SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH — A newly proposed bill, S.B. 310, could pave the way for cities and counties in Utah to impose a fee on residents for the use of roads and sidewalks. The bill, known as the “Transportation Utility Fee Amendments,” is designed to help local governments fund the maintenance of infrastructure by creating a dedicated tax.
The bill, which has already passed the Senate, would allow municipalities and counties to establish a transportation utility fee, replacing or supplementing the traditional reliance on property taxes for road and sidewalk upkeep. The fee would vary depending on local government decisions, giving cities and counties the flexibility to determine the amount residents would pay. Under the Senate version of the bill, religious organizations would be exempt from this fee.
Sen. Brady Brammer, a Republican from Highland and the bill’s sponsor, noted that many cities already have a similar tax in place, and the new legislation would offer clear “guardrails” on how the tax is collected. For example, Brammer pointed to his own city of Highland, where residents are currently charged approximately $20 per month for the transportation utility fee.
“This is not a state-administered fee. This is something that each city has the opportunity to do for themselves,” Brammer said. He emphasized that the proposed law would give local governments more control over how they fund infrastructure maintenance, rather than relying on state-level taxes or property taxes.
If passed, the bill could change the way many local governments approach infrastructure funding, allowing for more direct and potentially more efficient allocation of resources. However, the bill is facing time constraints, as it is set to head to the House with just three days remaining in the legislative session.
As the clock ticks down, it remains to be seen whether the bill will gain enough support to make it into law. Proponents argue that it would provide a more reliable and targeted funding source for local roads and sidewalks, while critics may be concerned about additional fees for residents.
The future of S.B. 310 will be determined in the coming days as the legislative session draws to a close.