issue the Legislature may want to visit. He distributed copies of photographs of the area in
question.
Rep. Olsen stated that individual property rights are sacred. It is important that the
committee review the laws pertaining to these rights.
Rep. Bowman expressed his appreciation to Mr. Call for his assistance and quick
resolution of a problem experienced by one of his constituents.
Sen. Blackham asked the committee to proceed cautiously to avoid opening the state up
to a cost and compensation issue which is probably immense in size.
Rep. Buttars indicated he would pursue legislation to address the misstatement of statute
issue.
Sen. Evans requested members contact Mr. Call, Rep. Olsen, or the chairmen with any
specific issues they want to address legislatively.
3. Optional Forms of County Government - Mr. Wade distributed information on the historical developments and overview of county governments in other states. He explained that
the information he is presenting is from several legal treatises. In the United States, the
development of our county is historically related to the English county administration of the 17th
century, when English colonies were planted in North America. However, US counties have
evolved and now vary dramatically. Historically, the county was solely the subdivision of the
state, constituted to administer state power and authority. It was created without regard to local
wishes and to serve as a body politic. Today, the roles, functions, powers, and relationship to the
state of counties and municipalities throughout the fifty states depends upon the proper
construction of the local constitutions and applicable statutes and their development as
governmental units as shown in the course of judicial decisions in the particular jurisdictions.
Mr. Wade explained that counties throughout the United States have common points of
resemblance, but frequently their respective duties, powers, and liabilities are widely variant.
For example, in some states, counties have a corporate status while in other states counties have a
quasi-corporate status. Corporateness may be defined as the legal capacity of an entity, other
than a natural person, to act. Municipalities have corporate status. Mr. Wade pointed out that
there is some form of county home rule in about 21 states. He noted that it is generally agreed
that counties are legal subdivisions of the states created for government purposes. However,
beyond that, American courts do not agree in the characterization of counties. He reviewed some
policy questions that the committee may want to consider.
Mr. Rees stated originally counties were viewed largely as administrative arms of the
state, however, in recent years legislation has been enacted which gives counties the authority to
provide municipal services. Prior to 1973 the constitution required that county government be
uniform throughout the state. The constitution was amended to require the Legislature to
prescribe optional forms of county government and to allow each county to select, subject to
referendum, the prescribed optional form which best serves its needs. The language can be
interpreted to mean that the forms outlined are the only forms that can be selected by a county.
Mr. Rees reviewed optional forms of county government in Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota, and
Virginia.
Mr. Karl Hendricksen, representing Utah Association of Counties, explained Mr. Brent
Gardner was not available to attend the meeting. He stated that counties recognize a dual role.
They are clearly agents of the state and bring state services by contract to the local Populus.
Counties have also grown into the role of a municipal services provider. Currently there are a
number of alternative structures available for counties to adopt. The view of the association is
that more counties would change their form, however, most of the forms available are too
extreme and radical to be fully accepted by the populus or the counties themselves. He said they
have a desire to create some sort of charter form of county government that would allow some
flexibility. It would require a constitutional amendment to allow a charter form.
Rep. Ure requested that the chairmen be allowed to meet with the Association of
Counties to discuss legislative options.
4. Legislative Audit - Copperton Improvement District - Mr. Tim Osterstock, Office of Legislative Auditor General, distributed a new report which includes the Copperton
Improvement District (CID) board response. He said the auditor's office has concluded its report
of allegations against the CID that surfaced during the last general session. As a result of the
review, the auditor believes that the CID has failed to follow sections of the Utah Code that
pertain to the operation of special districts and that CID has been lax in maintaining internal
management controls. He noted CID's failure in these areas has resulted in inappropriate
activities and that such failures are possible given the lack of oversight placed on special
districts. Study of oversight by the Legislature is indicated.
Mr. Osterstock explained that CID currently is embroiled in legal proceedings with its
former water manager who presented the allegations during the last session. The auditor has
attempted to separate its work from the exchange between the two parties. He said the concern
has been with the organization's operation as it relates to the Utah Code and to good
management practices. The review was based on preexisting district documents and independent
third party sources.
Mr. Osterstock explained that the Utah Code, without exception, prohibits board
members from being employed by special districts. CID has employed board members on a part-
time and emergency basis for a number of years. He said the board chairman exhibited
inappropriate behavior by awarding district work to his stepson. Mr. Osterstock indicated that
the lack of effective internal controls has resulted in the use of CID assets by the board chairman
and in missing and unaccounted district property. He noted that poor inventory and asset
controls dating back ten years have resulted in $25,000 of missing assets which is currently under
investigation by the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.
Sen. Evans stated that he felt the report would impact the criminal charges. He expressed
concern that the report should have been postponed until after the criminal process was
completed.
Mr. Welsh said their process is not to wait for the criminal processes to determine what
facts can be presented in their report.
Mr. Russell Ray, past Chairman of the CID board, stated those on the board try very hard
to do their best. Situations could have been handled differently with more education.
Rep. Swallow agreed that those who serve in these capacities and innocently break the
law should be protected. However, people should be responsible for the office they hold. The
Legislature should consider what can be done to help people in these positions be more
responsible.
Mr. Jan Furner, Executive Director, Utah Association of Special Districts, stated they
have an ongoing education and training responsibility. Information is sent to districts in the
state. It is difficult if the local board will not initiate the request and participate with them.
5. Special Districts - Rep. Ure stated the Legislative Management Committee did not approve the committee's request for a Special Districts Subcommittee. During the last interim
the subcommittee reviewed the procedure for creating a special district. He referred to the
template for recodification of special district statutes found on page 12 of the packet.
Rep. Dillree noted the subcommittee felt strongly that the board should be elected, not
appointed unless the county or other entity was overseeing it as well.
Mr. Dave Ovard, Utah Association of Special Districts, indicated he did not know if there
were greater problems with those that have elected boards over those that have appointed boards.
Mr. Fred Finlinson, attorney with Callister, Nebeker, & McCullough, stated if the focus is
only on the creation of new districts there will be a different discussion than if the concepts are
going to be applied to existing districts. Mr. Finlinson said the districts he represents are willing
to work closely with the full committee.
Mr. Paul Ashton, attorney with Boyack Ashton, said it was his understanding that the
committee was going to try to seek to bring a uniformity among the different districts under Title
17A. If a law is passed that only applies to new districts, there will not be uniformity.
Mr. Ken Minson, Chairman of the Utah Association of Special Districts, stated that
appointed individuals are made to be accountable. The elected body puts the appointed people in
place and there is a process to take them out.
Rep. Ure suggested the committee discuss the item concerning governing bodies at the
next meeting. He recommended the committee not discuss the fiscal operations issue until next
year since it would take too much time. The remainder of the issues listed on the template could
be addressed during the year.
Mr. Wade distributed copies of the policy statements developed by the Special Districts
Subcommittee last year.
Rep. Swallow requested the committee specifically consider the policy statements at the
next meeting.
MOTION: Sen. Evans moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.