had proper inspections by licensed inspectors, there are indeed some cases where it has not happened. He
stated USOE should not get into construction inspections. The district has qualified inspectors that go
through the Licensing Division and must pass the necessary test. Architects are also well qualified. He
agreed with the recommendations to form a committee to discuss and resolve inspection issues and the
development of a resource manual. He also agreed that there should be some limited clarification of the
law.
Mr. Randy Haslem, Jordan School District, indicated the Utah Facilities Operations and
Maintenance Association wants every district to be certified to be able to police their own efforts. Some
smaller districts do their own inspections even though they are not certified. They are trying to get those
districts educated and be certified without adding personnel.
Sen. Evans gave a status report on the School Building Inspection Ad Hoc Working Group. He
distributed a summary of the group's findings and a letter written to Scott Bean. The group developed
three lists: 1) actions not to take; 2) items of agreement; and 3) topics needing further discussion.
Requests for legislation have been filed on the issues listed under the items of agreement. Sen. Evans
indicated he wrote a letter to Supt. Bean requesting the formation of a group to develop recommendations.
He asked that the committee allow Supt. Bean time to put the proposed committee together and develop
recommendations.
MOTION: Rep. Buttars moved to make time on a future agenda for the committee to give its report and to discuss draft legislation. The motion passed unanimously. Rep Chard was absent during the
vote.
MOTION: Rep. Ure moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. Rep. Chard was absent during the vote.
3. Optional Forms of County Government - Mr. Rees reviewed the summary of current law on the optional forms of county government. There are currently five optional forms of county government
provided for in statute. They are the County Commissioner, County Executive & Chief Administrative
Officer-Council, County Executive-Council, Council-Manager, and Council-County Administrative
Officer. The County Commissioner form of government is the default form. He reviewed the features of
each form of government.
Mr. Lynn Lemon, County Executive, Cache County, explained in 1983-84 there was a push to
change Cache County's form of government from County Commission to an Executive Council form of
government. The major issue was the separation of powers between administrative responsibility and
legislative responsibility. A petition was developed and a vote taken in the 1984 election. The citizens of
the county opted to go with the executive council form of government. With the 19 municipalities
involved in the area, they felt the council form gave them better representation.
Mr. Brent Gardner, Utah Association of Counties, observed in counties where a change has
occurred and even in most instances where there has been a proposed change, the underlying reason was
not for streamlining the government as much as it was to vote out certain elected officials in office at the
time. He distributed the following proposed changes to statute for the Legislature to consider that fall
short of adopting an optional form of county government: 1) allow an elected official to be absent from
the county for more than 60 days if it does not impair the duties of the office or otherwise contribute to a
failure to perform a function required by statute; 2) allow a method to have an oversight as to whether or
not there is non-performance of duties, other than criminal acts, taking place through judicial review; 3)
provide for the reassignment of duties between elected county officials by ordinance of the governing
body with the consent of the elected offices or by majority vote of the county electorate with or without
the consent of the elected offices; and 4) provide for the creation of interlocal districts by the county
governing bodies for other county functions besides prosecution districts. He said the Legislature would
do well to look at a complete recodification of the county statutes.
MOTION: Rep. Buttars moved to request staff to draft legislation incorporating the recommendations as distributed by Mr. Gardner. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Follow up - Private Property Rights - Mr. Craig Call, State Property Ombudsman, stated when the Legislature amended the statute last session to allow for arbitration of disputes rather than litigation, it
was understood that the language adopted was probably adequate to stay litigation during arbitration.
However, it has been discovered that is not the case. He distributed proposed amendments to the Private
Property Ombudsman statute. The amendments clarify that if the private property owner wishes to have
the issue arbitrated, and the ombudsman agrees it is appropriate, the city, county, or state agency would
not aggressively move ahead in the courts and proceed with litigation. When the arbitration is over, when
it appears there will be no arbitration, or the issue is settled, the state property ombudsman would file a
written statement to that effect and the time would begin that the person would have to file suit or give up
their right to appeal.
MOTION: Rep. Bowman moved to request staff to draft legislation incorporating the recommendations proposed by Mr. Call. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Subdivision Development - Mr. Rees distributed a summary of selected statutory provisions relating to subdivision development. Any division of property is a subdivision under the statutory
definition. In order to divide property a plat must be approved. According to statute a person may not
submit a plat for filing or recording unless a recommendation has been received from the planning
commission and the plat has been approved by the legislative body or other officers that the legislative
body designates in an ordinance. Oftentimes in connection with the recording of a subdivision plat, the
developer may also record covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs). CCRs are private agreements
that actually attach to the land. By virtue of recording the document with the recorder's office, from a
legal standpoint, it gives notice to any person subsequently dealing with that property that those CCRs
exist. Sometimes subsequent owners buy into a subdivision unaware the CCRs exist.
Ms. Deborah Watson, resident of High Country Estates Phase I in Herriman, indicated CCRs are
becoming a statewide problem. Many times the developer makes promises and does not follow through,
yet his recorded covenants are good for many years with the property. Recorded covenants provide both
the city and county with less expense for upkeep while still collecting the same amount of tax dollars.
Ms. Watson's subdivision has been in litigation for most of the last 25 years. The developer filed
bankruptcy within five years and gave away the community's water system as payment rendered for
construction done inside the community. He did not finish all the promised common areas and did not
record all the properties within the private community. Last year her subdivision paid $125,000 in legal
fees.
Ms. Watson said the same people who developed Phase I also developed Phase II which started
out as a private, gated community and is now considered a semi-private community with some county
roads running through it. The developer sold land parcels of 10 and 5 acres. After paying for assessments
and surveys, it was determined the property is on federal land. She stated many changes should be made.
When a developer completes his responsibilities, including proper disclosure, the subdivision should go
back to the responsibility of the cities or county it pays its taxes to. If that is not followed through, the
covenants should be considered null and void. A law should be adopted that at the time of sale a complete
disclosure of all restrictions be made before the financial statements and credit checks are done.
Commissioner Cliff Blonquist, Summit County, stated there are a huge number of associations
that want their own little community and don't want government to interfere. These communities have
been allowed to create associations. When a developer brings a plat before the county, they look for
consistency within the code concerning roads and infrastructure issues. If the county is to accept the plat,
they require bonding to be in place prior to issuing any permits that allow the project to proceed.
Problems are corrected at the planning process.
Mr. Clyde Naylor, Utah County Engineer, stated they require bonds specific to the improvements
in the project. Bonds are required even in private communities.
Mr. Reed Demmon, Salt Lake County, indicated the Herriman area in question has a long history
of non-compliance. The Phase II community previously referred to was never an approved subdivision.
Each person that obtains a building permit has to do a subdivision. The land was parceled off and sold
illegally.
Mr. Gary Crane, Layton City attorney, stated generally these projects are bonded for, whether
private or public. As a city, they have made sure that the roads and sewers and other issues within the
right-of-way are up to city standards.
Mr. Joel Eberhardt, High County Estates resident, reminded the committee of a fire that occurred
last year that killed a young boy. The home was in the quasi-association of Rose Basin. When
emergency vehicles arrived to put the fire out, there was no holding tank for water. It had to be brought in
from ½ mile away. He questioned why building is allowed to go forward when county standards are not
being met.
Mr. Ken Warren, Rose Basin, stated there is a general plan specific to the area that addresses
infrastructure prior to development. He said he would like to have that taken into consideration in
whatever deliberations the committee determines are necessary.
MOTION: Rep. Gowans moved to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Evans adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.