bill goes through and has a lot of, uh, cleanups on it. It goes through and, and exempt buses from operating in a, uh, that they may go through and, and park in a bike bike lane if they need to catch up on their timeframes. Uh, exempts, uh, udot from certain requirements related to the conveyance of real property so they can operate, uh, and build the, uh, front runner, uh, goes through and, um, increases bonding authorization just in case we need it for front runner defines and establishes the Utah, uh, trail network clarifies the duties of executive director during a natural disaster, uh, clarifies and requires that local governments that receive funds from the county first class project, highway project funds to report on those, um, goes through and clarifies the use of, uh, the rail safety rail, uh, road transportation fund for the repair of state owned, uh, tracks. And then it includes the agreements that were reached to with Salt Lake City regarding the repeal Senate bill in 1 95 last year. And the agreements put in place for moving forward, uh, in our capital city for, uh, transportation.

Thank you. I'd move that, uh, second substitute Senate bill 2 42 as amended pass.

Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Brammer bus Comore Aye. Escamilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kinins. Aye. Ipson a Johnson. Aye. Quan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher No. Plum re sandal Aye. Stevenson Aye. Stratton Aye. Bickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adams Aye. Second substitute Senate Bill 2 42, having received 20 yay votes, seven nay votes two being absent.

Third motion to encircle first substitute Senate bill two 17.

Madam Marine Clerk Third substitute Senate Bill 2 42, transportation Amendments by Senator Harper. This bill was served in transportation with a vote of 9 1 2. The House sponsors, Representative Christofferson.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill has quite a bit in it, and I'll try to unpack it here a little bit, but, uh, it's a transportation omnibus bill that talks about, uh, first of all, it goes through allowing political subdivisions, uh, to, uh, to, uh, prohibit mobile businesses like food trucks or something like that during, uh, certain times of years, celebrations or something. They might move 'em or have 'em temporarily relocate them somewhere else, uh, during that period of time. Also, um, it also puts a user, uh, charge a road user charge on electric, uh, commercial trucks or vehicles that are over 6,000 pounds. So this isn't personal vehicles. This, these are commercial vehicles, and it's a cap of $500 a year. It exempts buses that are operating, uh, on a planned route. Sometimes they're a little ahead of schedule. They, they cross over, they're able to cross over, um, bike lanes and stop for a period of time there while they, while their schedule, uh, uh, the time goes on to match their schedule. So, um, the Department of Transportation also, um, is exempted from certain requirements, uh, when they convey real property. So, uh, it's a real burden for them, uh, as much property as they go through that. They, it reduces that burden, uh, for udot on real property. And, um, there's a sales tax exemption for construction materials, uh, that, that UDOT performs on Public transit capital. So they get, UDOT has that exemption for roadways. This just puts that on transit projects as well. Um, there's some local options, sell taxes for transportation that amends the allowed use, and it grants the second counties of the second class, uh, to use that for some safety purposes. It also increases the bonding authorization to four to $530 million for commuter rail expansion. And that's, uh, um, on the, uh, on the, uh, double tracking. It defines the Utah Trial Network. It, uh, delegates authority of the transportation, uh, department director in case there's a natural disaster. Uh, he can take care of, uh, some of the concerns that happen in that case. Um, it requires a role, uh, reporting, uh, reporting on expenditures and progress for counties of the first class, uh, on local government, uh, requires the local governments to provide that report. And, let's see, it allows the Transportation Commission to prioritize transportation investment funds for corridor preservation and puts parameters around that. It also, uh, allocates revenue from the county of the first class highway project fund. And there's some, uh, railroad transportation funds, uh, that it allows to use for repairing tracks and rail infrastructure locate on state lands. It also, um, uh, waive sovereign immunity for public transit, uh, projects. There's, uh, some, uh, transit projects that, uh, if there's some, um, uh, a safety concern that they can deal with that and do, do that in private, um, men's definition of the transportation purposes. It, uh, oh, we went through, uh, some towing concerns. We actually, uh, pulled out an amendment that required the tows to use two, uh, uh, two systems to input their, uh, information when they tow. And we just said, no, you can use the same towing, um, service, but you just have to have, uh, we have to have a way of contacting you. So they have to have an online presence. And the tows were in line with that. They were happy with that. Um, and then the last part of this, uh, uh, last year we passed SB one, uh, 1 75 that talked about, was it 1 75 or 95? Anyway, they talked about the, uh, traffic calming measures in Salt Lake City. And we we're actually repealing the, the, um, study that was, uh, to be done on that. We're repealing that, and we've worked with Salt Lake City, uh, and Udot to say, look, just come up with agreement. We'll identify what kind of roads that Udo's interested in, what kind of roads that Salt Lake City's interested in, come up with agreement on how to make it safe and for, for bikers and for, uh, pedestrians, and be able to get around with your, uh, with, um, emergency vehicles and delivery delivery trucks. So this is an effort to say we need to, uh, we need to come to a compromise on this. And Salt Lake City's been really good about, uh, working with us over the summer, and I think I've covered the bases on that. It's a, it's a lot of information, but I'd be glad, hap I'd be happy to answer any questions on it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'd like to move substitute four to SB 2 42 in my name. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? I would. Um, Mr. Speaker, sometimes bills of this magnitude have embedded within them little Easter eggs of that may deserve additional attention. I, uh, this body has seen those in the past, and we are seeing them, unfortunately here again, I think when we're talking about the people's money as it relates to, specifically to the provisions of roads, that a process that is fair, open, transparent, and certainly not last minute in a bill of this size, deserves their attention. Now, this substitute does add some clarifying pieces as it relates to towing, as the good sponsor mentioned, but it cleans up what has otherwise been embedded here and, and allows those dollars perhaps, however, unfairly spent to be reexamined in a better and more transparent process, rather than a bill of thousands and thousands and thousands of lines.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, a question for the sponsor of the substitute Representative Snider, will you yield to a question? I will, yes. Representative Romero, Any of the provisions related to, are there any provisions now with this four substitute that impact Salt Lake City directly?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. My, the, the provisions that are addressed in this substitute specifically deal with road projects across various parts of Salt Lake County.

So there's, um, Mr. Speaker follow up question, Representative will yield to a follow up question. So there's no difference in relationship to the City of Salt Lake from the third substitute and the fourth substitute outside of what you just mentioned. Thank You. Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question?

Yes, we're, we're dealing specifically with transportation provisions, though there are some other provisions that we're negotiated on this bill dealing with towing and, and the good representative from Utah County can address those as colleagues. As you're looking at this bill. Um, look at the comparison. Most of the changes in this bill are on long lines, 26 0 7, 33, 84, 34, 18, 34, 30 4,044, et cetera. So, but they're, it's mostly targeted at projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, answer the questions to my answers, my, well the answers to my questions. Thanks.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am looking at the new sub in regards to, um, mobile businesses and operations. And my question, I have a question. Sorry, I didn't, Representative Snider, will you yield two question?

I will, Mr. Speaker though, I may, I would tell the representative from Salt Lake County that her question would be best answered by the representative from Utah County.

Oh, yes. Sorry, Mr. Christofferson, uh, or sorry, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Snider, will you just address whether or not your substitute addresses?

Yes. Representative Demeanor's Question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does have provisions addressing towing that have been negotiated by the representative from Utah County In, In the sub substitute fourth substitute.

Okay. Yes, I am. I I did see the, um, amendments to towing. I also saw line 96 mobile businesses. Um, and in terms of, I'm assuming food trucks and how, um, municipalities play a role in, in, um, allowing food trucks. I, the reason why I'm I bringing this up is, um, we work out of a business with multiple food trucks, and a lot of times those owners are not really versed in a lot of code and how we are going to be marketing this information, um, to food halls where the food preps preparations happen, and how municipalities will be working with the food truck industry and supporting them. Thank you. Is that a question? Yeah, Sorry. Yes. A question.

I'd be glad to. Thanks. Yes, go ahead, representative. So on food trucks, uh, this just allows the c cities, the municipalities to say if we're having an event that, uh, for safety reasons, we need to have the food trucks relocate somewhere else, they can ask them to do that. Otherwise, it doesn't change what the food truck industry can do.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You. Uh, yeah, there are a bunch of roads that, uh, the, the cities can pr, uh, prioritize. It's separate from the UDOT prioritization process. And, uh, so I think what the substitute is doing, uh, substitute is doing, is saying, um, it hasn't completely gone through the process of, uh, of accepting those, or the, the process of, uh, of making sure that those are the ones that the cities want and not just other people. So, uh, I, I am good with the sub. I think it helps, and it does clarify on, um, on the, uh, tow trucks that, uh, the towing industry just has to have an online pre presence, uh, somewhere so that people can contact them. Doesn't say that they have to have, uh, a website. So makes it easier for 'em.

No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions and I appreciate the good sponsor's work on this bill, and I hope that this substitute and the discussions that will unfold after this result in a more fair and trans process to all parties involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concerns about this bill. And I guess my major concern is we have, it's, my understanding is the constitutional provision, but also rules that say that a bill should cover one subject. Now this says transportation, but we've got tow trucks, food trucks, purchasing of equipment, electric vehicles, school buses. Um, I'm trying to remember what else is in there, but there's, there's something to do with taxes in there. There's a lot in this bill. And in my mind, this actually, it exceeds one issue. It, it is so broad and big that it doesn't meet with our rules or the Constitution to say one bill, one subject. And so for that reason, I'm very concerned about it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I wanna commend the sponsors of this bill with working with Salt Lake City, especially repealing SB 1 95. But I still, in my heart of hearts, can't vote for this bill 'cause my constituents feel like it's a legislature trying to tie the hands of Salt Lake City. But I want to thank the sponsor for working with our city, meeting with our city leaders and, um, finding a happy compromise with them, but that they might, the compromise might be with our city leadership, but I can tell you the emails we are receiving from Salt Lake City are not in favor of this bill. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to still get through this fourth sub, but will the sponsor yield to a few questions? Representative Christofferson, will you yield?

I will, yes. Representative Peterson,

I'm looking on line seven 20 through 7 25. I, I know the towing industry along with the Highway patrol and many others with dispatch organizations spent countless hours discussing and fine tuning to get to sub three. And I'm just wondering, it looks like you're modifying some of the language that was in sub three, uh, and agreed upon by all parties as well as further down, um, in the four thousands, uh, four 4,041 to 4,046. Could you speak to what modifications you're making, uh, along those lines and, and if you've had conversations with all the parties that came to an agreement on this issue?

Yeah, thank you. Uh, we did have some meetings. In fact, this language that's crossed out was introduced and it created two systems because the Highway patrol wanted to have more information. And then after, uh, a conference that we had, uh, the Highway Patrol decided that they could just add a couple of more fields in the current system and get the information that they needed. And it, so it required a lot less work from the tows. They were glad that we did that. And the only other change is that we just said that they needed to have an online presence so we could contact them.

Oh, one more question if I might, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Um, so it's your testimony that the Utah Highway Patrol, the towing associations and the dispatch centers are all in agreeance with this language.

That's my understanding. The last word I got from them.

Yeah, I appreciate the comments on that. It is a big bill. We actually split this in half and I ran part of this as my bill that went over to Senate and this is the Senate's bill. So there, there's a lot to it, but, uh, I think we've been pretty careful and, and vetted that. Uh, uh, so I'd, uh, appreciate your support on that. Thank you.

to move substitute four to SB 2 42 in my name.

I would. Um, Mr. Speaker, sometimes bills of this magnitude have embedded within them little Easter eggs of that may deserve additional attention. I, uh, this body has seen those in the past, and we are seeing them, unfortunately here again, I think when we're talking about the people's money as it relates to, specifically to the provisions of roads, that a process that is fair, open, transparent, and certainly not last minute in a bill of this size, deserves their attention. Now, this substitute does add some clarifying pieces as it relates to towing, as the good sponsor mentioned, but it cleans up what has otherwise been embedded here and, and allows those dollars perhaps, however, unfairly spent to be reexamined in a better and more transparent process, rather than a bill of thousands and thousands and thousands of lines.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, a question for the sponsor of the substitute Representative Snider, will you yield to a question? I will, yes. Representative Romero, Any of the provisions related to, are there any provisions now with this four substitute that impact Salt Lake City directly?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. My, the, the provisions that are addressed in this substitute specifically deal with road projects across various parts of Salt Lake County.

So there's, um, Mr. Speaker follow up question, Representative will yield to a follow up question. So there's no difference in relationship to the City of Salt Lake from the third substitute and the fourth substitute outside of what you just mentioned. Thank You. Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question?

Yes, we're, we're dealing specifically with transportation provisions, though there are some other provisions that we're negotiated on this bill dealing with towing and, and the good representative from Utah County can address those as colleagues.

As you're looking at this bill. Um, look at the comparison. Most of the changes in this bill are on long lines, 26 0 7, 33, 84, 34, 18, 34, 30 4,044, et cetera. So, but they're, it's mostly targeted at projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, answer the questions to my answers, my, well the answers to my questions. Thanks.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am looking at the new sub in regards to, um, mobile businesses and operations. And my question, I have a question. Sorry, I didn't, Representative Snider, will you yield two question?

I will, Mr. Speaker though, I may, I would tell the representative from Salt Lake County that her question would be best answered by the representative from Utah County.

Oh, yes. Sorry, Mr. Christofferson, uh, or sorry, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Snider, will you just address whether or not your substitute addresses?

Yes. Representative Demeanor's Question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does have provisions addressing towing that have been negotiated by the representative from Utah County In, In the sub substitute fourth substitute.

Okay. Yes, I am. I I did see the, um, amendments to towing. I also saw line 96 mobile businesses. Um, and in terms of, I'm assuming food trucks and how, um, municipalities play a role in, in, um, allowing food trucks. I, the reason why I'm I bringing this up is, um, we work out of a business with multiple food trucks, and a lot of times those owners are not really versed in a lot of code and how we are going to be marketing this information, um, to food halls where the food preps preparations happen, and how municipalities will be working with the food truck industry and supporting them. Thank you.

So on food trucks, uh, this just allows the c cities, the municipalities to say if we're having an event that, uh, for safety reasons, we need to have the food trucks relocate somewhere else, they can ask them to do that. Otherwise, it doesn't change what the food truck industry can do.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My apologies. Thank You. Uh, yeah, there are a bunch of roads that, uh, the, the cities can pr, uh, prioritize. It's separate from the UDOT prioritization process. And, uh, so I think what the substitute is doing, uh, substitute is doing, is saying, um, it hasn't completely gone through the process of, uh, of accepting those, or the, the process of, uh, of making sure that those are the ones that the cities want and not just other people. So, uh, I, I am good with the sub. I think it helps, and it does clarify on, um, on the, uh, tow trucks that, uh, the towing industry just has to have an online pre presence, uh, somewhere so that people can contact them. Doesn't say that they have to have, uh, a website. So makes it easier for 'em.

No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions and I appreciate the good sponsor's work on this bill, and I hope that this substitute and the discussions that will unfold after this result in a more fair and trans process to all parties involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concerns about this bill. And I guess my major concern is we have, it's, my understanding is the constitutional provision, but also rules that say that a bill should cover one subject. Now this says transportation, but we've got tow trucks, food trucks, purchasing of equipment, electric vehicles, school buses. Um, I'm trying to remember what else is in there, but there's, there's something to do with taxes in there. There's a lot in this bill. And in my mind, this actually, it exceeds one issue. It, it is so broad and big that it doesn't meet with our rules or the Constitution to say one bill, one subject. And so for that reason, I'm very concerned about it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I wanna commend the sponsors of this bill with working with Salt Lake City, especially repealing SB 1 95. But I still, in my heart of hearts, can't vote for this bill 'cause my constituents feel like it's a legislature trying to tie the hands of Salt Lake City. But I want to thank the sponsor for working with our city, meeting with our city leaders and, um, finding a happy compromise with them, but that they might, the compromise might be with our city leadership, but I can tell you the emails we are receiving from Salt Lake City are not in favor of this bill. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to still get through this fourth sub, but will the sponsor yield to a few questions?

I will, yes. Representative Peterson,

I'm looking on line seven 20 through 7 25. I, I know the towing industry along with the Highway patrol and many others with dispatch organizations spent countless hours discussing and fine tuning to get to sub three. And I'm just wondering, it looks like you're modifying some of the language that was in sub three, uh, and agreed upon by all parties as well as further down, um, in the four thousands, uh, four 4,041 to 4,046. Could you speak to what modifications you're making, uh, along those lines and, and if you've had conversations with all the parties that came to an agreement on this issue?

Yeah, thank you. Uh, we did have some meetings. In fact, this language that's crossed out was introduced and it created two systems because the Highway patrol wanted to have more information. And then after, uh, a conference that we had, uh, the Highway Patrol decided that they could just add a couple of more fields in the current system and get the information that they needed. And it, so it required a lot less work from the tows. They were glad that we did that. And the only other change is that we just said that they needed to have an online presence so we could contact them.

Oh, one more question if I might, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Um, so it's your testimony that the Utah Highway Patrol, the towing associations and the dispatch centers are all in agreeance with this language.

That's my understanding. The last word I got from them.

Yeah, I appreciate the comments on that. It is a big bill. We actually split this in half and I ran part of this as my bill that went over to Senate and this is the Senate's bill. So there, there's a lot to it, but, uh, I think we've been pretty careful and, and vetted that. Uh, uh, so I'd, uh, appreciate your support on that. Thank you.

Thank you and move to Concur. Motion to Concur. Talk About about some of the changes. There was, uh, some, uh, changes dealing with, uh, towing and a couple other provisions of the code. The house, uh, stripped out a couple funding things that we had in there, but, uh, we need to get it passed tonight.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. I move to reconsider on house Bill five 13. I inadvertently left off a, an amendment that I had approved online. It's a one word amendment, but I need to, a motion to reconsider, uh, gimme the bill number again, I need the bill number. Uh, Five 13.

I'm gonna place that bill back on the top of the second reading calendar where it came from. I'll call the bill