MINUTES OF THE
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 22, 1997 - 9:00 a.m. - Room 414 State Capitol
Members Present:
Sen. R. Mont Evans, Senate Chair
Rep. David Ure, House Chair
Sen. Leonard M. Blackham
Sen. George Mantes
Rep. Brian R. Allen
Rep. John B. Arrington
Rep. DeMan "Bud" Bowman
Rep. Craig W. Buttars
Rep. Blake D. Chard
Rep. Greg J. Curtis
Rep. Marda Dillree
Rep. James R. Gowans
Rep. John E. Swallow
Rep. Richard L. Walsh
mechanism through the B and C process should be a priority. He pointed out that when the
highway bill passes, counties often find out they own roads they didn't know they owned.
Commissioner Dan McConkie, Davis County, noted that local jurisdictions may place a
different priority on a particular road than UDOT would. There are many counties that have
subsidized their road projects out of property taxes. He indicated that the transfer process is
probably a good process, however, funding beyond seven years is paramount to the local
jurisdictions.
Mr. David Spatafore, Utah League of Cities and Towns, stated the Joint Highway
Committee met one month ago and unanimously approved a resolution that local governments
should oppose the transfer of any roads unless the 75/25 distribution is changed to accommodate
the transfer of roads. He distributed two letters - one from Thomas Warne, UDOT, to the Mayor
of Grantsville and one from Midvale City. The league believes it is in the best interest of the
state of Utah's transportation system and many of the municipalities and counties to accept the
jurisdiction of these roads only if UDOT adequately corrects any existing problems.
Mr. Brent Gardner, Utah Association of Counties, stated the issue is a question of
whether counties and cities will have the resources to maintain the mileage after it is transferred.
There is some concept among local officials that there is an attempt to transfer the mileage
without a fair transfer of the revenue.
Ms. Paulina Flint, White City Water Improvement District, indicated one of the main
concerns of taxpayers is that the funds should be earmarked and not put into a general fund.
MOTION: Sen. Blackham moved that UDOT, the Highway Transfer Task Force, and representatives of local government develop agreed upon terms to be included in draft legislation
that would: 1) transfer roads; and 2) modify the percentage of funds going to the B & C Road
Fund from 25% to some higher percentage. The mechanics of that change should be discussed
by the different committees that have been working on this issue. Their recommendations on the
mechanics of the transfer should be brought back before the committee for its action. After
determining the specific terms, draft legislation would be prepared for the November meeting.
The motion passed unanimously. Rep. Swallow was absent during the vote.
3. Draft Legislation Regarding Alternate Form of County Government - Chair Evans explained that a motion was made earlier in the year to not take action on the issue contingent on
the fact that Salt Lake County was having an election on alternate forms of government. Since
that time Salt Lake County has made the decision not to hold an election on the issue. A bill was
brought forth by Salt Lake County to propose some changes in the law. He stated that the item is
before the committee for discussion only.
Mr. Rees distributed a copy of proposed legislation, "Optional Forms of County
Government." He has started the process of rewriting the law but has not yet completed it.
Commissioner Mary Callaghan, Salt Lake County Commission, stated there are many
inconsistencies and ambiguities in the current law. She reviewed the summary of proposed
changes which was mailed to committee members. Commissioner Callaghan said the legislation
is beneficial to all counties because it clarifies the statute under which they operate.
Mr. Gavin Anderson, Salt Lake County, explained that a county that wants to examine its
form of government needs to make a decision as to whether it wants to have separation of
powers. With a County Commission form of government there is no separation of powers
between executive and legislative. Other counties in the state have indicated they would like to
slightly change their form of government. He reviewed the executive and legislative options.
Mr. Gardner distributed a letter regarding alternative forms of county government. He
requested that the Legislature seek the expertise and input of the county officials presently
serving under the options in place now. County officials would like to feel that the Legislature is
actually recognizing the positions that they hold in these structural forms of government. He
stated it is the general feeling among county officials that many of the problems are more
associated with personnel rather than structural problems in government.
Rep. Ure suggested drafting two bills - one regarding the change of the form of
government and another one to make the necessary statutory changes.
4. Municipal Withdrawal from Water District - Rep. Allen discussed proposed legislation, "Amendments to County Improvement Districts for Water Services" that was mailed
to committee members. He said the issue was hotly debated during the last session. He felt the
legislation reflected the will of the people. The bill allows for a citizen petition drive of 25
percent of property owners to petition the city council to withdraw from a special district if the
city provides a similar service. He reviewed the process as outlined in the bill.
Mr. Paul Ashton, attorney with Boyack, Ashton, and Jenkins, distributed information
from White City Water Improvement District, expressing some of their concerns with the details
of the bill. They believe the bill is aimed at a site specific situation--the White City/Sandy City
dispute--and constitutes special legislation which is forbidden by the Utah Constitution. He said
it does not make sense to pass a bill relating to the White City/Sandy City issue when the
Legislature may be rewriting the entire statute on special districts. Mr. Ashton agreed that it is
true that some residents of Sandy City would like to get out of the White City Water
Improvement District. Those residents did not file a protest when the district was created even
though they had an opportunity to do so. The bill puts the process under the control of the city
council. The district would prefer to see the process handled at the county level. He reviewed
the district's water distribution system. It must be determined whether the district can remain a
viable entity with the removal of such a large area. If not, there is a serious possibility of
defaults on bonds.
Mayor Tom Dolan, Sandy City, expressed his support for the proposed legislation. It is
fair and equitable to ask the residents of Sandy City whether or not they would like to withdraw
from the district and be serviced by Sandy City. It is appropriate for county residents to want to
continue to service themselves with water. He felt everyone being serviced should pay the same
rates. He said they believe it is their right, responsibility, and obligation to provide this
municipal service to their residents who are already paying taxes for it. He said they are only
asking for their fair share to pay off the debts that their residents are obligated for.
Commissioner Randy Horiuchi, Salt Lake County Commission, explained that when the
commission chartered the district, it was done to prevent Sandy City from purchasing the White
City Water System and charging a differential rate. However, the commission did not realize at
the time how many incorporated residents were affected by the creation of the White City Water
Improvement District. He said the three county commissioners support the concept to allow
residents who are negatively affected by a double taxation situation the opportunity to opt out.
Mr. Keenan Roylance, Sandy resident, said he and many other Sandy residents feel they
were led astray as the district was formed. He expressed concern that the elections are not held
in adequate facilities. He did not believe Sandy City residents were given an adequate chance to
choose if they wanted to be part of another governmental entity. He said they are asking for a
logical method of withdrawing from the district.
Mr. Ashton stated the district's water rates are substantially similar to Sandy City's rates.
In determining where the election should be held this November, the Board of Trustees looked at
what other districts were doing. The district has sent out a mailing to residents within the district
with candidate information sheets and a map. He said if a bill were to be submitted at the next
session, they would try to work with Rep. Allen to work out a system whereby the district can be
held harmless.
Ms. Susan Schildmeyer, concerned citizen, stated with the existing tanks, plumbing, and
pipes, it would be easy for Sandy City to provide services for her area. Before White City
bought the water in her area, they were serviced by Salt Lake County Water Conservancy
District. She noted that anyone who wants to opt out of White City should be able to opt out not
only to the municipality of Sandy City but also to the conservancy district. The districts have a
fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to give them the lowest water rates available.
Mr. Jan Furner, Special Districts Association, indicated it is important that both sides
have an opportunity for fairness. The legislation is a major attempt to address that issue.
5. Status Report - Special Districts Subcommittee - Mr. Rees stated the subcommittee was formed in July and has met and discussed policy issues relating to special districts, how they
fit within the framework of local governments, and their uniformity of creation. He briefly
reviewed the format the subcommittee has been following. The subcommittee will meet next
month to develop more specific details to propose to the full committee.
Rep. Ure stated they are trying to do everything possible to get information to the citizens
about what special districts do. The subcommittee has discussed moving elections for special
districts to general election day and making more polls available. They have even discussed the
dissolution of special districts and the theories and philosophies of how that might take place.
Rep. Swallow stated one of the discussions the subcommittee has had was where to
balance the rights to serve members of a municipality or county when there is the potential
conflict between services provided by a special district and services provided by a municipality
or county. There was also discussion of the nature of a general service subdivision versus special
service district.
Rep. Dillree indicated that the subcommittee has come to realize the value of special
districts and the role they play. The proliferation of special districts, however, has gotten out of
control. One of the suggestions that has come to the subcommittee is to have a one-year
moratorium to move the process forward. The committee should consider making that
recommendation.
MOTION: Rep. Gowans moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.