by the governing authority of the entity that created it and outlines what services it should provide.
There is some question as to whether some of the special districts might fall outside the parameters of
the provision. He pointed out that courts generally lean towards finding the statutes constitutional if
possible. Prior to 1975 there was no constitutional provision dealing with special districts. An
amendment was made in 1989 to the constitution which deleted the language grandfathering the
nonconforming special districts. An argument can be that by the deletion of the language, it intended
to eliminate the grandfather provision and require all special districts to conform to these requirements.
It is also argued that it was basically a technical change, therefore, it is not clear what was intended by
the amendment. Legislative history on the matter is not conclusive. There is debate surrounding the
original 1975 amendment and whether it was intended to apply to all special districts or simply to a
very narrow aspect of those special districts, namely a special service district. He pointed out that the
special service districts were placed in Title 17A as one of the 16 types of special districts.
Mr. Rees pointed out that this year the Constitutional Revision Commission will be focusing
specifically on provisions for special districts relating to the constitution.
Mr. Paul Ashton, representing special improvement districts, said special service districts are
generalized districts that can accomplish a number of purposes. He stated the constitutional
amendment adopted in 1975 was presented to address the lack of health care and the emergence of
HMOs. He felt the constitutional provision was being interpreted much broader than was originally
intended. The creation of special service districts was never intended to effect special improvement
districts.
Mr. Fred Finlinson, Callister, Nebeker & McCullough, stated he represents many special
service districts. He encouraged the committee to consider the full reason why the 16 special service
districts have been created and to determine whether there is still a valid reason for them to exist. They
were created by the Legislature to deal with a specific purpose and their responsibilities vary. Most of
the 16 special service districts were created before 1975. Mr. Finlinson stated the Utah Water
Coalition, has been discussing the issue. They are working on recommendations to submit to the
committee for legislation which will meet the needs of both the cities and districts.
Mr. Ken Minson, Utah Association of Special Districts, said he also works for a mosquito
abatement district. He stated there must be entities that address specific problems when they need to
be addressed.
The committee discussed several areas that should be addressed concerning special districts.
Rep. Ure suggested members write down their suggestions and submit them to staff.
MOTION: Rep. Bowman moved to approve the minutes of April 23, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Follow up - UDOT and Local Government - Rep. Dillree stated that working with flexibility with local government on a variety of issues and a fairness across the board are important. The
jurisdictional transfer issue is one of two issues.
Sen. Evans pointed out that the committee expressed concern with local governments being
forced into accepting roads that they did not feel they could maintain. The legislature, through a
resolution, has given UDOT the authorization to move ahead with the transfer process.
Mr. David Spatafore, Utah League of Cities and Towns, encouraged the committee's
participation in the process. The legislature needs to make sure that when the jurisdictional transfers
occur, they are done equitably for all entities. The league is in the process of letting local governments
know what roads are being considered. He pointed out, however, that municipalities not receiving
roads will also be impacted.
Mr. John Quick, UDOT, explained that they are in the process of developing an exemption
process for local governments not wanting to participate in the transfers. They want to begin now to
transfer roads to local governments that are willing to make the transfer.
Sen. Evans suggested the issue be put on the agenda in 60-90 days. UDOT within that time
frame could meet with representatives from local communities and draft criteria for opting out and
address a level of standards of roads.
MOTION: Rep. Curtis moved that UDOT immediately inform the local governments what roads are being looked at for jurisdictional transfers. A copy of the information should be provided to
the committee members. The motion passed unanimously.
Rep. Gladwell suggested that UDOT and a city representative be invited to address the
committee and report on how the transfer process worked.
4. Jail Reimbursement Program vs. Jail Contracting Program - Sen. Evans declared a conflict of interest since he is an employee of the Utah Department of Corrections.
Rep. Beverly Evans indicated there are many misconceptions surrounding jail reimbursement
versus contracting and partnerships with county governments and other agencies in dealing with the
state prison.
Mr. Haze Locke, Director of Inmate Placement Program, Department of Corrections,
distributed information concerning jail reimbursement and contract funding. He explained that jail
reimbursement is mandated by statute. Under the statute, the Utah Department of Corrections acts as a
pass-through agency moving funds to the county. If a person is convicted of a felony, and sentenced to
prison, the sentence may be stayed by the judge and the person given probation. As a condition of
probation, the person would serve a certain amount of time in the county jail. The statute now has a
price tag this year of over $6.4 million to be distributed among the 29 counties to pay for the people
sentenced to serve time in county jails as a condition of their probation. Jail contracting is entirely
different. Jails in the rural part of Utah are contracted with for their unused capacity to house inmates
sentenced to state prison. There are currently 324 prison inmates being contracted back to the State of
Utah. The number of projected contract beds for fiscal year 1999 is over 1,100. At a cost of $38 per
day the total annual cost will be over $15.5 million. Mr. Locke pointed out that it is cheaper for the
state to contract out. It costs over $60 per day to house an inmate at the state prison.
Rep. Allen expressed concern that if the state contracts at $15 million a year and owns no
buildings in the end he was not sure the state was coming out ahead in the long run.
Mr. Locke responded that the state is paying for the staff and benefits.
Rep. Chard stated he thought this was a budgeting issue that should ultimately be handled by an
appropriations committee.
Sheriff Sid Grow, Cache County, indicated the state will never pay from the state coffers what
it costs to reimburse the counties. He said he did not know of any county that could house a prisoner
for $38 per day. He stated they have policies and procedures that they use with the state procedures.
Sheriff Aaron Kennard, Salt Lake County, stated the county currently houses 150-200 state
inmates, however, not by contract. When the judge determines a felon is guilty and in lieu of
sentencing him to prison sentences him to the county jail, the sheriff has no input whatsoever. He said
this is the sole issue of jail reimbursement.
Sheriff Ed Phillips, Millard County, indicated they built a 42-bed facility and began contracting
with the state. Due to local use they have crowded the state out of the jail. They will be adding an
additional 60 beds to the jail. He stated that in the interim it is a benefit to both sides to utilize the beds
as long as they are available.
Sheriff Ralph Stansfield, Duchesne County, said it has been projected that their needs for the
next 30 years will require 110 beds. He noted that during the first few years they will make some
money and the state will help pay the bill, however, that will not be the case for very long.
Rep. Evans stated they would go back and review their approach to resolving the problem. She
indicated that this is only a temporary solution for a long-term problem. She said they recognize that
there needs to be coordination between the counties and the state in resolving this issue.
5. B & C Road Bid Limit Definition - Sen. Holmgren indicated the legislature put a lot of money into the B & C road budget. He noted there may be some reason to raise the limit by a small
amount. He said they will be looking at how to best utilize the funds that have been given them. He
requested that any effort in this matter be postponed at this time.
MOTION: Rep. Arrington moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.