Members Present:
Sen. Carlene M. Walker, Senate Chair
Rep. David L. Hogue, House Chair
Sen. Beverly Ann Evans
Sen. David L. Gladwell
Sen. Paula F. Julander
Rep. David N. Cox
Rep. Scott Daniels
Rep. Fred J. Fife III
Rep. Kory M. Holdaway
Rep. Joseph G. Murray
Rep. Darin G. Peterson
Rep. Richard M. Siddoway
Rep. Max W. Young
Members Absent:
Rep. Stephen D. Clark
Staff Present:
Joseph Wade, Research Analyst
Robert H. Rees, Associate General Counsel
Joy L. Miller, Legislative Secretary
1. Committee Business
Chair Hogue called the meeting to order at 2:25 p.m.
MOTION: Rep. Holdaway moved to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2002 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Sen. Gladwell, Rep. Cox, and Rep. Murray were absent for the vote.
2. Followup - Municipal Services to Unincorporated Areas of Salt Lake County
Mr. Alan Dayton, Deputy Mayor, Salt Lake County, said Salt Lake County has a very large municipal services department which delivers services to over 200,000 people. The ability of the county to provide these services adequately has been tied to annexations and incorporations within the valley. In the past, annexations have selectively stripped revenue and left behind expense. It has been somewhat of an unfair burden on the unincorporated taxpayers. Out of concern for those taxpayers, the county has taken steps to try and protect the 105 percent rule and to resist attempts to force wall-to-wall cities. Mr. Dayton said the county supports annexations as long as they are fair and the right of the unincorporated citizen to determine for themselves their future status. He explained that the committee requested the county meet with city leaders and affected parties to determine if a consensus could be reached on proposed legislation for the upcoming session. He said they have discussed the annexation issue with the Conference of Mayors. The group is considering the possibility of establishing one day when annexations would be effective. That would help in the administration and delivery of services. If a consensus can be reached with all parties, the group will draft legislation for the committee to consider in the next couple of months.
Mr. Dayton distributed a handout regarding townships which are legal entities that control their own planning and zoning. Everything else remains under the control of Salt Lake County. He stated the county is constantly reviewing contracts for services to incorporated cities. Some contract cities have expressed concern with having to pay for certain services. A committee has been set up to evaluate what charges are appropriate. He said the county wants to make sure the contracts are fair and good service is provided. Salt Lake County has mutual aid agreements with all the neighboring cities. He indicated that beyond communications he did not know if there would be much consolidation.
3. Special District Issues
Mr. Robert H. Rees gave a brief statutory history of special districts. In 1998 the Legislature began a process of rewriting Title 17A. There are three independent special districts that have not yet been dealt with in the rewrite. What remains to be done is a rewrite of the dependent special districts into Title 17B. He distributed a list of options for committee/subcommittee action. These options include repealing Part 15, Airport Authorities and Part 17, Hazardous Waste Facilities Management. Another option is to continue the rewrite of provisions relating to debt/bonding and taxing authority, board appointment or election and powers and duties, and district powers and status.
Chair Hogue indicated that the Legislative Management Committee approved four meetings for the Special Districts Subcommittee. He said the same members will continue to serve on the subcommittee.
Mr. Fred Finlinson, attorney, said after much discussion with the individuals who have been working with the subcommittee, it was determined that the issue of bonding was secondary to the issue of whether or not special districts would be able to retain taxing authority. He felt that they could continue to work with the subcommittee in developing legislation that would resume the efforts for recodification.
4. Special Districts - Crimes Against Water Infrastructure
Mr. Finlinson stated that in studying security related issues dealing with water utilities, the water districts considered what would happen if someone decided to tamper with a water utility structure. As a result of heightened security nationally, Congress has passed a law requiring public water systems to develop security protection plans for their own district. However, the federal law did not cover all aspects. He distributed a handout "Destruction and/or Tampering with a Public Water System or Public Owned Treatment Works." The draft language is patterned after the federal law and allows the state to prosecute under the state's court system and to utilize the fine to reimburse the entity for the costs of the destruction.
Mr. Rees distributed a handout "Selected Utah Statutory Provisions That Provide Criminal Sanctions For Certain Acts." These statutes are what currently exist in the code that may or may not adequately address the potential for criminal activity against a water utility.
5. Special Districts - Criminal Background Checks for Water Employees
Mr. Finlinson commented that along with the concern for heightened security for water utilities is the concern for personnel that work for those entities. He distributed draft language "Criminal Background Checks on Water Utility Personnel."
Mr. John Carman, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, said the district treats water for approximately 400,000 people in Salt Lake County. He said since 1995, they have been investing in their facilities and heightening security against outside threats to the drinking water supply. He noted that the type of background check the district has been doing on prospective employees was not providing them with the information they needed. A representative of the state Bureau of Criminal Investigation suggested they develop authorizing legislation defining water utilities as critical infrastructure. Such a definition would help to provide the information necessary in the background check process. The draft language is an attempt to make the process available to them and would allow flexibility when needed.
Mr. Rees distributed a handout "Examples of Statutory Provisions Requiring Criminal Background Check."
MOTION: Sen. Evans moved to direct committee staff to work with Mr. Finlinson in preparing legislation on criminal background checks for water employees and crimes against water infrastructure. The motion passed unanimously. Sen. Gladwell, Sen. Julander, Rep. Holdaway, and Rep. Siddoway were absent for the vote.
6. Municipal Annexation and School District Boundaries
Rep. Chad Bennion said there is much growth and change throughout the state. Generally, most of the drive behind annexations and incorporations has been tax policies. The issues dealing with school districts often is left out of the process. He raised the issue of Draper City which crosses county boundaries and includes two school districts. He said the problem exists in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. He felt that previous legislation has not addressed the long-term impacts and policies of the changing dynamics of neighborhoods.
Superintendent Steve Ronnenkamp, Granite School District, said the issue was studied a few years ago because school districts questioned why they were becoming a key part in the annexation process. He explained that oftentimes the school district issue determined whether or not the annexation passed. Five years ago legislation was passed and provided that when an annexation takes place and school districts are involved, it is the school districts that meet to determine what is in the best interest of the children. If there is an impasse, the issue is taken to the State Office of Education to make the determination. He noted that the process has worked very well.
Mr. Dave Spatafore, Utah League of Cities and Towns, indicated there are five city school districts in the state which are the focus of the issue. He gave a brief history of the statute and some proposed annexations. The legislation passed five years ago was prior to the problems that are being experienced with the Suncrest Development and in Park City. He was uncertain if the legislation dealt with school districts crossing county boundaries. Mr. Spatafore said it is good to keep general governance and education separate. The process of allowing educators to determine what is the best quality of education for the students in question is a much better approach.
7. Use of RDA Funds
Discussion of this item was postponed.
8. Other Items / Adjourn
MOTION: Rep. Fife moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Hogue adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.