Feb 14
HB140 (Amended) — To Protect Those Who Protect Us
2009 at 8:15 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 8 comments

Disclosure
When I was in my late teens, I was pulled over by a UHP trooper just north of Nephi on I-15 and given a citation for $23. 62 mph in a 55 mph zone. My dad was sitting next to me in the passenger seat. As best I can remember, this was the only moving violation I’ve ever been cited for. I said…that I’ve been cited for.
We Swear To Uphold…
As legislators we take an oath of office. We promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United Sates and the Constitution of This State. At least a couple times a year I make a point of reviewing these historic documents. And, although historic by writ, they are in fact just as applicable today as the day they were penned.
So vital were the mandates expressly provided for in the US Constitution that the Founders dedicated the first paragraph (the Preamble) of the Document delineating the general guarantees of and provisions for the freedom, liberty, and security of its citizens. We the People of the United States…ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense… So, as lawmakers, we have taken upon ourselves the responsibility to provide citizens with a safe and secure society. What does that mean?
Budget Cuts and A Mandate of Security
When it became apparent last year that every segment of the state budget for FY09 and FY10 would require substantial cuts because of decreasing revenue sources, there were a number of concerned citizens who approached me about how we might maintain certain segments of public safety during the current economic downturn. Specifically at risk was the potential reduction of highway patrol forces on our state highways and roads. The Highway Patrol is our state highway’s elite force for public safety.
Budget Chopping Block
Revenue reductions in public safety are inevitable this year. Currently on the FY10 budget “chopping block” is 20% of our Utah Highway Patrol road forces. One out of every five officers will be fired to accommodate current budget shortfalls.
Any reasonable man (or woman) quickly recognizes the inherent problem created when over 60 troopers are removed from our state highways. On the surface alone, one quickly realizes that over 800 unchecked drivers who are under the influence (DUI) of intoxicants operating motor vehicles on our highways and state roads would be placing themselves and, more importantly, other drivers and pedestrians at risk of injury or death.
HB140 (Amended) Motor Vehicle Registration Fees Amendments
The Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) provided an analysis of the impact to public safety if 61 troopers had to be fired because of budget cuts. What does this mean?
An approximately 20% reduction in troopers (61 troopers) would mean a DECREASE of…
854 drunk driver arrests
3,538 accident investigations
39,894 traffic stops
915 felony and misdemeanor warrant arrests
58,377 calls for service (i.e. motorist assists, road debris, etc.)
117,730 hours of obligated time responding to emergencies
…across Utah’s highways in JUST ONE YEAR!
In Addition to these statistics by DPS, is the recent announcement by the Utah Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (DABC) that alcohol sales (4% alcohol and above) have increased $27 million over the past year with an increase in alcohol consumed from 2.076 (2007) to 2.132 (2008) gallons per capita. Not all these sales will translate to DUI; however, statistically it is inevitable some of these increased sales will result in increased DUI. We can count on and plan for an increase in DUI driver related accidents and fatalities on our highways.
They Live Among Us
Our troopers are our neighbors. We have a constitutional responsibility to protect them. By eliminating 61 troopers, we are eliminating their back-up, placing our troopers at greater risk during traffic stops and pursuits where peer assistance is critical. These men and women have families, friends, and loved ones who expect them to come home from work…just like the rest of us.
How Much Will This Cost Me?
We originally started with an estimate based on the firing of 42 troopers…we knew it would be between $1.50 and $2.00 per vehicle. The intent was to run the bill through at $2 and then adjust down appropriately. Now that the new numbers are out and the DPS considering a 61 trooper cut, it will be necessary to keep the fiscal note at $2 per vehicle per year. This will net approximately $5.351 million a year from registration fees to the Public Safety Restricted Account. The cost estimate from the DPS is $5.255 million for 61 troopers.
This fee isn’t a gratuitous tax imposed by glutinous politicians to bolster social programs and special interest; it is nothing less than a mechanism to provide revenues, for a restricted period of time, to maintain public safety during times of our struggling economy. What I am asking for is a fee to be imposed on those vehicles traveling the same highways that troopers police. Spreading the fee across the base of vehicle owners throughout the state will make maintaining public safety more manageable.
Three-Year Sunset
Built into the statutory language of this bill is the sunset date of June 30, 2012. A “sunset” requires the automatic repeal of this fee on that date. When that day comes (so says my crystal ball), the economy will have corrected itself to a point where the General Fund will support proper trooper levels on our highways, or, the legislature will have to consider adjusting the current (2012) statutory fee to hold trooper levels constant during additional market corrections (because I don’t really have a crystal ball).
To Protect and To Serve
Certainly the economy will correct itself. And, certainly in the meantime, many of us will struggle. Public safety is a responsibility we have a constitutional mandate to maintain during slow economic times.
Not only do we have an obligation to protect our citizens, we have a responsibility to protect those who protect us.
8 Responses to “HB140 (Amended) — To Protect Those Who Protect Us”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

February 14th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Your post above is very thoughtful. We urgently need effective UHP troopers. I think the only issue up for debate is who should pay for them. The solution you suggest, imposing a fee on the vehicles that create the need for the UHP troopers, does not redistribute wealth, nor is it unfair. In fact, it is just about ideal. Please consider using this “fee based” approach in other areas. UVU students pay most of the cost of their education, as do UTA riders. We should consider adopting this fee based (or user pay) approach in other areas as well.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Representative Frank, I agree with you. It IS the job of government to provide for the protection of its citizens. I, for one, have no problem paying $2/vehicle. Or $4 or $5 per vehicle to keep troopers on the road and drunk (or texting) drivers off of it. I blogged about it the day it was heard in committee and wondered if it made me a “bad conservative” to think it was a good idea. http://hollyonthehill.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/76/
I also learned that it is NOT a good idea to make absolute promises, as in “I will NEVER vote for a fee increase”. Better to have strong principles to guide you and realize that there IS a time and a place for gov’t. This is one of them. Thanks for leading out – and I would second Joel – let’s look at other places we can do the same sort of thing.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I think this is well thought out. (but a note to Joel, it is still redistribution of wealth. Heh)
In fact, I doubt it would be necessary to limit the increased fee to violators. We all benefit from effective law enforcement, and a small increase on an annual fee isn’t going to make or break anyone’s piggy bank, between now and the sunset.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Rep. Frank,
In light of your support for this fee increase, can you explain your opposition to increasing the marriage license fee to provide funding for the state’s domestic violence shelters. This would have increased the marriage license fee from $50 to $60.
Can you also explain how you will find this needed funding from another source?
February 18th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Joel — your fee-based idea breaks down when you consider UTA riders. They provide a benefit to everyone else on the road by taking traffic off the streets. By that reasoning, shouldn’t DMV fees also help provide funding for UTA? Business owners benefit from an educated workforce. Shouldn’t sales taxes help subsidize education at our universities?
I think the black-and-white fee-for-service notion that you’ve been espousing breaks down really quickly when you consider the big picture. I certainly don’t want to start paying tolls for every road I drive on.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Daniel,
I don’t quite follow your logic. It makes sense to me that If I drive on the highway, a couple of dollars to help support safety on the highway is reasonable.
However just because I get married does not mean I will abuse or be abused.
Yes, shelters etc should be funded, but by the community as a whole, not just those getting married.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
[...] on Motor Vehicle Fee Amendments. For an in-depth look at the issue, check out Rep. Frank’s blog. An overview of the committee discussion can be found [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
[...] Disclosure: Click HERE. [...]