governing bodies totally separate from the entity that created it. That raises the question of
whether or not they violate Article XIV, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution. The constitutional
language also specifically outlines the services authorized to be performed by special districts. It
appears some of the services currently authorized do not coincide with the ones authorized in the
constitution. He noted the Constitutional Revision Commission will be studying these issues.
Mr. Brian Farr, Attorney General's Office, stated there are some areas that could be
corrected with less than a full recodification, particularly Chapter 13 and the county service areas
which overlap with some special service districts.
Mr. Jan Furner, Special Districts Association, said if the committee opts for
recodification, they would volunteer to assist in that process.
MOTION: Rep. Allen moved to begin the process of recodification of Title 17A and to study the constitutional issue as well. The Constitutional Revision Commission will be asked to
report to the committee on the issue. The motion passed unanimously.
5. UDOT and Local Governments - Rep. Dillree distributed a summary of state and local highway jurisdiction transfers. She explained that in Davis County a Transportation Task Force
was formed from the Council of Governments. In November an issue was raised regarding the
working relationship with UDOT and local governments. She said if local governments can be
encouraged to supplement some of their resources with state funding for projects, it can be a
significant savings to the state. She felt there was a need to consider some consistency and
fairness in working with the communities to enhance and encourage that relationship.
Mr. John Quick, Utah Department of Transportation, stated jurisdictional transfers were
brought about as a result of S.C.R. 6. The resolution calls for the department to focus on two
tasks: 1) define the term "state route" and identify routes inconsistent with the definition and
with the department's mission and focus; and 2) develop a process to adjust the state highway
system to include only those highways meeting the definition. Two task forces were appointed
to address the process. The work of the task forces is approximately 95 percent complete.
Mr. Quick commented that when the Wilbur Smith study was done several years ago,
600-700 miles of state roads were identified that should be local roads. Under the new
definition, that amount has increased to 1,300 miles of roads. Mr. Quick indicated the plan is to
transfer those roads within seven years. UDOT will begin working with local jurisdictions
immediately upon approval of the process by the Transportation Commission to implement
transfers. Agreement by local governments to the transfer process will depend largely on the
probability of funding increases to the B & C fund within the next seven years. He explained
that UDOT will not transfer anything that is in obvious need of repair.
The committee discussed the need to determine if the Wilbur Smith study is still valid.
Mr. Quick indicated he would never dismiss all of the study, however, there are certain aspects of
the study that are no longer applicable.
Mr. Will Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council, explained that the Wasatch Front
Regional Council is an agency of local government made up of cities and counties within Salt
Lake, Davis, Weber, Morgan, and Tooele Counties. In the 1950s the federal government became
involved in building roads and built the interstate system. In the 1960s the federal law was
revised to state that urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more had to have a cooperative
relationship between local government and the state agency. In order to spend federal money in
the urban area, the project owner would receive the federal money to build it. The Wasatch Front
Regional Council became the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Salt Lake-
Ogden area. In Provo, the Mountainlands Association of Government became the MPO. In
1970 the Clean Air Act was passed which required that attention be given to highway and transit
projects that help reduce emissions from use of automobiles and trucks. The act was amended in
1990 to indicate that prior to building a road in an urban area, the planning process must
demonstrate that implementing the long-range transportation plan will not in any way interfere
with attaining the goals of the state air quality plan, created under the Clean Air Act.
Mr. David Spatafore, Utah League of Cities and Towns, indicated if the Wilbur Smith
study is no longer valid, other alternatives to the funding situation should be considered. Since
UDOT roads will be decreased by 25 percent, there should be a distinguishable feature in terms
of future revenue for local governments. If the B & C distribution formula is not increased,
when one community receives a road mile, the others get less funding. When extending the I-15
construction into Davis County or Utah County, that traffic will have to be moved elsewhere.
When the capacity of traffic on the local roads is increased, it shortens their life span. Mr.
Spatafore said the league would like to see the committee play an active role in the issue. He
recommended the committee create a subcommittee to address the issue.
6. Review Optional Forms of County Government - Mr. Wade distributed information on the optional forms of county government provided for under the current statute and the history of
the law. He stated when the Utah Constitution was adopted in 1896, the constitution contained a
requirement that all county governments be uniform. A resolution was passed in 1971 proposing
to amend the constitution, which was later ratified by the voters. Legislation was also passed at
that time establishing a framework for optional forms of county government. He explained the
statute provides the process by which county government can be changed. After a particular
proposal is adopted, the form of government cannot be changed for six years. Mr. Wade
discussed the combinations of governments that are allowed between structural and management
forms.
The committee discussed the problems that could arise as a result of studying the issue
now when Salt Lake County is in the middle of considering a transformation. Also discussed
was the ambiguity that exists in statute.
Commissioner Brent Overson, Salt Lake County Commission, noted that there needs to
be some changes made to the statute. He hoped that if the committee studied the issue, it would
not be a forum for upsetting Salt Lake County's process. There are significant conflicts in the
statutory requirements for chief executive and the county auditor. Those can be easily resolved
by the Legislature. He felt the matter should be studied.
Mr. Lee Gardner, Salt Lake County Assessor, distributed a letter outlining his position on
the direction the county is taking with the reformation of Salt Lake County government. He said
the proposed county plan gives too much power to one individual without maintaining the
necessary checks and balances.
Mr. Doug Short, Salt Lake County Attorney, stated there are provisions in the plan which
point out problems with the statute. To review it in that context would be helpful in order to
interpret those issues prior to adopting the plan. However, the committee should not be used as a
tool to help derail the county plan.
MOTION: Rep. Allen moved the committee not study this issue. The motion passed with Reps. Ure, Gladwell, and Walsh voting in opposition. Rep. Dillree was absent.
7. Committee Prioritization of Potential Study topics - Rep. Ure discussed the questionnaire on prioritization of study items for the committee which was mailed to the
members. These items were taken from the Master Study Resolution.
Sen. Evans stated the committee may want to discuss intent language regarding open
space in the south end of Salt Lake County.
MOTION: Rep. Chard moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Ure adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.