Public Employees Retirement System Update

On July 13, 2009 the Utah League of Cities and Towns conducted it fourth subcommittee meeting on the Utah State Retirement issue. At this meeting we had asked the various participating entities (Counties, Cities, Special Districts, Police Associations, and Fire Associations) to be prepared to evaluate and prioritize the various retirement modification options that have been provided by the Utah State Retirement System (URS). The group was asked to prioritize from “most acceptable” to “least acceptable”. We also asked that each group come prepared to discuss the issue of having an employee retirement contribution component considered, whereas now most public sector employees have their retirement solely funded by the public employer contribution.

In order to fairly prioritize the various options, we felt that a common set of assumptions would be necessary, so we had also established a set of assumptions for the various options. Below is a list of those options and assumptions:

Benefit Options and Assumptions:

Non-Contributory to Contributory Threshold:

Assumptions: Please evaluate the sensitivity of having a shared employer/employee responsibility for making a pension contribution. The idea being that the employer would make the contribution to a certain level (the current contribution level). After that level is reached, the employee would assume either partial or full responsibility for the remainder of the required contribution amount. Any amount contributed by the employee would be portable and would not be subject to vesting requirements.

Option 1: Redirect the 1.5% 401K contribution to the URS

Assumptions: From this date forward the 1.5% contribution would be redirected to the URS System. This would apply to all current and future employees.

Option 2: Change the Final Average Salary (FAS) calculator from the highest 3 years of salary to the highest 5 years of salary

Assumptions: Those retiring prior to 2011 maintain 3 year (FAS); those retiring after 2011 but prior to 2013 get 4 year (FAS); those retiring after 2013 have a 5 year (FAS).

Option 3: Change the years of service multiplier from 2.0% per year of service to 1.9% per year of service

Assumptions: Apply to only future years of service, and only apply to those not eligible to retire.

Option 4: Change the minimum age of retirement (55)

Assumptions: Change the minimum age of retirement to 55 and grandfather all those who are currently eligible to retire.

Option 5: Change the minimum age of retirement (60)

Assumptions: Change the minimum age of retirement to 60 and grandfather all those who are currently eligible to retire.

Option 6: Members pay full actuarial cost of retiring prior to age 65 if they have less than 30 years of service (rather than the 3% currently applied)

Assumptions: Apply to all current members of the system who are yet to retire

Option 7: Defer the COLA to the 3rd anniversary of retirement or 1st anniversary after turning age 65.

Assumptions: Apply which ever comes first (age 65 or 3rd anniversary). No grandfathering.

Option 8: Move from a 20 to a 25 year retirement for public safety and firefighter retirement.

Assumptions: For new hires only

Option 9: Change post-retired employment and associated contributions

Assumptions: Those who are rehired after retiring would still draw a pension, but make a full contribution to the state retirement system, or could reactivate and forego the pension to acquire additional years of service.

In the meeting we went through the various options to determine the level of acceptability for all participating groups. In doing so, we have found that there are some options that have a natural gravity, but others clearly split the groups based on the disproportionate impact that they may have on certain categories of employees. After receiving the feedback, it was determined that a smaller working group would get together to compile a comprehensive package, or set of packages for the larger group to evaluate. We are now in the process of that compilation and will be meeting again in August to follow-up on the effort. Upon the completion of this effort we will be submitting the agreed upon package to the various group’s policy committees for final recommendations. We intend to have the entire effort completed in time to respond to the legislative request for recommendations for their September legislative meetings.

If you have any questions about this effort, please feel free to call or write the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Update on Municipal Water Issues

The Water Coalition met on Thursday June 25 at the office of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy. Fred Finlinson chaired the meeting. He reviewed 12 priorities of the Executive Water Task Force:

1. Water title/conveyance issues
   
2. Domestic preference for public water suppliers (response to Kerry Gibson’s repeal of the domestic preference in water law)


3. State Engineer’s consideration of prior “non use” in change applications


4. Property tax exemptions for water-related property (pipes, pumps, treatment facilities) of private water companies


5. Rainwater capture


6. Taxing authority for appointed boards


7. Shareholder change applications]


8. Accountability of the State Engineer with respect to pending adjudications


9. How small water change applications relate to zoning prohibitions (blue lines)


10. Elimination of the State Engineer bond


11. Colorado River over-appropriation


12. Public access along river and stream corridors
    

The coalition discussed each of these items briefly, and then engaged in an in depth discussion of several topics.

“Non Use” Considerations in Change Applications. After HB51 passed in 2008, the prior State Engineer, Jerry Olds, took the position that the new law prohibited him from looking into whether or not the water right in a change application was in fact a “good” right, representing real wet water or a “bad” right that had been subject to “non-use”. This practice was criticized by the Water Community, because it had the potential to convert “bad” paper water rights into good rights through the change application process.

The new State Engineer, Kent Jones, has taken a more moderate position than his predecessor and is asking for legislative clarification. To that end, a Water Coalition drafting committee of Mark Stratford, John Mabey, Warren Peterson and Steve Clyde are working on language that would assure that only the amount of water that consistently has been put to “beneficial use” can be changed into a new use, or a new place or time of use. Specifically, the law would be drafted to explain that holding water for the “reasonable future demands of the public” (HB51 language) would be considered beneficial use for change application purposes.

This practice will help municipalities that have already converted water from agricultural use to municipal use, but are not in fact consuming it at present. However, it will not help municipalities convert agricultural water that is not being put to beneficial use—even though the agricultural water is being held by the municipality for the reasonable future demands of the public. Under this practice, the State Engineer would look to the extent of the use of the water as agricultural water and would not enlarge the right from the agricultural use simply it is being held by a municipality.

The drafting committee will bring specific “non use” language to the next Water Coalition meeting. This will be a hot one this summer.
Domestic Preference. The group spent a fair amount of time discussing the domestic preference concept and seemed to conclude that the 2010 legislative proposal should include two components:

1. A broad preference for municipal use among equal priority right holders in times of scarcity;


2. A temporary, narrow, domestic preference limited to water for human consumption, sanitation, health and safety that would “jump” priority in times of scarcity if just compensation is paid for the temporary use.

The broad preference for municipal use is of limited application because it only pertains to equal priority rights. Typically, equal priority rights are the earliest rights that are subject to an adjudicated decree. The later priority rights typically have unique priority dates and generally do not overlap one another.

The temporary, narrow domestic preference is the more controversial of the two, but likely the most important. To gain its use, a public water supplier would have to require control (cut off) all outside watering, industrial and discretionary use prior to justifying a leap in priority of other water rights. This preference would be used only in an emergency situation of temporary duration, with just compensation required.

The group is struggling with a definition of scarcity. The group discussed standards for an emergency declaration of scarcity and would like to keep the definition of scarcity as objective and transparent as possible.

Taxing Authority of Appointed Boards. Some members of the legislature are requesting on some level of electoral oversight for each taxing authority. The large conservancy districts believe that it is essential to the dynamics of their organization to keep their current board composition—both elected and appointed members. Not long ago, the law allowed voters a special route to refer tax increases in these situations. That opportunity was removed from the law five or six years ago. The group believes that restoring this limited referendum route may resolve the issue for the legislature.

Utah's Public Employee Retirement System -- Changes May Be Coming

As the economic downturn continues to take it's toll on general fund of state and local budgets, one of the more subtle, but equally significant effects of the downturn is being felt in public sector retirement programs. The Utah State Retirement System (URS) has seen fund losses for 2008-09 of approximately $5 Billion or 24% of the total URS portfolio value.

For the general health of the State's budget and in order to maintain an actuarially sound retirement system, we are anticipating sizable increases in the retirement contribution rates that will be required of public employers to maintain the current benefit package for public employees. At this point we can only speculate about future increases in state and local government retirement funding obligations, but most experts believe we will witness increases for at least the next 2-4 years.

Because the budget impact could be quite large, many state and local government lawmakers have expressed concern about the funding liability that the current system may require. In light of this concern, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, Utah Association of Counties and the Utah Association of Special Districts have begun meeting with members of local government employee groups, peace officer groups, firefighter associations, city and county management associations, local government finance officers, and the staff of the URS to begin a dialogue on possible alternations to the system. We have invited the chairs of the Retirement and Independent Entities interim committee to participate in our effort as well.

Local governments see immense value in maintaining a defined benefit system but also recognize that changes are necessary to ensure that the current system does not become an overwhelming liability and the budget priorities of the state and local governments can be fully realized. We have established a set of guiding principles and have begun evaluating various alternatives to the current system. We intend to complete our analysis of the various alternatives by September 2009 and have a set of recommendations that can be brought forward at the September meeting of the Retirement and Independent Entities Committee of the Legislature.

If you have interest in the work that is being conducted or would like to learn more about our efforts, we have published all of our meeting details and handouts on our web page.

Here is a link to that information:

Public Employee Retirement Information

Online Legal Notice Posting -- A prudent approach to notice posting

The ULCT has been working closely with Sen. Steve Urquhart to address the issues surrounding the posting of public notices and legal notices. Sen. Urquhart has introduced SB208 Utah Public Notice Website Amendments, which allows for the posting of legal notices on the state notice website. In doing so, the bill also stipulates that the posting of such notices on the website satisfies the legal notice requirements, therefore waiving the need to post the legal notices in a newspaper of general circulation.

In doing our research for the bill, it is clear that the bill will certainly save local governments a considerable amount of money. We surveyed several cities and towns and on average, most cities were spending between $10,000 and $50,000 on notice postings. In light on the economic climate as well as diminishing public resources, it is our opinion that a move in this direction is both fiscal responsible and prudent.

Some have argued that removing the requirement to post in the newspaper will significantly diminish notice, but we would beg to differ. As hard-copy subscriptions continue to drop and online dissemination of news becomes the norm, it appears that a move to online postings may actually provide enhanced notice. If there is sincere concern about diminished notice, an easy answer would be to provide both online and hard-copy links to the Utah Public Notice website from the major newspapers in the state. Such notice could be given in a very low cost manner and ensure enhanced public awareness of the notice website. In addition, because the bill is permissive it would also allow jurisdictions to place additional notices in the newspaper if there were unique circumstances where such notice would be prudent.

In light of some of the concern raised about Internet access in rural parts of the state, Sen. Urquhart has also intended to limit the scope of the bill to counties of the first and second class, where Internet access is not a concern.

One must question the sincerity of the newspaper's concern, when they were part of the coalition that lobbied for the initial Utah Meeting Notice website, where meeting notices could be linked to and the requirement to provide individual notice to the newspaper was waived. Now, however, when legal notices are contemplated there appears to be deep concern on the part of the newspapers regarding transparency. The only difference --- meeting notices do not generate a revenue source for the papers, but legal notices do.

We hope Utah's lawmakers do continue to demonstrate prudent fiscal management and allow for more cost effective, online noticing. We would also encourage you to contact your Senator today to let them know you support this legislation.

Thanks to Sen. Urquhart for taking on this tough issue.

Ambulance Legislation Reviewed

As the session continues, it appears that the ambulance service bill is clearly getting the post attention. It could be that practically every lobbyist on the hill has been hired on this bill, or it could just be a sincere interest in making sure we get quality ambulance service -- you decide :)

In light of the scrutiny that this bill is receiving, I thought it would be well to outline the most recent concepts surround the legislation, so here they are.

1. The current legislation is limited to first and second class counties, and allow private ambulance providers to compete against each other at the hospital/patient level to provide ambulance service on non-911 calls (inter-facility calls).


2. A proposed substitute has been circulated by Southwest Ambulance to allow cities/towns to determine if they would like to RFP ambulance service, and if so they can maintain geographic exclusive contracts so that only one provider is able to provide service within the given city. If a city decides to opt for the RFP, such a designation must take place prior to January 2010. If no RFP model is designated, then the area is open to competition at the hospital/patient level and no geographic exclusivity is provided. Under this model cities can respond to their own RFP


3. Gold Cross has also proposed substitute language that would mandate an RFP model that would be administered by the Department of Health. Cities and private providers can respond to the RFP and geographic exclusivity is granted to the winning bidder. Once a contract is obtained, that contract is good for a period of 4 years and can only be challenged after the 4 year period expires. This model would be made available on a statewide basis


4. Based on feedback from ULCT Policy committee, we have been arguing that we are okay with an RFP model so long as cities can respond to the RFP and cities either control the RFP process, or the cities recommendation to the Department of Health is given deference unless the Department can demonstrate that the recommended provider is unable to provide the necessary services.

At this point it is unclear which model will be pursued, but all ideas are on the table for consideration. We will be following this closely and will be sure to provide future updates.

Billboards, Townships, and Ambulance Legislation consume the week

This week has largely been consumed with discussions on billboard legislation, townships, and ambulance service; but I am happy to say that we have been pretty successful on all fronts. I will quickly go through each.

1. Billboards: As expected, both Billboard bills have come out of committee, but not without much discussion and concern expressed. We have subsequently been able to sit down with members of the billboard industry to discuss both bills and think that compromises are in the works. HB141, which limits local height restrictions will likely be amended to allow for greater municipal input on surface street sign height, in exchange for more flexibility of freeways. HB272 which deals with sign restrictions on scenic byways will also likely be amended to address oversight concerns with the Byway Committee, but will not allow for automatic segmentation of scenic byways. This bill has more work to be done, but it appears the direction we are heading is positive.

Townships: I may be speaking too soon, but a township meeting tomorrow will likely tell us where we stand on a compromise with the counties. It appears that there is only one sticking point that should be easily resolved. It deals with who has ultimate authority to grant an annexation from a township to an existing city. We have argued that a neutral third party should be responsible for that decision, while the county feels that they should have final say. Outside of that issue there appears to be consensus on the bill --- Hope we can come up with something.

Ambulance Service: This has been an interesting ride. The arguments only appear to be getting louder and more obnoxious. We have expressed deep concern with allowing ambulance providers to have direct contracts with hospitals with little oversight of service delivery and response time. We do, however think the obnoxiousness is about to break and real negotiations are soon to occur. We will keep holding out hope, and let you know how it goes.

On a final note, it appears that a deal is in the works on impact fees for schools and state facilities. We will post the details in our next post, but thought we would at least let you know that our suggested language is being incorporated to ensure impact fees are paid, but have made some concessions to ensure that there is more predictability and transparency in the impact fee process. Look for more info in future posts.

Until next time...Enjoy!

Week 3 Update

Well, things are finally taking shape, so here is quick run down of current issues:

1. Transportation Funding: Still a huge issue for both the state and local government -- the only hurdle is getting past a dreaded tax increase. While everyone agrees we need to continue with both state and local projects, no one wants to raise taxes. Other issue -- making sure any revenue enhancement has a local road component.

2. Impact Fees: Fees on Schools and state facilities are being heavily scrutinized. We are looking for ways to increase accountability and consistency in an effort to reduce legislative pressure to remove our ability to impose such fees on schools and state facilities.

3. Billboards: Another big issue, not sure of the right answer, but reducing local government's role in relocation of existing signs that are being displaced due to road construction has many concerned. We are working with interested parties to get this one resolved.

4. Water: Seems like all of the water bills have been figured out. I think we have this issue corralled for now.

5. Ambulance Service: The bill that wold allow for inter-facility transfer contracts between private providers and hospitals has many concerned about the impacts that such contracts could have on current E-911 service. The bill passed out of committee on Friday, and a "full court press" is on for the House. We have huge concerns -- look for talking points on this one soon.

As you can imagine, there are many other issues out there. Please review our status sheet at www.ulct.org. If you have any questions please feel free to inquire.

Until next time...Enjoy!!

Impact Fees Take Center Stage

Today was dominated by discussions on impact fees. We have several impact fee bills up for consideration during this legislative session, and it appears that the tsunami of impact fee bills is upon us.

First, we spent a good portion of the day negotiating with members of the state capital facilities departments on whether or not state projects should be subject to impact fees. This bill, HB274, sponsored by Rep. Wallis we preclude the imposition of impact fees on state facilities. Obviously this causes a fair amount of concern from those communities that anticipate hosting future state facilities. Fortunately, the discussions on this stuff is going fairly well and a solution should be forthcoming.

On the other hand, Representative Steve Sandstrom passed his HB259 out of a house committee today, which allows the bill to have full consideration of the house. His bill would preclude the imposition of impact fees on schools. The ULCT in coordination with the Home builders and Realtors has opposed the bill, but there appears to be enough skepticism about the methodology behind calculating impact fees that there appears to be a growing sentiment behind limiting impact fees. Obviously we will be working diligently to address these concerns and negate the necessity of this legislation. Talking points to articulate our concerns will be sent out soon.

In other news, we have also received a good-faith commitment from the sponsor of the billboard legislation, HB272, to address our concerns with that bill. We will be trying to work through those issues in the next few days and will report back with our progress, but certainly a positive note to have that commitment and we owe our thanks to Rep. Herrod for his willingness to work with us.

On a final note SB135 Taxation Authority of Special Districts also passed out of committee today and will advance to the Senate floor. We have a commitment from the sponsor to address our concerns relative to limiting the tax authority of some special districts (namely water and sewer districts) and feel comfortable that our concerns will be addressed. The intent of the bill is to limit its applicability to service areas instead of applying it more broadly to service districts. With that change, we limit the impact to a very few entities. If you would like more specifics on this one let me know.

That about does it for today. I hope this finds you well... ENJOY!

Transparency in Gov. Finance and Taxation of Special Districts

Well today two of the more anticipated bills for local government were drafted and numbered.

First, we have SB18 First Substitute Transparency in Government Finance . While the first bill SB18 was out much earlier, the substitute, which addressed many of our concerns was made available for public dissemination.

Here are a few concerns that were expressed as well as the response outlined in SB18 First Substitute.

1. We raised an issue with the ability of small jurisdictions to comply with transparency requirements. In response, Sen. Niederhauser has provided a special exception for jurisdictions with a budget less than $10 Million dollars, which allows for special consideration of their financial capacity and technical capabilities.

2. We raised a concern regarding the timing of implementation. Sen. Niederhauser has subsequently delayed implementation of the legislation's effect until May 2011 for municipal governments.

3. We raised concerns regarding the volume and complexity of information that would be required by the proposed compliance. Sen. Niederhauser has responded by taking the rule making authority away from the State Department of Finance and giving it to the Transparency Advisory Board, of which we will be members as a result of this legislation.

4. We raised concerns regarding a requirement to submit information in a format similar to the state's website format. In response. Sen. Niederhauser has allowed for us to simply comply by linking our existing websites to the state website to allow for a unique format for each city.

5. We raised concerns regarding potential liability for disclosing protected records inadvertently. To address this concern, a liability waiver was included in the substitute.

As you can see, with every question and concern, Sen. Niederhauser has been extremely willing to work with us on the issue. While I believe that most of our membership still has some anxiousness about the unintended consequences, we cannot diminish Sen. Niederhauser's willingness to work with us to address our concerns.

While we are yet to hold a legislative policy meeting to formalize our position on the bill, the ULCT staff will be recommending that our membership support the bill as a healthy compromise that both addresses our major concerns while still accomplishing the objectives put forth by Sen. Niederhauser. We will be recommending that we all work closely with the Transparency Advisory Board and Sen. Niederhauser to work out the specifics.


The second bill that was brought forward today was SB135 Local District Taxing Authority, Senator Bramble. As drafted this bill would preclude a special district from levying a property tax unless the board met one of the following three criteria. (1) The Board of the district was made up of independently elected officials; (2) The participating local entities imposed the tax on the districts behalf; (3) Took the property tax levy to a vote of the people.

Because many cities and towns have raised concerns about the impact that this legislation may have on small water and sewer districts, we will be working to ensure that such districts are exempted from the legislation, as the bill is targeted toward much larger, complex districts. In discussions with Sen. Bramble, he is willing to address our concerns and has asked us to work with him on drafting amendments to the bill. Amendments are in the process of being drafted and should be available next week.

We are pleased with the level of cooperation that has been demonstrated by Sen. Bramble and feel confident that our concerns can and will be addressed.

Please look for further updates in future posts.

We hope this finds you well and until next time .... Enjoy!!!

Local Officials Day on the Hill

Well, today was certainly eventful on Capitol Hill with nearly 800 local elected official and youth city council members in attendance, the ULCT ushered in the 2009 Local Officials' Day on Capitol Hill with a bang.

The day was filled with great speakers on topic ranging from press and media relations to a great lecture from Dr. Joseph Ellis, Pulitzer Prize winning author of "Founding Brothers". We were excited for a great day on the Hill and want to thank everyone who participated with us.

On a legislative note, HB68 Development Exations also passed out of committee today unanimously. This bill was crafted with the work of the ULCT Land Use taskforce, and is another demonstration of who multiple interests can come together to accomplish their respective goals. This should provide the capstone to a multi-year effort to reform water policy in Utah for local governments, which included the powers established in HB51 of the 2008 session and culminates with this bill.

We don't anticipate any problems during the House floor debate when it occurs.

Until Next Time...Enjoy!!!

State of the State Delivered

With the State of the State behind Governor Huntsman, it appears that the legislature is back atop the main stage of this 45 day long event and will largely be directing the course of action for the next several weeks. While the Governor mentioned issues ranging from ethics reform to renewable energy resources to community service, the legislature in most circumstances has a very different approach than the Governor in almost every category.

The debate back and forth as been less than passive and exchanges have been far more pointed in recent commentary. Many members of the legislature have expressed deep concern regarding possible attempts to do away with party caucus and nominating processes, which were eluded to tonight during the State of the State as efforts to promote more participation in the election process. In addition, the course on ethics reform varies widely both among various legislators as well as the Governor. This will likely be a hot button topic for much of the session and was certainly a center piece to the State of the State.

In related news, the more subtle battle on transportation funding appears to be taking shape as some legislators have eluded to the outstanding bonding capacity that is available for transportation projects ($1.5 Billion) and have encouraged the executive to push for enhanced bonding. It also appears that the Governor is willing to take some projects off the "Hold" list and reengage UDOT on those projects. The question that must be asked is if that is response to the bonding "question" posed by some members of the legislature or is it rather an attempt to gear up for anticipated federal stimulus money.... your guess is as good as mine at this point.

On the revenue front, the gas tax is also getting a lot of dialogue among legislators. It appears that recent polls are in conflict as the recent Deseret News poll state that 70% oppose a tax, yet more detailed polls that identify certain projects that would be funded by a gas tax increase appear to sway polling preference and nearly 70% support a gas tax once they realize which projects would be funded. These conflicts in polling has many pausing to reevaluate where this issue should go. It is anticipated that this will be a negotiation point between that House and the Senate. We will let you know how this one is shaking out as it takes more shape.

On a parting note, not much occurred in committee today for local governments. As in years past, the first week is usually pretty quite. The League of Cities is now in the throws of preparation for tomorrow's Local Officials Day on Capitol Hill. We will let you know how it goes.

Hope to see you there. Enjoy!!!

And we are off !!

With a blazing start, we are off to another fun packed legislative session. While we spent most of the day on pomp and circumstance, the work of the Legislature has been well underway for the past several weeks. It is anticipated that the Legislature will be ready to adopt a base budget on Wednesday that will then be submitted to the Governor for approval. Once established, the base budget becomes the building blocks from which the state will operate.

At this point most are merely speculating on whether the base will be a base upon which priorities will be added or if the base will be a place to begin a further examination of what needs to be cut. Either way the base budget is a significant starting point for the discussion.

In other news, issues affecting local government were quick to go to committee, and equally as quick to be pulled from committee agendas. Two township bills, a boundary adjustment bill and others were all scheduled to be in committee tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 27) but have subsequently been pulled. Both township bills were pulled to allow more time for the negotiations between the cities and Salt Lake County on unresolved annexation issues, and the boundary adjustment bill was pulled to allow for additional amendments that were requested by the ULCT to ensure that any potential unintended consequences associated with the change in effective dates of future annexations and incorporations were mitigated. We will report back on these two issues as they surface again.

On a final note, a few Revenue and Taxation bills will be in committee on Tuesday the 27th. One is to change the funding paradigm of public education by reducing property tax and imposing a sales tax in its place. In addition, Rep Froerer's bill on Truth-In-Taxation ads will be in committee as well.

Looks like the fun is just beginning.

Until next time enjoy!!!

2009 Presession Legislative Synopsis

Transportation Funding:
The ULCT has been working closely with legislative leadership for over a year to discuss an implementation strategy for additional transportation funding resources. It is anticipated that the legislature will contemplate increases in transportation funding. The ULCT will be working to ensure that any transportation funding increase is shared with local governments by way of the traditional B&C split of 70% for state projects and 30% for county and city projects. Currently the Governor has included an increase in the vehicle registration fee for his budget that was presented in early December. As drafted, the budget does not contemplate sharing any of the increase in revenue with local governments, but rather being used to exclusively address the state capacity projects that were delayed in Late November.

Telecommunications Taxes:
In light of recent distribution problems associated with the 1% local option tax on telecommunications, it is anticipated that legislation will be introduced to allow for a more methodical redistribution of funds in the event of any future misallocation. Both cities and counties have recognized that redistributions of misallocations can catch jurisdictions by surprise and attempts should be made to ensure that future repayments are made over a longer period of time to allow all jurisdictions to prepare for any unanticipated budget hit. The ULCT will be working to ensure that a full repayment is made to the appropriate jurisdictions, but the subcommittee charged with looking at this issue has determined that we should support legislation that smoothes out any transition so long as we all agree to full repayment.

Immigration Issues:
The ULCT will be working with the legislature to help clarify the intent of last year’s comprehensive immigration bill (SB81). We will be looking to address the following issues: (1) determining what constitutes a public benefit, whereby identity verification is required; (2) Responsibility for employment verification for private contractors who contract with a city or town; (3) coordination efforts between the Attorney General’s Office and local government and immigration enforcement (if any is required by an MOU); (4)How the Memorandum of Understanding between the jurisdictions and the AG's office will be handled; (5)Which ways can immigration status be verified and questions surrounding the effectiveness of the current verification system.

Transparency in Government Finance:
There is likely to be legislation to continue the effort toward complete governmental transparency of financial records. The intent is to make all governmental financial records available via the internet and searchable by account-type, vendor, date, etc. Currently the State of Utah is working toward this goal as a result of legislation that was passed last year. The anticipated legislation for this year will I include an effort to have the same transparency for cities, towns, counties, school districts and special districts by 2011. While most agree that the goal is laudable, there is some concern over the magnitude of information that may be required to be made available. We have been working closely with interested parties to help define the scope of the project to ensure that the effort will not come at a large expense to cities or towns. We have been assured that special consideration will be given to entities that are ill-equipped to handle the current requirements. We have also negotiated a position on the steering committee that is responsible for defining the scope of transparency for local government. We will be watching this issue closely and will be sure to provide updates as things progress.

GRAMA:
As many cities have been experiencing problems associated with overwhelming records requests that are designed to harass rather than retrieve information, we are looking to amend the GRAMA laws to address harassment and ensure that those using such tactics pay the full cost of record retrieval. We are in the process of working the press and other interested parties to address this issue and will update you with language as soon as it is available. This request for legislation was made by the Salt Lake County Municipal Clerks and Recorders Association.

Open and Public Meetings Amendments:
It is anticipated that a standard procedure will be adopted for the “approval of meeting minutes”. The intent is to simply codify the standard practice of most jurisdictions, which simply requires the governing body to approve minutes by a formal vote. It is also anticipated that we will standardize the process for making meeting minutes available to the public. Such meeting minutes will be made available upon completion by the clerk and once they are ready for inspection by the governing body. Lastly it is anticipated that the recording of the meeting must be made available to the public within 72 hours of the meeting.

Townships:
It is anticipated that the legislature will entertain removal of the sunset date for county created townships. Currently townships in SL County are set to expire in 2010. Several cities within SL County have expressed concern with the removal of the sunset date which would allow townships to exist in perpetuity. The major concerns include conflicts of interest that the county has when acting as both a regional government for all areas of the county and distributing regional funds, while also being a municipal service provider to some unincorporated areas of the county that are competing with municipalities for regional funds; in addition there is concern with the way municipal services are being provided in unincorporated areas, and the county’s perceived lack of responsiveness to the needs of the cities located within the county. As the township mode, whereby the county provides municipal services has begun to migrate to other counties, the concerns are becoming a larger statewide issue. Currently the ULCT is attempting to work with SL County for a mutually acceptable solution.

Taxation Authority of Special Districts:
There has been some concern expressed by the legislature regarding special district’s accountability when it comes to taxation issues. We will likely see efforts to limit special districts’ ability to impose a property tax. As many cities and towns operate dependent special districts for water, sewer, mosquito abatement, etc. this type of legislation will certainly have an impact. We will be working with the legislature to ensure vibrant and stable revenue options are available to special districts. It is anticipated that we will have to increase local government “accountability” when imposing such taxes and will be working to address that issue rather than simply limiting revenue options.

Wildland Fire Suppression:
A taskforce including city, county and state officials has been working on a proposal to address current funding problems associated with wildland fire suppression in the state. The current process requires municipalities to offer “first attack” efforts to state and federal properties located within their jurisdiction. In addition, any additional costs borne by the state for the fighting of fires on state or federal lands located within a municipal boundary are also the responsibility of the municipality. The intent of the legislation will be to identify a new funding source (anticipated natural growth in current insurance premium tax) that can be used to underwrite the costs of fighting wildfires in Utah regardless of the jurisdiction. The law will still require that cities provide first attack efforts and will be responsible for code enforcement and fire mitigation efforts, but all other cost would be covered by the newly created fund.

Retirement:
At the request of several cities, we will be looking to extend the window to allow for an enhanced public safety cost of living adjustment. Current law only allows jurisdictions to opt-in to the benefit until December 2009. Due to the economic downturn some cities who wish to offer the benefit will be unable to do so by the December ’09 deadline and are therefore looking for an extension to the deadline.

Disproportionate Service Fees:
The ULCT will be working to address an oversight in current state law which precludes any jurisdiction that does not currently have a disproportionate service fee from implementing such a fee. We intend to clarify that new jurisdictions can adopt the fee so long as the underlying criteria for doing so is met.

Alcohol Proximity Changes:
Proximity restrictions related to government and religious facilities that were included in last year’s alcohol amendments legislation have created some problems for many cities. We anticipate tweaking some of those restrictions to simply mirror the restrictions that were in place prior to last year’s legislation.

Agricultural Protection Areas:
We anticipate some legislative efforts to limit local government’s authority to regulate nuisance ordinances or impose new zoning designations on agricultural areas. The concern that has been expressed is that we (Cities) are allowing development in some of our most critical agricultural areas and then enforcing residential nuisance ordinances in traditional agricultural areas. It is perceived by some that we should be prohibited from allowing such development and precluded for enforcing nuisance ordinances for ordinary agricultural practices. The ULCT has opposed the bills in the past, as it encumbers local official’s ability to make land use decisions, and anticipate that we will be working against such measures again this year.

Charter School Amendments:
The ULCT will be pursuing legislation to standardized practices for site plan approvals for charter school placement.

Sewer/Water Lateral Location Amendments: There has been some concern expressed with the ability of utility to companies to locate sewer and water laterals that hook into our sewer and water systems. Legislation will be introduced this year to address the issue by requiring entities that put in public improvements to make those utilities and “cleanouts” locatable. The legislation has been worked on by many of our public works officials had has received their endorsement

Why Does Fuel Cost $4 a gallon?

Breakdown of Gas Prices

As motor fuel prices continue to increase, the blame for such increases are spreading far and wide. With reports of gas station vandalism, fuel tax revolts in Europe and legislative pleas to increase energy independence, I thought it would be interesting to evaluate what goes into the price of fuel. By using my trusty resource http://www.howstuffworks.com/ I found the following breakdown of fuel prices that I thought may be helpful.

When you pump gas into your tank, that money is broken up into little pieces that get distributed among several entities. Gas is just like any other consumer product: There's a supply chain and several groups who are responsible for setting the price of the product. The media can sometimes lead you to believe that the price of gas is based solely on the price of crude oil, but there are actually many factors that determine what you pay at the pump. No matter how expensive gas becomes, all of these entities have to get their slice of the pie. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, here's an approximation of where each dollar you spend on gas goes:

· Taxes: 11 cents
· Distribution and Marketing: 6 cents
· Refining: 10 cents
· Crude oil: 73 cents

This all equals $1 dollars worth of gas, so for a typical gallon of gas price at $4/gallon the approximate national average is:

• Taxes: 44 cents/gallon
• Distribution: 24 cents/gallon
• Refining: 40 cents/gallon
• Crude Oil: $2.92/gallon

This is what the average breakdown looked like in April 2008. Let's look at those components in more detail.

· Crude oil - The biggest portion of the cost of gas goes to the crude-oil suppliers. This is determined by the world's oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).The amount of crude oil these countries produce determines the price of a barrel of oil. Crude-oil prices averaged around $35 per barrel (1 barrel = 42 gallons or 158.99 L) in 2004. And, after Hurricane Katrina, some prices were almost double that. In April 2008, crude-oil prices averaged around $104.74 per barrel. During that month, the price of oil reached a record price of almost $120 a barrel [Source: U.S. DOE]. By May 16, prices had topped $117 per barrel [source: MarketWatch]. On May 22, markets in New York and London reported prices past $135 per barrel [source: Forbes]. Analysts speculated that everything from investment in oil futures to increasing demand from countries like India and China contributed to the spike in price.

Sometimes, gas prices go up even though there is plenty of crude oil on the market. It depends on what kind of oil it is. Oil can be classified as heavy or light, and as sweet or sour (no one actually tastes the oil, that's just what they call it). Light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to refine, but supplies have been running low. There's plenty of heavy, sour crude available in the world, but refineries, particularly those in the U.S., have to undergo costly retooling to handle it.

· Refining costs - The cost of refining diesel fuel can be considerably higher than the price of refining regular gasoline.

· Distribution and marketing - Crude oil is transported to refineries, and gasoline is shipped from the refineries to distribution points and then to gas stations. The price of transportation is passed along to the consumer. Marketing the brand of the oil company is also added into the cost of the gasoline you buy.

· Taxes - Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, and state excise taxes average 18.2 cents per gallon. There may also be some additional taxes, such as applicable state sales taxes, gross receipts taxes, oil inspection fees, underground storage tank fees and other miscellaneous environmental fees. Add that to the state excise taxes, and it can average 27.4 cents (Utah is at 24.5 cents). It could be worse. In Europe, gas prices are far higher than in America because taxes on gas are much higher.

· Station markup - Of course some of the money you spend at the pump does go to the service station. While some consumers blame high prices on station markup, service stations typically add on a few cents per gallon. There's no set standard for how much gas stations add on to the price. Some may add just a couple of cents, while others may add as much as a dime or more.

Gas prices also vary from state to state for several reasons. Taxes are probably the biggest factor in the different pr­ices around the country. Additionally, competition among local gas stations can drive prices down. Distance from the oil refineries can also affect prices -- stations closer to the Gulf of Mexico, where many oil refineries are located, have lower gas prices due to lower transportation costs. There are also some regional factors that can affect prices.
World events, wars and weather can also raise prices. Anything that affects any part of the process, from the moment the oil is drilled, through refining and distribution to your car will result in a change in price. Military conflicts in parts of the world with lots of oil supplies can make it difficult for oil companies to drill and ship crude oil. Hurricanes have damaged offshore drilling platforms, coastal refineries and shipping ports that receive oil tankers. If a tanker itself is lost or damaged, or leaks its oil into the ocean, that will put a dent in the market as well.
The most recent surge in gas prices is due to several factors, including all of those listed above. However, a new reason emerged during the spring of 2007: legislation out of Washington to incorporate more ethanol into transportation fuels, enough to reduce daily oil imports by 1.5 million barrels by 2017. Between October 2007 and April 2008, ethanol-blended gas was between 4 and 12 percent more expensive than regular gas.

In addition to new legislation and the items listed above, another factor to consider is the strength of the US Dollar. Because oil prices are set in US Dollars, anytime the US Dollar is devalued against other currencies the price of gas in dollars must increase to reflect the “true value” as represented in the world economy, where other currencies are being used to by fuel. Recently the FED Chair Ben Bernanke announced potential efforts to reduce inflationary pressure that can largely be attributed to the cost of fuel by attempting to strengthen the dollar and therefore drive down the cost of staple goods where prices of such goods are dependent upon the cost of fuel for production and transportation.
As you can see there are many things that go in to the cost of fuel. There is no one culprit, but rather a very complex web on factors that set fuel prices. Any manipulation of one factor can have significant impacts not only on the price of fuel but many other issues as well, to include financial markets, lending rates, monetary policy, tax policy, road construction schedules, environmental issues, etc, etc,

If you want a far more in depth discussion on this issue and how OPEC works, why gas prices vary in different parts of the country or energy independence you can find out much more at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm.

Enjoy,
Lincoln

Irony Is Often Stark in Local Government Politics

In a single day of news, it is amazing to see the contradictions that are omnipresent in local government politics.

While the US Senate is getting set to seriously debate mandatory collective bargaining legislation HR980/S2123, which would compel states and cities and towns to enter into collective bargaining arrangements for local public safety employees, we are also seeing news out of Vallejo, California, where this city of 117,000 people is soon to become California's largest city to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

So where is the irony? Well, one of the major contributing factors for the decision to file bankruptcy is a $16 Million shortfall in funds that is largely attributed to overly generous pay and benefits packages that have been foisted on the city through collective bargaining arrangements with various public safety employee groups. It was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that nearly 75%-80% of Vallejo's general fund is spent on public safety (Police and Firefighter) compensation and benefits packages.

Article Excerpt:

Many officials and residents attribute Vallejo's fiscal troubles to overly generous pay and benefits to the city's police and firefighters. The salaries for police and firefighters currently take up 75 to 80 percent of the city's general fund.

Representatives from police, fire and electrical workers unions all argued against the Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, saying that doing so would only make hiring already short-staffed public safety agencies even harder.

While California cities, and Vallejo in particular, are not all too similar to many Utah cities in regard to financing and available financing tools, it should be noted that Utah cities and towns are also seeing continuous increases in the cost of employee compensation and benefits.

So, is any Utah City on the verge of bankruptcy? Unequivocally -- NO, but we too need to be worried about the threats that such congressional action could impose on Utah's ability to pay for employees, while also taking care of the day-to-day needs of city residents (trash pickup, pot hole repair, water, sewer, etc.)

While we may not be dealing with widespread collective bargaining in Utah, there is one thing that we do have in common with California cities and that is dependence upon a strong economy to provide the required tax revenue to provide local government services. As has been witnessed in Vallejo, a weakening housing market and slowing retail sales have further exacerbated the budget problems in this suburb of San Francisco. As we start to see a "cooling economy", the last thing we need is to see Congress add additional costs for the general, day-t0-day operation of a city or town.

If you haven't contacted Senator Hatch or Bennett already, please do so today to ensure that they too see the irony of this legislation.

Until next time... Enjoy

Preparing for 2009 -- What is on the horizon

I was recently at a breakfast with a city council member who asked me "so now that the legislative session is over, what do you do for the remainder of the year?" -- A great question to segway in to my first post session legislative update.



While many people often believe the Utah legislative season begins in January and ends in March, the true dynamic of the Utah legislature has made it a year-round "gig". We are now just on the heals of the 2008 legislative session and preparations are already being made for 2009.


Now obviously election season puts a damper on some discussions, but a vast majority of the topics to be discussed in '09 will be debated, tweaked, and refined in the coming months. It has been just over a month since the conclusion of the 2008 general session and committee meetings are well underway, study items are already being pursued, and bills are already being filed. As such, the job of the ULCT lobby team must also track and follow all of this activity throughout the year so that when crunch time (the legislative session) hits we are ready to hit the ground running.



So what is going on, and what are we working on?


Well in April, here is a truncated list of some of the municipal items that were already in process by the legislature.

1. WiFi in Utah: Legal and Social Issues (Downtown Free Wireless Content Regulation)
   
2. Condominium and Community Association
   
3. Revenue Collection Update and Recent Trends in the Utah Economy


4. Review of Property Tax Study


5. Item #159, Local Regulation of State Land Development


6. Item #161, New Entities and Boundary Changes


7. Item #163, Riparian Overlay Zones


8. Item #164, Zoning and Housing Development

... and that is just to name a few


So what do we anticipate for 2009, or better yet, what are we already working on for 2009?


Here is a brief list of items that are already in process:

1. Additional funding options for the Utah transportation system (local roads included).
Because local roads are in desperate need of additional resources (both capacity and maintenance), the ULCT is working closely with several other groups to pursue additional funding resources for local road projects. Ideas of gas tax, sales tax, vehicle fees and other related topics are being explored for possible introduction in the 2009 session.


2. Public Employee Retirement
As several legislators have expressed a sincere interest in looking at possible conversions from the defined benefit (pension) plan to a defined contribution (401K) plan for public employees, we have been working closely with the Utah Retirement System (URS), the chairs of the legislative committee overseeing retirement issues, and other interested groups to determine a strategy to tackle this tough issue. This discussion and deliberation has been in process for several years and is likely to see much more scrutiny before it is introduced for consideration.


3. Land Use
As usual the ULCT is going to be spending much of the summer discussing land-use issues to include: planning, affordable housing, inspections, impact fees, exactions, training and several other important issues.


4. Taxes
This is likely to be one of the biggest issues this year, and as such the ULCT is in the process of creating a local government finance book that will analyze the Utah Tax system completely and serve as a great resource guide to both state and local officials. In addition, we are going to be participating fully in several additionally authorized tax meetings to discuss changes in the Utah property tax system. And as you can imagine, any change can have huge impacts on Utah's cities and towns who rely on the property tax as one of the major municipal funding sources.


So, as you can see we are busily working in preparation for next year. And while the summer may allow for a few days of fishing, we unfortunately aren't on vacation until next year. It is amazing how a 45 day exercise in legislating has turned into a 320 day preparatory period as well.

Until next time ... ENJOY.

Final Day Update

So we are now sitting here on Day 45 of the 45 day session and things are looking pretty good.

Here is a quick recap of our priority issues:

• HB51 Water Forfeiture Protection -- ULCT Supported (Our number one priority)

This bill passed earlier this week with flying colors. Like all water bills it was not without controversy, but it did ultimately pass and is now awaiting the Governors signature.

• Land Use Legislation -- Various Positions

All of our high priority "Support" bills passed without any real controversy (SB196, HB153, HB177). We again demonstrated that working throughout the interim with the interested parties makes for a much easier session as we are all working from the same page. We also successfully avoided some detrimental legislation to include additional zoning restrictions for environmentally sensitive zones (SB226) and riparian areas (HB454). Lastly we successfully avoided legislation that would have significantly altered our ability to obtain water rights when annexing new property (SB279) -- It was a great year on land-use issues

• Justice Courts -- Support the Substituted Bill

We were able to successfully substitute the justice court bill to ensure that we maintained local control of the justice court system while also implementing changes that promote public confidence in the court system and further demonstrate the independent nature of the justice courts. As this was a major issue for us this year, the compromise position on this bill addressed any concerns we had with the original proposal -- Again a great result.

• Forms of Government -- ULCT High Priority Issue -- Passed Yesterday

While this bill was probably the most "fluid" of any our issues, we successfully passed the 3rd substitute of SB20 yesterday evening and held off all of the proposed amendments that would have fundamentally altered the governance of many cities in Utah. After 18 months of work, we have successfully clarified the law of governance while also striking the same power balance that exists today. In addition the bill clearly demonstrates that any change in form of government will require a vote of the people and the law clearly states what constitutes a change in form. A big thanks goes out to Senator Carlene Walker and Layton City Attorney Gary Crane who has shepherded this bill through the process.

• Privatization -- Various Positions

As another major issue for local government, we successfully avoided several detrimental pieces of legislation that were geared at disrupting local government services that many of our citizens rely upon. The only bill to pass that has any impact on the cities is SB45 which was substantially altered to ensure that the state does an inventory of all activities that they perform to see if additional privatization efforts can be implemented to promote government efficiency. The bill then has a delayed effective date for first and second class cities to also provide the same inventory. The local government inventory requirement is not in place until 2010 for cities of the first class and 2011 for cities of the second class. In essence, the bill just requires an inventory of all services that are offered by the city. Not a bad result when considering the many detrimental proposal that were initially being contemplated.

Obviously there is a lot more to cover, and we will be doing so within the next few weeks with a complete recap of all legislative activities.... I know it just wets the appetite doesn't it.

Until next time....Enjoy

Justice Court Software -- Conformity Issues

Just a quick update on an important item that we have received a few phone calls on. SB72 1st Substitute Justice Court Amendments has passed out of the Senate and is now awaiting a hearing in the House. The bill has been discussed at length, but there seems to be a small issue of concern relative to the utilization of various software packages at the justice court level for case management purposes. The current language in the bill reads as follows:

(7) By July 1, 2011, all justice courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting system as specified by the Judicial Council.

The question that has been raised is if this language will require the use of CORIS by local justice courts. From the outset the Administrative Office of the Courts has expressed concern with the ability to transmit and receive compatible information between the various justice courts and district courts to ensure that crimes that are committed in one area of the state are reported and recognized in other parts of the state. The key concern that has been highlighted is if perpetual DUI offenders are slipping through the cracks because of recording issues. We had committed early on to a process that would ensure that compatibility issues would be solved to ensure accurate and timely reporting, which is the intent of this language. Because of the delayed effective date of this section, we do feel that enough time has been granted to ensure that we are only doing what is necessary to meet the objective. If it becomes apparent that a move to CORIS is going to be mandated we will have plenty of time to work through this issue and resolve it with the Administrative Office of the Courts as well as the legislature, to ensure that our concerns are addressed prior to 2011. We will track this closely as time progresses and provide periodic updates.

HB51 Fifth Substitute Passes Senate

Just a quick update. Late Wednesday afternoon HB51 Water Right Forfeiture Protection passed the Senate and will now be sent back to the House for concurrence. Concurrence is expected today and the bill will then move to the Governor's desk for his signature.

Thanks to all who helped passes this landmark legislation for Utah's cities and towns.

Sifting Begins for the '08 session

As we enter the final full week of the 2008 legislative session, sifting has begun. Meaning that only priority bills will be placed on the reading calendar for consideration. If you still have a bill to get to committee or still have a bill in its house or origin it is now time to start worrying. If, however, you are trying to stop a bill and one of the previous still apply, then life is looking pretty good right now.

So far, the ULCT has faired pretty well with only a few lingering bills that cause some concern, and much of our work completed on the bills we are promoting. Today also marks the final Legislative Policy Meeting for the 2008 session. I will provide a detailed recap this evening, but here are a few bills we are following and there status.

Major Bills We Are Promoting:

• HB51 Water Forfeiture – Through the House and Ready for Senate Consideration
• HB153 Impact Fee Amendments – Through the House Ready for Senate Consideration
• HB177 Geologic Hazards Zoning -- Through the House Ready for Senate Consideration
• SB20 Municipal Forms of Government – Through the Senate, In House Committee
• SB72 Justice Court Reform – Senate Third Reading Calendar
  

Major Bills of Concern:

• HB166 Minutes of Open Meetings – Passed House, To Be Considered in the Senate
• HB264 Citation Quotes – Held in the Senate – Will not pass
• HB293 Certified Private Bldg. Inspectors – Passed House, our amendments ready to be placed in the Senate
• HB454 Regulation of Riparian Zones – Still in the House, Going to Committee
• SB127 Underground Utility Locations – Still in the Senate – Will not pass

Until Next Time, Enjoy

ULCT Priority Issues Update

Water Forfeiture – HB51

The water forfeiture protection bill is moving well. It has already passed the House with overwhelming support and early this week it passed out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee with a unanimous vote. The bill has been amended and substituted through the process, but still includes the forfeiture protections we have sought from the outset. While an additional amendment is likely to come on the Senate floor, it looks like this bill is largely resolved. We should be seeing it on the Senate floor some time next week.

Justice Court Modifications – SB72

While this bill started out fairly contentious, resolution between the ULCT and the Courts was reached early in the session. The bill is moving slowly but should not see any hiccups. The bill is currently awaiting a hearing on the Senate floor and should be moved to the House for consideration this week. The compromise position on the bill includes the following provisions:

• We scrapped the idea that judges would become state paid officials (They will still be maintained and local appointed and accountable government officials)
• We scrapped the mandatory pay structure which tied salaries directly to district court judge salaries, and instead provided a minimum and maximum salary range and required that pay negotiations mirror those of the average municipal employee, so if the average employee receives a 3% pay increase so does the judge, but if no pay increase is granted to the average employee then no pay increase can be granted to the judge,
• We created a local nominations process that is governed by local officials and did away with the original concept of having a standing state nomination committee
• We also created a retention election process for appointed justice court judges. The election will be conducted every six years and will be done on a county-wide basis.
  
  We feel very comfortable with this middle ground and are happy to report that the most contentious points of the original proposal (see item 1 and 2) were resolved to our satisfaction. Since a compromise has been reached the bill should move forward without much additional fan fare.

Forms of Government – SB20 Third Substitute:

This bill has probably been one of the most scrutinized and contentious bills on the session for Utah’s cities and towns, largely due to some early misunderstandings of the bills original intent and purpose. While the ULCT has been involved in the process from the outset, he have long held the belief that clarification of Title 10 in this area is warranted, but we were committed to ensuring that the structured power balance that exists today is not disrupted in the favor of either councils or mayors. We simply wanted to maintain the current power balance between the two. Due to early drafting problems, the bill appeared far more damaging to a mayor’s power than was ever intended. After substantial modifications, the bill now provides a great deal of protection to mayoral authority while also allowing the necessary flexibility in municipal governance to delegate administrative functions to department heads, city managers and other paid professionals.

While some would like you to believe that the bill allows for the mayors authority to be usurped by a rogue council majority, the bill actually provides additional protection, that does not exist in the current law, to the mayors authority from being delegated without his/her consent by stating that the mayor has the following default powers and if these powers are altered, the mayor either needs to consent or a unanimous vote of the council is needed:

(a) is the chief executive officer of the municipality to whom all employees of themunicipality report;
(b) shall:
(i) keep the peace and enforce the laws of the municipality;
(ii) ensure that all applicable statutes and municipal ordinances and resolutions arefaithfully executed and observed;
(iii) if the mayor remits a fine or forfeiture under Subsection (1)(c)(ii), report theremittance to the council at the council's next meeting after the remittance;
(iv) perform all duties prescribed by statute or municipal ordinance or resolution;
(v) report to the council the condition and needs of the municipality; and
(vi) report to the council any release granted under Subsection (1)(c)(iv); and

(c) may:
(i) recommend for council consideration any measure that the mayor considers to be inthe best interests of the municipality;
(ii) remit fines and forfeitures;
(iii) if necessary, call on residents of the municipality over the age of 21 years to assistin enforcing the laws of the state and ordinances of the municipality;
(iv) release a person imprisoned for a violation of a municipal ordinance;
(v) with the council's advice and consent:
(A) assign or appoint a member of the council to administer one or more departmentsof the municipality; and
(B) appoint a person to fill:
(I) a municipal office; or
(II) a vacancy on a commission or committee of the municipality; and
(vi) at any reasonable time, examine and inspect the official books, papers, records, ordocuments of:
(A) the municipality; or
(B) any officer, employee, or agency of the municipality.

Since current state law allows for these powers to be removed from the mayor by ordinance by a simply majority vote, you can see that the new law provides far more protection to mayoral authority than the existing law. With that in mind, it has been hard to understand why some would believe that this is hurtful to mayors. As you can imagine, the ULCT is quite concerned with maintaining the authority of municipal mayors and we believe this bill does just that. Once this issue was clarified to members of the Senate it passed out of the Senate in overwhelming margins. It is now in the House for consideration and will be heard in committee this Thursday. We are hopeful that the clarifications address any concerns that existed and the bill will move forward smoothly.

We will let you know how things go as time progresses.

Privatization:

To our satisfaction, most of the “privatization” efforts have been scrapped during this year’s session, but we did finally agree on some language for one bill that will have nominal impact of some cities and towns. SB45 requires first and second class cities to conduct an inventory of all government activities and determine if the activities “compete” with the private sector. In addition the bill asks that the city elaborate on any efforts that have been made to privatize aspects of the services they provide. While the bill originally had the potential of creating an unhealthy and indefinable distinction between “core government” and “non-core government” that language has been scrapped at the ULCT’s request and the bill now simply requires an inventory to be done every two years. Do to the limited administrative burden that will be caused by creating the inventory, the ULCT policy committee has decided to support the bill now that the contentions “core government” language has been removed. The bill has now passed the Senate and is now on the House floor for consideration. This will likely be the only “privatization” bill to pass this year that has a municipal impact

Land Use:

Land Use issues are moving along smoothly. It has helped that most of the contentious “stuff” was resolved prior to the session beginning, and it appears that the bills we have had a hand in drafting are moving well. SB196 is on the verge of passing out of the Senate without much fan fare. HB153 and HB177 have already passed out of the House and are awaiting consideration in the Senate. The only bill that is having any issues is HB177. This bill addresses the concerns that have been raised relative to zoning in sensitive lands areas. It was drafted by ULCT staff and as it currently stands, it is a very helpful bill in explaining how sensitive lands zoning should be conducted. There have, however, been some rumblings that the bill may be hijacked in the Senate where language may be added that would largely prohibit sensitive lands zoning. So, in short we are playing some defense to make sure those amendments are not made. We should have a good idea as to the validity of those threats within the next few days and will let you know the outcome as soon as we can. Other than that little lingering issue, all is well on the land-use front.

Well that about does it for the big priorities. We will be sure to keep you up to speed as we head into the home stretch.

Eminent Domain -- Revisited

H.B. 323 1st SUBSTITUTE - Eminent Domain Amendments

BACKGROUND

· Two years ago, the power of eminent domain for obtaining trails, paths, or other ways for walking, hiking, bicycling, or equestrian use was precluded by a statutory change.

· H.B. 323 seeks to further clarify those things that constitute a trail by indicating that a park that operates as a trail is still considered a trail for the purpose of contemplating the use of eminent domain.

· Line 47 of the current bill, however, goes much further than necessary in protecting trails from the improper use of eminent domain by precluding its use for paths, lanes, or other ways for emergency access.

· A true "emergency access" is the very type of use that may and should be subject to this power. Much like utility easements, these easements are used to get emergency vehicles and personnel to a location in the fastest way possible.


WHAT THE SUBSTITUTE DOES

· The first substitute language would confirm that paths, lanes, and other ways for emergency access could not be used as a pretext for public paths, equestrian trails, bicycle paths, or walkways.

· Planning and zoning provides a means for preserving emergency access once a property owner seeks to develop their property. Also, while the local governments may have the right to access property in the case of an emergency, they do not have the right to require that an easement remain clear for the use in an emergency where the property is neither being developed and where no emergency is currently occurring.

· There is a gap caused by this bill without this amendment. Trees, sheds, agricultural buildings, walls, and other obstructions may prevent emergency vehicles and personnel from reaching a victim in as short a time as possible, none of which can be avoided by way of proper planning..

· To generally deny government the ability to take and preserve an easement for emergency access would be comparable to failing to preserve an access for the accommodation of utilities or other essential services.

· Where government is required to give these essential services, they should not be unduly limited in their ability to reasonably acquire access and in the rare case, use eminent domain for this purpose.


Bill Text: http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0323.htm

Municipal Form of Government -- Trying to Strike the Balance

Many of you may have been hearing about potential concerns with the Senate Bill 20 (Changes in Municipal Form of Government). In attempt to help clarify the situation and clearly show what the initially proposed bill actually did, we have included a set of explanations for what the proposed bill contained.

In addition, we will also discuss the changes that were made by way of an amendment today (Monday, February 11) on the Senate floor which completely undermines both mayors and councils universally. Obviously with the amendments, the ULCT and all cities and towns should have concerns with the legislation, as it completely upsets the current operation of just about every city and town in Utah.

While it is true that some of the early drafts were prepared a little hastily and had some unintended consequences, the second substitute to the bill adequately struck the same balance of power that exists today in all of your cities and towns.

The ULCT has worked long and hard to ensure no form of government or individual government was detrimentally affected and believes the initial proposed bill strikes that balance. While some would like to remove the option of allowing a professional manager to assume some of the day to day responsibilities of governance, we have to be cognizant of the 80+ cities that currently employ city managers that do just that. The intent behind the bill was to simply clarify existing law to avoid future problems with the confusion that exists in the current statute relative to the existing forms of government, and to not upset any existing form of government with monumental shifts in power that would be ushered in by statute.

The ULCT would not be supporting a bill that stripped councils or mayors of their authority, and believes this bill simply clarifies the current options.In short, the original bill (without the floor substitutes) did the following:

· Clarifies the intent of existing forms without changing any balance of power between councils and mayors.
· Provides a default delineation of powers which statutorily makes the mayor the CEO.
· Requires that any change in form of government requires a vote of the people.
· Allows for flexibility by municipal ordinance to delegate authorities to mayors, councils or administrative staff for specific administrative duties.
· Specifies that there are specific duties that are inherently vested in the mayor and does not allow those powers to be delegated.
· Specifies that there are specific duties that are inherently vested in the council and does not allow those powers to be delegated.
· Cleans up the existing statute through a comprehensive recodification.

So, what did the floor amendments do to the bill?

Well, through amendment, the bill now says that any changes in the powers of the mayor require the affirmative vote of the people. As mentioned earlier, this legislative change is equally punitive to both mayors and councils by prescribing that any change in function, whether it be an enhancement or reduction of powers will require a vote.

So what kind of powers are we talking about?

As currently drafted it would include any change in power. So if the mayor decided that the city administrator should conduct performance evaluations for employees instead of the mayor, it would require a vote of the people, or vice versa. If the Mayor wanted to delegate the authority to review all checks and receipts to a financial adviser or manager, it would require a vote of the people. If, in a small community, the mayor wanted to delegate some of his authority over departments to individual council members (spread the administrative burden) it would require a vote of the people. Please remember that the countervailing point is also true, if the council and mayor wanted to grant all, or some, of that responsibility in a mayor that may not have that responsibility today, it would require a vote as well.

So the question then becomes -- do any of these changes constitute a "true change in form" or is it simply divvying up responsibilities? If changes of this nature are not considered fundamental change, then why should it require a vote?

Hopefully you can see how this could easily get out of control, with minor changes in day to day operations now being considered fundamental changes in governance and requiring a vote. This has never been the spirit or letter of the law or constitution. While the law recognizes the need for voter approval on changes in form, it is contemplated only under the notion of fundamental change in governance. I am still trying to figure out how ANY change in function, regardless of scale, of an individual can be universally categorized as a fundamental shift in governance -- which is how the bill now stands.

We obviously need to strongly oppose the bill as drafted to protect mayors, council members and other administrators from the overstepping aspects of the amendments.

We will be working with the interested parties to make sure that they understand the litany of unintended consequences of the proposed amendments to the bill, and would encourage you to do the same.

For more detailed reading of the bill, please review the link to the bill text below.

Municipal Government Amendments - SB20 -- Second Substitute

Transparency in Government -- Cost/Benefit Analysis is Needed

The ULCT has had some concern regarding the administrative burden that would accompany the passage of SB38 Transparency in Government Finance in its original form. While Utah’s cities and towns are extremely interested in making budgetary information readily available to the public, they have requested that the legislature move methodically through the process of identifying which budgetary documents will create the awareness that is being sought while also recognizing the burdens that will accompany the process of keeping this information current and useable for the general public. In short, we would encourage a cost/benefit assessment to be conducted to ensure that we are focusing on the information that is being requested without overwhelming the system with information that will be largely unused and administratively difficult to convert and make readily available on a centralized website. System compatibility, redacting costs, conversion costs, administrative time and other factors should all be evaluated to ensure that the value received is compatible with the costs associated.

With that in mind, the ULCT has recommend the following steps toward additional transparency in government finances:

1. Centralize currently available information in one location for public access; require that this information be made available.
a. Current documents include municipal budgets, audits and surveys of finance (most available on State Auditor’s Website).
b. Could also centralize much of the budgetary information that is available on the tax commission website.

2. Create a study group to evaluate information that should be made available. Conduct evaluation in preparation for the 2009 session.
a. Survey state and local governments to determine which budget documents are being frequently requested to ensure that we are focusing on information the public is requesting.
b. Evaluate system sophistication to see how compatibility and document conversion will occur.

3. Run Legislation in 2009 to make information that has been identified by the study group available on the website.

4. Run legislation this year with a delayed effective date of 2010 to allow for the study to occur over 2008 with the information requirement passed in 2009 and final implementation due in 2010.

5. Stagger the implementation of the legislation. In year one (2010) focus on a state agency to “test” the use-ability of the system. In year two (2011), work out any “kinks in the system and move to implement more broadly to state agencies and local governments. (Keep in mind that the budget, audit and survey of finance will be available with the passage of this year’s legislation, and the staggered/delayed effective date will only apply to the additional information that is deemed appropriate by the study committee.

With these steps in place, we feel confident that greater transparency can be accomplished with minimal impact of the governments charged with making this information available.

Municipal Issues Moving Slowly

As we move through the third week of the 2008 legislative session, it appears that many things are going to be different. Not only have we moved back to the "big house", but it appears that municipal issues are receiving far more dileberation than they have in year's past -- AND THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.

Lets just look at some of the key priorities for the ULCT this year.

SB-72 Justice Court Reform:
This much anticipated bill, which has been covered extensively in the press and has had many local officials anxious over potential changes in governance has yet to have its first committee hearing. Now thats not to say that work has not been done on this issue, as we have been meeting on a daily basis with the interested parties and the bill sponsor to work out a solution to this problem, but it is certainly a departure from the norm to work in this fashion and avoid the committee process in an attempt to work things out prior to the big committee/floor fight. It is likely that this bill will go to committee late this week, but we are confident that many of the large concerns for municipalities will be worked out prior to that committee hearing -- Certainly a refreshing approach.

Privatization Issues:
As with Justice Courts, it has taken nearly three full weeks to get the kinks worked out of the privatization issues. Two bills SB45 and HB75 have been substantially revamped to address concerns that were raised by the ULCT and local governments. These bills just went to committee this week and were largely hammered out prior to the committee hearing process. Since these bills were subcommittee approved, it has been odd to have them delayed this long, but certainly a refreshing approach to address our concerns prior to committee to avoid the protracted battles that have occured in years past.

Taxation and Government Finance:
Again with both SB29 and SB38, which largely deal with property tax issues (SB29) and transparency in government finance (SB38), we have had significant opportunity to provide constructive feedback on both bills to avoid large committee fights. We successfully addressed the concerns we had with the original version of SB29, and are now unaffected by the current legislation (all of this was done prior to the committee hearing). In addition, we have provided significant feedback on SB38 and believe the sponsor is receptive to our concerns and proposed approach. While SB38 is now on the Senate floor for considereation, we have had a great opportunity to voice our concerns in the Senate and are hopeful that amendments will be offered to address our concerns with the legislation. -- Again a refreshing approach to the legislative process.

Hopefully the trend will continue and the writing of this entry will not "jinx" our efforts.

Thanks again for all of those that help with the municipal government effort. Lets hope the following weeks follow suit.

Until next time... Enjoy.

Policy Meeting (Monday, February 4th)

Just a quick reminder for the upcoming ULCT Legislative Policy Meeting:

The meeting will be held at noon in room W135 of the Utah State Capitol Complex

Hope to see you there.

Talkin' Trash -- Waste Flow Control Examined by the Legislature

Senate Bill #46
Anti Flow Control Amendments

Anti-Flow Control Amendments, as proposed in Senate Bill 46, would prohibit a public entity from requiring solid waste generated within its jurisdiction be delivered to a government owned facility.

Flow Control, currently authorized by the Utah Solid Waste Management Act, can be used by public entities to assist in providing required solid waste related services by;
Assuring adequate revenue to support requested services.
Providing a financing mechanism for construction of solid waste related facilities.

IS FLOW CONTROL A PROBLEM IN UTAH?
According to a national survey of tipping fees completed by the Solid Waste Digest in 2007, Utah has the lowest median tipping fee in the nation at an average $22 per ton. The ability to enact flow control does not appear to have a pricing effect.

In 2006, based upon reports filed with the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, the largest landfill in Utah is privately owned (Allied Waste at 684,811 tons/year) and is nearly twice as large as the largest municipally owned landfill (Trans-Jordan at 402,877 tons/year). The second largest privately owned landfill (Metro Waste) accepted 293,258 tons is the fourth largest landfill in the state. Privately owned landfills are clearly not at a competitive disadvantage in the state. Both of these landfills are less than 4 years old.

Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District is the only entity in Utah which has enacted a flow control ordinance. The ordinance was enacted in 1986 to support financing the waste to energy facility. The newly constructed privately owned landfills entered the market knowing that Davis and Morgan County waste was committed to the District.

Utah’s publicly owned landfills have recognized that flow control should not be a first step in ensuring a reliable waste stream for their facilities, but feel that having flow control as a last result measure to ensure a competitive hauling and transfer market is a legitimate purpose.

We have agreed that flow control should only be utilized if certain market conditions exist that would dramatcially increase the cost of residential waste service or provide an exculsive monopoly or oligopoly for a few well postioned companies that have established complete vertical integration in the hualing, transfering and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste.

WHAT DO CITIZENS LOSE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CONTROL FLOW?

Locally owned waste haulers may not be able to compete with large vertically integrated companies which own landfills and also provide hauling services. There is a real possibility that only one or two private companies will end up controlling both the landfill and hauling market in Utah.

Municipalities provide the following services to residents as part of their comprehensive waste management responsibility: private customer drop off (self haul) service, recycling, waste-to-energy, household hazardous waste disposal (HHW), electronic waste recycling, etc. Private landfills do not provide these same services.

There is deep concern that only have one or two private disposal facilities in Utah may allow a select group to price control all aspects of waste disposal and dramatically effect residential waste prices as well as the price of the additional waste services that are offered in most jurisdicitons.


FLOW CONTROL FACTS

Ø Fees charged for waste disposal by Wasatch Integrated are not higher than fees charged in surrounding communities that do not have flow control ordinances.
§ Wasatch charges $26 per ton of waste (all haulers pay the same price).
§ Salt Lake County charges $22 per ton.
§ Weber County (currently being served by Allied Waste) charges $30 per ton.
§ Previously high rates at Wasatch were attributed to a bond repayement schedule and were not the result of flow control as has been witnessed as rates dropped immediately upon paying the bonds.

Flow Control is Not Anti-Competitive

Davis and Morgan Counties have a healthy and highly competitive market for waste related services. There are currently 15 to 20 companies providing waste pickup, hauling, recycling, etc. within Wasatch Integrated’s service area. Because all haulers pay the same rate for disposal, small businesses have the ability to compete, which keeps prices low and service high.

Removing flow control will provide a competitive advantage only to companies which own landfill capacity.

Municipally operated landfills ensure competition by charging all haulers of waste the same rate for disposal. Several municipally operated landfills on the Wasatch Front will close within the next 10 to 20 years as they reach capacity. Without the ability to ensure revenue bonds through flow control, it is unlikely that new municipally owned landfills will be constructed.

The Utah Solid Waste Management Act provides public entities both powers and duties in regard to solid waste management including:
· supervise and regulate the collection, transportation, and disposition of all solid waste generated within its jurisdiction;
· provide solid waste management facilities to handle adequately solid waste generated or existing within or without its jurisdiction;
· levy and collect taxes, fees, and charges and require licenses as may be appropriate to discharge its responsibility for the acquisition, construction, operation , maintenance, and improvement of solid waste management facilities or any portion of them, including licensing private collectors operating within its jurisdiction, and;
· require that all solid waste generated within its jurisdiction be delivered to a solid waste management facility;

The Utah Solid Waste Management Act further requires a public entity to assure a supply of solid waste be available to repay bonded indebtedness through long term contracts or “flow control.”

The Supreme Court of the United States

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, in a 6 to 3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, that local government “flow control” ordinances were not unconstitutional stating in part:

” Disposing of trash has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas-but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same-do not discriminate against interstate commerce.”

“…we uphold these ordinances because any incidental burden they may have…does not outweigh the benefits they confer on the citizens…”

Privatization Efforts Hit Road Block in Committee

The big news today was that the privatization efforts hit a road block in the House Government Operations committee, with several questions and concerns raised relative to the approach that has been taken(HB75 and HB76) to review and evaluate privatization efforts for both the state and local governments.

The committee appropriately questioned how one could define "core" governmental service that could then be applied to local jurisdictions that range from Salt Lake City to Vernal, or from Tremonton to St. George. In addition, the ULCT's concerns on these bills were also being echoed by the counties, publicly operated nursing homes, rural hospitals, and several other groups where the notion of a "core" or inherently governmental service becomes problematic.

In response to the concerns that had been expressed, it appears that a major effort to amend the bill is underway. It is likely that the substitute bill will not be required in the local jurisdictions and that they will simply focuses on reconstituting the state privatization policy board to give it more say in the evaluation of privatization efforts at the state level.

Not a bad outcome for local governments. We will see if our hunch is correct in the next few days and let you know as things change.

The next big issue coming down the pipe is the Waste Flow Control Issue and just on its heels is the Justice Court Restructuring Issue. Stay tuned for detailed updates on both.

Until next time... Enjoy.

The "Water Dogs" still tweaking HB51 Water Forfeiture Bill

Friday was a wild one for HB 51 Water Forfeiture Protection. as the "water dogs" aka. the water attorneys/engineers looked at proposed tweaks to the original HB51.

This bill is one of the League's highest priorities in the 2008 session. It is the product of relentless effort during the interim to accommodate water users throughout the state and to fix a gaping whole in the state water policy to allow public water suppliers to plan and hold water rights for its future demand. The Water Coalition typically met every other week during the summer, and its drafting contingent met in the alternating weeks. Its membership was open to virtually any interested party and included representatives of large and small cities, water districts, the CUP, the Provo River Water Users' Association, private water companies, the State Engineer's Office, the LDS church, legislators, the Farm Bureau, the Utah Homebuilder's Association and virtually every water lawyer in the state.

HB 51 is a Natural Resources Committee bill, having survived several hearings during the interim. However, as one sage politician once told me: "Nothing sharpens the mind like a Standing Committee Hearing."

We have known for quite some time now that the State Engineer's Office is not on board with HB 51, and particularly the exemption from forfeiture for holding water for the reasonable future demands of the public. As it turns out, late last week, a very large ecclesiastical "player" in our state expressed concern that HB 51 did not address some of its "concerns" with the current non-use application process. That entity's "concerns" were alleviated in a substitute bill that was drafted for Friday's committee hearing.

Sparks started to fly on Thursday, and reached a crescendo on Friday, just before the scheduled committee meeting. Representative Painter, who has been our champion in every respect, concluded that discretion is the better part of valor and that we should evaluate the substitute, incorporate good ideas contained in the substitute and reassemble next week with an even more inclusive bill. This strategy seemed to satisfy everyone but the State Engineer's Office.

A small drafting contingent met into the evening on Friday and will resume again on Monday morning. Stay tuned as a substitute bill is in the works. If you would like more information on the water issue, also plan on attending ULCT's policy meeting on Monday, Jan. 28, where Rep. Painter and ULCT's Jodi Hoffman will provide the most recent update on the status of the substitute that is being undertaken.

Until next time... Enjoy.

Monday, Jan. 28th is Policy Meeting (Noon -- Room W135)

Hey Everyone,

Don't forget our Monday Policy Meeting will be held Monday, January 28, 2008 in room W135 of the Capitol Complex West Building. The meeting will begin at Noon (MST).

Here is the agenda if you would like to review.

1. Welcome and Introductions – Council Member Jill Love, ULCT 1st Vice-President

2. Economic Report – Neil Abercrombie, Doug McDonald – 5 Minutes
a. Please see handout

3. HB51 Water Forfeiture Protection – Rep. Patrick Painter – 10 Minutes

4. HB104 Urban Trails Appropriation – Rep. Kory Holdaway – 5 Minutes

5. ULCT Priority Issues – 25 Minutes
a. Taxes – Roger Tew
b. Water Forfeiture – Jodi Hoffman
c. Justice Courts – Lincoln Shurtz
d. Land Use Subcommittee Bills – Jodi Hoffman
f. Privatization – Roger Tew

6. Status Sheet Review – Lincoln Shurtz -- 15 Minutes
a. Review ULCT Suggested Positions
b. Answer any questions you may have on specific bills

7. Other Issues

8. Adjourn

Day 4 -- Things are starting to move

Day 4 is now behind us. It was a fairly slow day on Capitol Hill for Utah’s cities with nothing in committee in either the Senate or the House. However, it looks like SB20 is going back to a Senate Standing Committee on Tuesday, January 29 for some additional hearing time. While the bill went immediately to the floor for consideration, there were still some issues that needed to be addressed prior to Senate passage. The ULCT has been charged with finding consensus on this legislation prior to Tuesday’s scheduled hearing. If you are interested in the discussion I would encourage your attendance at Monday’s Policy Meeting. A working group will be meeting soon after to hammer out the final details.

In addition to SB20 we have several other key items up for consideration in the next few days to include SB46 Anti-Flow Control Amendments which will be in committee next Tuesday, January 29th, as well as Rep. Painters HB51 Water Forfeiture Amendments which is scheduled for committee on Friday, January 25th . If you have an opportunity to attend this meeting tomorrow on Water Forfeiture, your showing of support would be greatly appreciated. In addition, we will be smattered with a few privatization bills HB75 and HB76 both sponsored by Craig Frank on Monday as well as SB45 which is in Senate Government Operations Committee tomorrow afternoon. The ULCT has opposed all three of these bills.

So what do these bills do?

SB46 Anti Flow Control: Would restrict a city, county or district from directing the flow of residential and commercial solid waste to a public facility. The bill, in its current form, does not address municipal concerns with monopolistic propensities in the private Utah waste disposal industry, nor does it address concerns with the potential for rate increases associated with residential waste disposal if a significant portion of the commercial waste stream is diverted from public facilities. The ULCT is in discussions with the legislative advocates behind this bill and is working to address their concerns while also maintaining the option of flow control if the city, county or district can demonstrate certain factors associated with the creation of monopolies and price concerns. The ULCT’s current position is to oppose the bill as drafted

HB51 Water Forfeiture Amendments: This bill would allow cities and towns to retain municipal water rights for the reasonable future demands of the public and waive current forfeiture provisions if water is being retained for that purpose. The reasonable future demands of the public concept allows cities and towns to do appropriate long range planning (20 and 30 year plans) without the threat of forfeiting water that is purchased today for a demand that may not be realized for 20-30 years. This is a very high priority bill for the League and we would encourage you to contact your representative to express your support.

HB75, HB76 and SB45: These bills came out of the legislative study committee on privatization and attempt to address perceived local government and state activities that compete with the private sector. Each bill has a different methodology, but all fail to address the true concerns of privatization. The bills attempt to address a “core governmental service” but the current definition fails to recognize anything that is not a regulatory or legislative activity as a “core” service. In short; police, fire, parks, recreation, water, sewer, public works would all be considered non-core services and should therefore be handled by the private sector. In addition to “core service” these bills attempt to create oversight boards that can overturn city council decisions if a decision is deemed to have private competition implications. Since this concept clearly tramples the constitutionally held concept that a legislative decision cannot be overturned by a non-elected board – The RIPPER CLAUSE, we have some concerns here as well. Due to the overarching aspect of each bill, the ULCT stands opposed to all three.

SB20 Form of Government Amendments: In the most simplistic sense, this bill addresses the roles and responsibilities of councils and mayors under the various forms of municipal government. It also stipulates how a city can change from one form to another. This bill still has some work to be done to ensure that the power balance is not shifted in the changes that were made and still allows all cities and towns to operate as they do today. As mentioned above, we will have a final product ready to go on Monday, January 28 and will provide more detail at that time.

As you can see things are already picking up. We will be sure to keep you up to speed.

Until next time …. Enjoy

Day 44 -- Now the Fun Begins

It was a fairy slow day in committee on Tuesday as most of the bills affecting local governments were pulled from the agenda to allow for futher discussion.

Rep. Shurtliff's annexation bill (HB124) that extends some of Salt Lake County's requirements to counties of the second class was pulled so that the Counties and Cities could see if there were some alternatives to her original language. It is safe to say that no one is looking at SL County's annexation laws as the poster child for how things should be. We will keep you posted as this continues to be discussed

Rep. Frank pulled his privatization policy board bill HB75 to allow the League an opportunity to provide some alternatives to the constitutional hang-ups with his legislation, which essentially allows an appointed board to override a city council in determining the proper role of government. We provided those alternatives late afternoon, and we was going to "sleep on them" to see where he wants to go with his legislation

Sen. Greiner also pulled his bill (SB127) that would require local government to locate all private and public underground sewer facilities. Since this would cost about $300-$500 per home, everyone is trying to figure out some alternatives to locating sewer laterals that are not owned by government, but rather the home owner.

So while bills before committee were largely held for further discussion, the Senate was moving quickly on bills already on the floor, and have passed two big retirement bills to the third reading calendar for final discussion. Those bills SB18 and SB19 provide greater benefits to police officers by offering a death benefit to surviving spouses (SB18) and allowing for greater Cost of Living Adjustments for retired peace officers (SB19). While the League has endorsed SB19 since it is optional for local government, our position is still pending on SB18. We will be solidifying our position at our next policy meeting.

Well that about does it for Tuesday.

Until next time ... Enjoy!

45 Days and Counting

The clock has officially begun for the 57th Utah State Legislature. In what was consider largely a ceremonial day, both the House and Senate began this year's legislative session by paying respect to Martin Luther King Jr. As many of you may know, this will likely be the last session of the Utah Legislature to begin on the third Monday in January, which is also the same day as Martin Luther King Jr. day. Due to a bill passed last year, the voting public will have an opportunity in the upcoming November election to move the constitutionally held opening day of the session in an effort to properly honor Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

So while to day is largely ceremonial, we will be in full swing tomorrow with several bills in committee. To include an annexation bill that is being run by Rep. Shurtliff and an underground utility bill being run by Sen. Greiner. The annexation bill would increase the ability of individuals and township planning committees to protest annexations in second class counties; while the underground utility bill will require local governments to identify and map many underground utilities regardless of ownership. The utility bill is estimated to cost local governments tens of millions in mapping and locating costs, and obviously has the ULCT and several other local government representatives anxious.

So as you can see, we are starting off with a bang. Please check this website daily for continued progress reports and updates for the 2008 General Legislative Session.

Until tomorrow -- enjoy....

Justice Courts -- Cities Also Want Change but proceed with Caution

As many of you are aware, there has been some judicial and legislative scrutiny surrounding the independence, oversight and operational aspects of the municipal justice court system. After a recent Utah Supreme Court Case that took into account certain aspects of the justice court system, members of the Court convened a study group to determine if additional operational elements are needed in the justice court system to ensure appropriate levels of judicial independence at the local level. In addition to a widely held perception that the justice court system is merely in place to “raise revenue for cities and counties,” some specific examples have further exacerbated both the perception and real problem of at least localized judicial bias due to municipal financial scenarios.

In light of this issue, the Supreme Court study group has come up with some proposed changes to the justice court system. As those proposals were unveiled, they were immediately met with skepticism for most, if not all, cities as well as the practitioners at that justice court level. The proposal included a phase-out of all part-time justice court judges, establishing the State Administrative Office of the Courts as the body that will hire, fire and administer all justice court judges, institute retention elections for justice court judges, and have justice court judge’s salary set in statute.

After hearing of these findings and recommendations, the ULCT and Association of Counties commissioned a study group to evaluate both the perceived problem and potential solutions. In doing so, the ULCT/UAC committee came acknowledged many of the same problems that were highlighted by the Court Study committee, but our group came up with a different set of solutions to the problem. It is believed that the independence concerns that have been advanced by the Courts Study Committee can be accomplished without the fundamental shift that they have recommended.

Here is an outline of the proposal that is preferred by the cities and towns for addressing these concerns:

(1) Cities and towns continue to be allowed to select their own judge and the judge will remain a city employee. (This ensures that the duties and responsibilities of administering the local court are still realized at the local level)

(2) Potential municipal justice court judges will be reviewed by a local nominating committee; recommendations from the nominating committee will be submitted to the governing body of the municipality/county in which the judge will preside, and the governing body will grant final approval of the nominee. (This concept address the concern raised by the courts regarding judge selection, be creating a nominating committee. At the same time it provides for the local character of the area to be reflected in the selection of the judge)

(3) Justice court judges will continue to be part-time or full-time as the caseload dictates. (This also ensures that court needs are being met without requiring the hiring of full time court judges in areas where it is not necessary)

(4) After selection by the governing body, the judges would be subject to retention elections every four or six years within the jurisdiction where the judge presides; and retention elections will be held in conjunction with the election cycle for the jurisdiction in which the judge presides. (This addresses the concerns raised by the courts regarding continued judicial independence. The judge would no longer be subject to any real or perceived pressure from the city to arbitrarily prosecute all infractions)

(5) Justice court judge’s salary would be initially set by the municipality or county employing the judge to ensure that salary is commensurate with duties and responsibilities, but future raises would be based on an average of the annual pay increase for all city employees within the jurisdiction. The raise/pay increase concept would be dictated in statute to ensure “isolation” from “political pressure” regarding future pay increase. In addition, we would recommend that we maintain the current statutory pay limit of 85% of the salary of district court judges. (This concept would allow the salary to be commensurate with the duties of the judge in the local court, but would provide the necessary insulation from any undue pressure from the city administration that would be tied to future raises or merit based payments)

(6) Municipal justice court judges will be required to have at least a four-year college degree, and all currently sitting judges would be exempt from this provision. (This would address the court concerns with enhancing the “professionalism” by requiring some additional educational standards for justice court judges)

(7) Additional efforts will be made to harmonize the software and information sharing concerns that have been raised by the Supreme Court by pursuing a revenue tool and process by which all justice courts would be able to share information within a given period of time. (This address the concerns that have been raised by the courts relative to our ability to share information across all Utah Courts)

We believe that this approach addresses the judicial independence concerns of the AOC while still being cognizant of the needs of local justice courts relative to administration and judge selection. We hope to work closely with the Legislature, Courts and other interested parties to accomplish the collective goals that have been put forward.

UPDATE: The FCC’s Second Report and Order on Cable Franchising

On October 31, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in MB Docket No. 05-311, FCC 07-190, released November 6, 2007, that addressed whether findings and relief for new entrants, promulgated in the Docket’s First Report and Order, also known as the Section 621 Report and Order, should be extended to current cable service providers (“incumbents”). The FCC found the following:

1. Application Time Limits. The provisions regarding time limits for franchise negotiations are only applicable to new entrants. The time limits cannot apply to incumbent renewals, which are governed by the renewal procedures set forth in Section 626 of the Communications Act (the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 546. The underlying rationale, to prevent unreasonable delays and to allow new entrants to provide service, is inapplicable to incumbents who are able to provide service during renewal negotiations.

2. Build-Out Requirements. The findings of the FCC regarding build-out requirements are only applicable to new entrants. Specifically, the finding that a local franchising authority (“LFA”) cannot refuse to award a competitive franchise because the applicant would not agree to unreasonable build-out requirements, is based on Section 621(a)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1), a provision which does not apply to incumbents. The underlying rationale, that build-out requirements may act as a barrier to new entrants, is inapplicable to incumbents.

3. Franchise Fees. The FCC’s findings in the First Report and Order that certain costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs must be counted toward the statutory 5% cap on franchise fees, should be extended to incumbents. The findings interpreting Section 622 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 542, apply equally to incumbents and new entrants and include the following: (a) that an operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services; (b) that certain fees are not “incidental” and must therefore be counted toward the 5% cap; (c) that funds requested by LFAs for municipal projects unrelated to cable services are subject to the 5% cap; and (d) that payments to support the operation of public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) facilities are subject to the 5% cap unless the payments are for capital costs.

4. Public, Educational, and Governmental Access and Institutional Networks. Many of the FCC’s findings relating to PEG access facilities and institutional networks (“I-Nets”) should be extended to incumbents. The findings relating to PEG access and I-Nets include the following: (a) all non-capital costs to support the operation of PEG facilities are subject to the 5% franchise fee cap; (b) the FCC’s refusal to adopt standard terms for PEG channels for new entrants applies to incumbents; and (c) the FCC’s refusal to hold that it is per se unreasonable for LFAs to require ongoing PEG support by new entrants (so long as the costs are subject to the 5% cap) applies to incumbents. The FCC held that other findings relating to PEG access and I-Nets should not apply to incumbents.

5. Authority Over Mixed-Use Networks. The findings of the FCC regarding mixed-use networks are based upon interpretations of Section 602 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 522, which does not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants, and as such, the findings should be applicable to incumbents as well. Since the jurisdiction of an LFA applies to cable services that are provided over cable systems, an LFA may not use its franchising authority to regulate an entire mixed-use network. It would be unreasonable for an LFA to impose its authority over non-cable services or facilities that do not qualify as a cable system.

Existing Franchise Agreements

The FCC recognized that since franchise agreements involve contractual obligations, the Second Report and Order does not give incumbents any right to breach their existing contractual obligations contained in franchise agreements. Instead, the FCC believes that each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis under the applicable law to determine whether the FCC’s statutory interpretation should modify the incumbent’s existing franchise agreement. The FCC encourages LFAs to work cooperatively with an incumbent who asserts that terms of its franchise should be amended as a result of the Second Report and Order. The FCC stated that some incumbents may seek modifications to franchise agreements pursuant to a most favored nation clause in the franchise agreement, pursuant to a compliance with law provision in the franchise agreement, or pursuant to the modification provision, Section 625 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 545. The FCC also recognized that if these efforts fail, some disputes may eventually find their way to court.

Customer Service Requirements

In the Second Report and Order, the FCC addressed the application of different state and local cable customer service requirements. Based upon the statutory language of Section 632 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 552, the FCC declined to preempt state or local cable customer service requirements that exceed FCC customer service standards, and stated that LFAs and cable operators may agree to more stringent customer service requirements.

Effective Date

The Second Report and Order will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Is the term "Mayor" really dead in Utah?

Many of you may have read or heard the recent news story regarding a minor legislative attempt to "eliminate" the Mayor position as we now know it -- at least in title, the story certainly down-played the overwhelming negative reaction that the proposal received as well as the 6-3 "NO" vote on the proposal.

While it cannot be denied that Sen. Howard Stephenson promoted an idea to do way with the title "mayor" for nearly 230 mayors in the State of Utah, it should also be mentioned that the vast majority of the committee supported the Utah League of Cities and Towns as they recommended to the committee that such a proposal would be ill-conceived and would likely be the "poison pill" to a more rational proposal that the committee may wish to contemplate regarding transitions between forms of government. In the end, the committee sided with the ULCT and decided to pursue more productive proposals.

Granted the sensational nature of a story to do away with Utah's mayors is tempting for many, but we would hope that the true story really gets out, and that is that this legislative taskforce on forms of government has done some really good work. After many months of meeting, the committee has decided to do the following:

• Clean up the statute so that the confusion regarding the role of the mayor, the role of the council, and the role of administrative staff is clear in the various municipal forms of government.


• Provide the citizenry an opportunity to vote on changes of form of government at the municipal level (Note: hiring a city manager that reports to either the mayor or council is not considered a "change in form of government")


• Define the three forms of government that will exist in Utah state statute to include the (1) "Mayor-Council" form of government, which has a separate executive and legislative branch; (2) the 6-member council form of government, where the mayor and council sit as one governing body and the mayor is a non-voting chair of council meetings and has additional executive and administrative responsibilities; and (3) the 5-member council form of government, where the mayor is a voting member of the council in addition to having specific administrative and executive responsibilities. They will also grandfather those cities where the public has voted to have the "City Manager" form of government, otherwise known as the "City Manager by Statute" form.


• In addition all of the cities and towns that currently operate under what is now the "City Manager by Ordinance" form of government will still be able to operate as they currently are and will just have to specify in ordinance that they are the 6-member council or 5-Member Council with a city manager that reports to either the mayor or council or combination thereof.

The proposal mentioned above was approved by the legislative committee with only one NO vote.

So as you can see that despite the impression that may have been left by the news reports of late, it appears that the vast majority of the Utah Legislature is still interested in having mayors and supporting our cities and towns as they try to govern. In short, the Legislative Committee and the ULCT have attempted to infuse considerable clarity into the statute surrounding this issue, but pragmatically the governance at the local level will be left unaltered except for the times in which there is a transition between the various forms of government.

There is one point Sen. Stephenson made that does resonate -- it is clear that there are many people that do not understand the governance structure at the local level. It appears evermore important to begin to reintroduce local civics to the public at-large so we can all begin to understand more clearly the government that is truly "closest to the people". Hopefully all of Utah's cities will pursue such endeavours.

May our mayors live on... Until next time enjoy.

September ULCT Legislative Update

Campaign Finance Disclosure:

It looks like municipal campaign finance disclosure information may become a little bit more accessible if the legislative efforts of Rep. Brad Daw are successful. On Wednesday, Rep. Day presented proposed legislation that would require that the municipal campaign finance disclosures be submitted to the State Elections Website within seven days of their filing, so that the information could be made available electronically at a centralized database. The ULCT has been working with the sponsor and providing periodic updates to the Policy Committee regarding this issue. Due to our efforts to shape this legislation, it looks like the bill will have very little impact on the city administration, and will simply require that the information be transmitted to the state in a timely manner. The state will cover the cost of “warehousing” the information, and will provide several methods for submitting the information. We will continue to keep you posted as this issue progresses.

Electronic Notice Requirements:

The Political Subdivisions Committee heard an update on a law passed last year HB-222, which requires the posting of public meeting notices on a state sponsored website. The law does not take effect until April 2008, but much work has been done by the State Archives and State ITS to work with the cities, counties, school boards and special districts on the implementation aspects of the bill. The ULCT raised a couple of issues that they would like to see addressed prior to the law going into effect. Possible delays in the full implementation of the system, and a grace period for possible electronic notice posting mishaps were all mentioned as issues that need to be addressed. Because possible open and public meeting challenges may come up if the electronic noticing is not done properly, the ULCT would like to see some efforts made to ensure effective training and opportunity is given to the cities to be successful with the new requirement. While the cities supported the bill that passed last year, a few issues still need to be addressed. In addition to a “grace period” the ULCT requested that greater attention be paid to which notices we would like to have posted on the website. Currently the bill says all public bodies must post notice of meetings, but that definition is so ambiguous that greater detail may be necessary as well. We took the opportunity to talk with the bill sponsor and will be working through the issues in the next few months leading up to the 2008 session. Look for more updates on this issue as well.

Property Tax Hearing:

If you haven’t taken the opportunity to read the articles in today’s issue (Thursday September 20, 2007) of the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/) or Deseret News (http://www.desnews.com/), you should do so. Needless to say, the public came out in droves on Wednesday to discuss their concerns with recent increases in property tax reassessments. What was unfortunate is that most people are confusing property tax increases with increases in assessed value. The current Utah law provides no new money to the taxing entity due to reassessments, but an individual’s tax bill may change substantially if their reassessed value is much higher or lower that the average value change for the other properties within the taxing area. What is helpful to remember is that just because the value changed, does not mean the taxing entity is getting any more money. The only way the taxing entity gets more money is if they go through a truth-in-taxation hearing and affirmatively raise the tax rate to net additional revenue. While this nuance was lost on many, the passion regarding the issue of property tax generally was certainly felt. It appears that the State Legislature will be looking to make some modifications this year to how property tax is assessed and collected. Hopefully they will address the real issue which is reassessment methodology and not fundamentally change what has proven to be a very good property tax system. We will be watching this issue closely and are sure to post more in future updates.

Cameron Bids the ULCT Farewell and Guest Blogs As Well

By Cameron Diehl, ULCT Policy Analyst and Soon to Be University of Colorado Buffalo (otherwise known as "the bearded guy")

As I have advocated on behalf of local government the past two years, I often explain that municipal issues are neighborhood issues. Be it the nearby subdivision or commercial development, local police patrols and fire protection or funding the sewer and sanitation facilities, what is debated within city council chambers and considered by city leaders directly affects the lives of city residents.

That is not to say that our cities are perfect in their decision-making nor does it preclude the constant criticism of government in general. For comparison purposes, I pulled up the Congressional minutes from last week. In a seventy minute span on Monday afternoon (7/23), Congress:

- Reauthorized the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994;

- Reauthorized the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997;

- Amended the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998;

- Expressed that the United States should address the ongoing problem of untouchability in India;

- Approved the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003;

- Congratulated the University of Wyoming Cowgirls for winning the Womens NIT (at least they are from the Mountain West Conference... even though I'm leaving for Colorado, GO UTES!!!)

(In Congress’ defense, they also distributed appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, money that will benefit infrastructure needs nationwide, including Utah.)

A popular political refrain is “get government out of our lives.” While life will probably continue smoothly with or without the reauthorizations of two different international elephant conservation acts, go ahead and “get government out of your life” on a local basis. We could stop collecting the garbage, plowing the streets, providing clean water or safe parks and eliminate local control over planning and zoning issues. All of a sudden, it doesn’t seem quite as cut and dried anymore as “get government out of our lives.”

A key component of our upcoming “Making Life Better” campaign is to increase awareness of what local government provides everyday for our communities. We agree that government, yes even local government, should be limited and within its means. However we also believe that when desired by the citizenry, there is a role for government to “make life better”.

Then again, maybe by just NOT convening everyday, local government is "making life better." You be the judge. As for me, I'm taking a hiatus from the real world to attain a law degree. I've appreciated the people I've met, the issues I've studied and the tremendous opportunities I've had at the League. As a lifetime political nerd, it has been a phenomenal ride. I intend to be involved in civics and policy for years to come and I hope to renew friendships in the future. To good friends who read Lincoln's blog--farewell and keep reading. I know sometimes he gets long-winded, but he is a policy wonk. Lets be honest-- if you're reading this, aren't you a policy wonk too?

Go Utes, Go Jazz and Go Buffaloes!

(31 days until Utah-Oregon St.)

Forms of Government -- Are we any closer to a solution?

The Big Question: Are we any closer to a solution regarding municipal forms of government than we were 3 months ago?

While I think many of us hope the dialogue has progressed, the results of the Local Issues Taskforce regarding this issue are mixed. We have now reviewed two potential solutions to the issue of transitions between municipal forms of government, each of which has received mixed reviews from some members of the Legislative Taskforce.

The first attempt at a fix was a narrowly tailored resolution to the issue of transitions between forms of government. While this resolution still allowed for the city manager by ordinance form of government, it would have allowed for a citizen vote if the mayor contested the hiring of a city manager or if the citizens referred the issue using the currently authorized referendum process. This resolution worked for many members on the committee, but some felt that it did not add the necessary clarity to the statute so that people clearly understood the differences between the various forms of government.

In response, we tried a second attempt at a fix which was far more broad in scope and infused the desired clarity that was lacking in the first attempt. This also addressed the transitions between forms, requiring a vote of the people anytime there was a transition from one from of government to another. The proposed fix also clarified what constitutes a change in from to include three basic forms of government: the five member council form, six member council form, or the council-mayor form of government. The proposed fix then allowed for the hiring of a city manager that could either be answerable to the mayor or council all of which would be determined by the city in question. The hiring of a city manager to accomplish some administrative functions would not be considered a change in form, but rather a staffing decision for the city. While this resolution was also accepted by many on the committee, some members felt that the hiring of a city manager does still constitute a change in from unless the city manager is always directly accountable to the mayor and not the council. While we tried to explain that if a city is operating under a 5 or 6 member council, the mayor is essentially a part of the council, and not a separate executive branch, that rationale did not ease the concerns of some members of the committee who feel that regardless of form, the mayor should be in charge of the city manager.

So, now where are we? Great Question. We will be working with the two chairs of the taskforce and legislative research to see if there is some alternative solution, or if some minor tweaks to one or both of the previously offered solutions is adequate.

Towards the end of the last meeting there was some mention of having a spectrum of forms all of which would be voted on in the case of a transition from one form to another. The spectrum of forms would start with a commission form of government with no mayor and gradually progress to a mayor council-form of government with a distinct delineation of duties between the executive functions of the city and legislative functions of the city. The problem with this solution is trying to determine where each city currently fits. Since many cities have addressed many of the nuances of governance by ordinance, it is tough to force them into a category cleanly. For instance, if a mayor retains executive authority over certain divisions within the city, but operates under what is currently considered a 6 member council form where the duties are technically vested in the council AND mayor as a single governing body, Does that mean they resemble a mayor-council (split executive/legislative authority) since the mayor has some exclusive executive authority over some departments? Or does it mean we force the mayor to absolve himself of those executive roles because they actually operate under the traditional 6 member council and have only been given exclusive executive authorities by ordinance? In addition for those cities that truly operate as a unified body, but still have a mayor do we want to now get rid of the position of “mayor” and instead have city commissioners?

As you can see this is not as simple as we would have all hoped. There is still some optimism the second solution that was referenced earlier still has merit and can be tweaked to address any outstanding concerns regarding the reporting standards of a hired city manager. Our hope, as the League, is to maintain options for cities – a core tenant of the organization and our Legislative Policy Committee. While the mayor-council form works for some cities, so does the 6 member council where the hiring of a city manager, which is accountable to the governing body works well for other cities. Hopefully the Legislative Taskforce will also see the value in maintaining flexibility for the cities.

While everyone has agreed that a vote should be required under circumstances of conflict between transitions. We should not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Of the 243 cities in Utah, we have only witnessed “transitions gone-wrong” in three isolated circumstances all of which should not be viewed as the norm. In fact many cities are continuously morphing the governance model by ordinance to address new scenarios as they arise. Hopefully this is remembered by all as solutions are being considered.

Lastly a special thanks to the chairs and many members of the committee who have worked closely with the ULCT to ensure that municipal flexibility is maintained while trying to achieve greater clarity and voter accountability. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Deseret News Article Link: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695194765,00.html
SL Tribune Article Link: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6448737

Until next time … Enjoy

Understanding the New FCC "621" Order on Cable Franchising

The following is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission’s Report and Order on cable franchising, released March 5, 2007, commonly referred to as the “Section 621 Report and Order.” This summary is a follow-up to the presentation at the Utah League of Cities and Towns Mid-Year Conference in St. George last April, and is provided for informational purposes and is not a legal analysis of the Section 621 Report and Order, and it is not intended to approve or disapprove of the actions by the FCC.

We have noticed that several Utah cities and towns have been looking for a more detailed analysis of the recent FCC order to ensure that local practices are in harmony with the new order.

The summary that we have linked to should provide a good overview of the new order.

We would also like to extend a special thanks to Jerry Oldroyd, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP, for drafting this analysis for the ULCT membership.

Link to the Summary of the New FCC Section 621 Order: http://www.ulct.org/ULCTLeg.nsf/vML/289A49B32846EE5687257316004F00AA?OpenDocument

If you have any questions regarding the summary please contact the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Until Next Time....Enjoy

Paris Hilton Plug with a Local Government Twist

Due to overwhelming public comment on one of my recent Blog Posts I have decided to give a quick Paris Hilton update. (Okay, so maybe it was only one recent anonymous comment, but hey, I take my readers input seriously.)

Anyway, due to this input I have decided that a Ms. Hilton update is not only timely, but relevant to local government. So, in order to stay true to this Blog's topic (Local Government), and because I am a municipal government "hack" I will try to draw the inextricable link between the recent escapades of Ms. Hilton and role local government has played in this public love affair with "America's Heiress"

A chronicle of Paris Hilton's Recent Events:

Sept. 7: Officers arrest Paris Hilton in Hollywood for investigation of driving under the influence after she was spotted "driving erratically." -- DUI Enforcement -- Local Government Making our Streets Safer -- Hooray!!

Sept. 26: Hilton is charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence. -- Book Her!!! -- Local Government Justice Court Hard at Work.

Jan. 15: Hilton is pulled over by California Highway Patrol and informed that her license is suspended. She signs a document acknowledging she is not to drive. -- Okay so CHIPS gets her this time, but usually it is a local government Peace Officer -- anyway again we are keeping our streets safe -- whew!!!

Jan. 22: Hilton pleads no contest to a reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving. She is placed on three years probation, ordered to enroll in alcohol education and pay $1,500 in fines. -- Back in Court, These justice courts sure are hard at work.

Feb. 27: Hilton is ticketed for misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. A copy of the document signed Jan. 15 is found in her glove compartment. -- Whoops --Probation violation, look at local law enforcement keeping their eye on these criminals.

March 29: The city attorney's office says it will ask a judge to revoke Hilton's probation. -- The long arm of the law belongs to local government again, boy are we getting our money's worth from our local government taxes -- keep it up guys!!

May 3: Prosecutors recommend Hilton serve 45 days in jail for a probation violation. -- The Justice Court AGAIN.

May 16: Sheriff's officials say Hilton will serve 23 days in a special unit away from the general population. -- So we went light on the sentencing, but hey the jails are just plumb-full with hardened criminals. Hey, did I mention the jails are also run by local government..

June 3: Hilton reports to the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood after attending the MTV Movie Awards and saying she's ready to serve her sentence. -- In the "Clinker" for Ms. Hilton. I guess local government will house, feed, and provide all the amenities a heiress needs for the next 23 days.

June 7: Hilton is released from jail because of an undisclosed medical problem and is ordered serve the rest of her sentence in home confinement. Judge Sauer later orders Hilton to appear in his courtroom to determine whether she should return to jail. -- Wouldn't you know it, local government now we have to pay for medical examinations too.

June 8: Hilton appears in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where she is sent back to jail. -- Looks like the double whammy for local government this time; both the local government justice court and jailhouse are reengaged.

June 26: Hilton is released from jail. -- Looks like this long "love affair" with local government services is over for Ms. Hilton, but hey we always have Lindsey Lohan to pick up where Paris left off.

Well, I think after this chronicle of events it is clear that the real star here is the local government with the outstanding services they provide. We often say that not a day goes by that you are not helped by your local government, and I think if one thing has come from Paris' recent drama is a greater appreciation for the role of local government. Thanks Paris -- The Utah League of Cities and Towns appreciates your attempts to help with our Local Government Public Awareness Campaign.

Enjoy,

Lincoln

June Utah Legislative Interim Update

It was another busy interim day for Utah’s 242 cities and towns, with several legislative concepts being discussed in the various committees. Let’s first begin with the Political Subdivisions committee.

While the original agenda for the Political Subdivisions committee appeared more daunting than it actually proved to be, the committee did still spend a good portion of their time discussing the difficult issue of eminent domain. The issue at hand was whether or not governing entities should have to pay above the appraised value of property to offset the potential emotional and non-pecuniary tie to a condemned parcel of property. As was pointed out by both the Utah DOT and representatives from the Utah League of Cities, the major issue is and will always be what constitutes “fair and just” compensation. In essence saying the “appraised” value that is assigned to a given parcel of property will always be in questions during condemnation proceedings, and by adding an additional amount above appraised value, we will do nothing to address disagreements that are inevitably associated with underlying appraisal. By the end of the long discussion, the committee appeared to understand the issue well and took no further action on the issue. Even though this concept may be well understood we still expect additional scrutiny of its use in the coming months because of the inherent emotion that surrounds the use of condemnation authority.

In addition to the eminent domain issue, the legislature also spent time discussing local government transportation funding. The Transportation Committee requested a review of the local government B&C road funding allocation, and invited the Utah League of Cities and Towns and Association of Counties to address any concerns that may exist with the current formula. There was general consensus that the current formula lacks any scientific basis, but both the Counties and Cities agreed that there is not much appetite to change the current formula because of the possibility of creating categories of “winners” and “losers” with any proposed modification.

Both groups agreed that additional funding will be an imperative component of any change and encourage the legislature to reexamine the state/local split of funds to ensure that we are not creating a separate and distinct state system apart from the local system.

The committee expressed interest in continuing the dialog and looking at both the state and local transportation funding paradigms.

Lastly, Lieutenant Governor Herbert and representatives from the ULCT and Counties visited the caucus lunches to explain the election procedures that have been discussed in previous BLOG posts. All of the legislative caucus felt comfortable with the election administration model, and encouraged the counties and cities to work closely together to ensure a successful November election. In addition, all caucuses expressed a willingness to cover a large portion of the election costs ($2.3 million), which was being requested by the Lt. Governor, ULCT and Association of Counties.

That about did it for this interim. As things continue to progress we will be sure to provide additional updates.

Until next time …. Enjoy

2007 Election Administration Update

On Wednesday, June 6, 2007, the Utah League of Cities and Towns participated in an additional meeting with the counties and Lieutenant Governor regarding the upcoming municipal election and the addition of the school voucher referendum issue to the statewide ballot in November.
This meeting served as a follow-up to a similar meeting held two weeks ago, and while the last meeting was spent going over the issue of election finances, this meeting focused primarily on the administration of the upcoming elections.

So, here is the “scoop” on what Utah cities and towns can expect for the 2007 municipal primary (September 11, 2007) AND general election (November 6, 2007):

• It is anticipated that the total cost of administering the GENERAL election will be approximately $3.665 Million.

• Preliminary discussion intimate that the state will pick up approximately $2.3 Million and local government (cities, counties, SSD) will pick up the remaining $1.3 Million.

• It was again made clear that the cities and towns will ONLY be held responsible for the anticipated costs that had already been included in the municipal budgets to conduct MUNICIPAL elections. Based on a recent survey of municipal budget outlays for the upcoming election, it appears that cities and towns have more than adequately budgeted for the $1.3 Million in outstanding costs that must be picked up by local government. (We now have survey results in for 140 of the 242 cities and already have general election budget figures of $1.26 Million allocated that will be used toward the $1.3 Million requested of local government)

• An executive directive will be issued by the Lieutenant Governor that will direct that counties administer ALL November 6, 2007 elections to include the early voting requirements, absentee ballots, and Help America Vote Act requirements. In order to comply with Help America Vote Act, the counties are required to utilize the DRE electronic voting equipment.

• The Lieutenant Governor will contract with the counties to provide technical support from Diebold Election Systems Inc. to assist in elections administration, and will provide the state allocated funds to the counties to offset some of the election costs.

• Cities/Towns will only be solely responsible for the municipal PRIMARY elections. The cities/towns will also be responsible for declarations of candidacy, municipal election financial disclosures, Board of Canvassers (municipal races) and will contribute the municipal BUDGETED costs associated with the GENERAL election to the county/state to help underwrite the election costs. Any additional costs other than those which were budgeted will be picked up by the state appropriation that was discussed earlier.

IN SHORT: CITIES/TOWNS WILL NOT BE ASKED FOR MORE MONEY THAN YOU HAVE ALREADY BUDGETED FOR YOUR MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION.

• Counties will be responsible for general election absentee ballots, early voting, Election Day ballot programming, and general election day “rovers”. The counties will serve as the Board of Canvassers for the statewide referendum and will pay any costs not covered by cities/towns, special districts, and state contributions.

• The State will be responsible for the voter information pamphlet, statewide technical support, voter rights posters/stickers and will put up state funds for the election.

It will be imperative that all cities and towns begin working closely with the counties to ensure that the elections run smoothly. We would certainly encourage such coordination to begin sooner than later. The details that are not covered in this synopsis are essentially left up to the counties and cities. Coordination on polling locations, possible contracting to run municipal primaries, precinct consolidation and other such details are sure to come up. Both the legislature and the Lt. Governor will likely defer on such issues and assume that the counties and respective cities will “work it out”.

Until Next Time...Enjoy

Update on Issues Surrounding the Upcoming Municipal Election

Last week we conducted a meeting with the counties and Lieutenant Governor regarding the upcoming municipal election and the addition of the school voucher referendum issue to the statewide ballot. If there was still any question whether or not the voucher issues would be included as an issue to be addressed during the upcoming municipal election cycle, it is now firm that, in deed, we will be conduction both elections during the November general election.

Most of the time during last week’s meeting was spent going over the issue of election finances. It was again made clear that the cities and towns will ONLY be held responsible for the anticipated costs that had already been included in the municipal budgets to conduct MUNICIPAL elections. To help determine those budgeted figures the ULCT sent out a municipal survey on that issue and we are getting fairly good responses. To date, we have information from 100 of the 242 cities. After the municipal budgeted revenues are accounted for, it is then the expectation that the counties and the state will come up with necessary funds to offset additional costs that will be associated adding the referendum to the GENERAL election.

Secondly, the issue of election administration was also briefly discussed. While no final decisions were made, there was a clear recognition that several administrative issues need to be addressed. The following issues were identified as things to address:

• Administration of Early Voting (Conflicts w. the statute governing municipal elections and statewide elections)



• Lack of comprehensive election coverage if just cities conduct the election



• Administrative issues if the city elections are not city-wide (just some council districts)



• Coordination of this effort with Special Service District Elections



• Consolidation of administration with the county recorders for the general election



• Use of various equipment for the general election (Optical Scan, Paper, Electronic)



• Municipal responsibility for the primary election and county responsibility during the general election



• Use of a given vote machine during the primary and another during the general election



• Treating the Primary Election differently than the General Election. (Early Voting, Precinct Consolidation, Equipment, Etc.)
  

While there were a lot of unanswered questions relating to the issues listed above, there seemed to be some initial consensus that the cities/towns should still be responsible for conducting the primary elections that may exist, and any efforts to consolidate efforts on the referendum/municipal election will be limited to the November general election. The does not mean, however, that the cities can't enter into separate contracts with the county to administer primary elections, but it is not the intent of anyone at this point to compel such coordination during the primary elections. There also seemed to be a strong sentiment that the counties may assume sole responsibility for the ADMINISTRATION of the general election to ensure universal coverage, but as mentioned earlier, there will be an expectation that any money that was budgeted by a city for the general election will need to be forwarded from the city to the county to help underwrite the costs associated with assuming administration responsibilities of that election.

Since last week’s meeting was predominately held to flush out the issues, we will be meeting again next week to delve deeper into the unanswered administration aspect of the election. As soon as more information is available we will provide additional updates.

Until next time...ENJOY

May Legislative Update -- Already Preparing for Next Session

Well it was a busy day on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, May 16th with several municipal related legislation/concepts up for discussion in multiple legislative interim committees. Lets first start with the infamous Political Subdivisions Committee. By its very nature, this committee spends most of its time discussing local government issues and this month was no different. With five items on the agenda, four had municipal implications.

First, the committee discussed the structure and mission of the Utah State Quality Growth Commission. After a quick review of the Commission’s mission, the discussion quickly turned to the role of the Commission in ensuring that local government land-use authorities receive appropriate training on critical concepts in land-use law prior to making decisions on specific land-use applications. John Bennett from the Quality Growth Commission did a great job of describing the need for training and plugged the efforts of the Utah League of Cities and Towns to come up with consistent training criteria and materials for local land-use authorities. Mr. Bennett also mentioned efforts that are being made to ensure that a myriad of training resources are made readily accessible through web-based training resources. While the interim committee didn’t hear directly from the ULCT on this issue, it is clear that the ULCT efforts to come up with training materials on land use matters is gaining significant momentum in several policy circles. Several members of the committee opined on the need for additional training and encouraged those involved to continue to pursue such objectives.

Moving to the next item – The same committee (Political Subdivisions) also heard comments regarding Local Referenda. Representative Scott Wyatt discussed the issue of referability of local land use decisions, and spent most of his time pointing out the inconsistency and ambiguity in state statute as it pertains to qualifying and processing local referenda. He brought up issues with different procedures for different forms of government, timeliness of applications, and broad questions regarding what is deemed referable under current state law.

While Rep. Wyatt did say he was not looking to “change the world” he is interested in getting together with interested parties on this technical land use matter. As many of you may know this has been a huge issue for local governments for some time. We have discussed several approached in years past, but legislative momentum has never been there on the issue. Well, it looks like this might be the year. We have already identified this as one of the topics to be discussed with the development community and other stakeholders during the interim period. Look for a lot more on this item. The Salt Lake Tribune also wrote on this issue, and that story can be found HERE.

A third item on the agenda deals with the appointment and removal of certain local government officials. Rep. Chris Herrod is interested in pursing legislation that would expand the advice and consent power of municipal legislative bodies to also include acts of personnel dismissal. While it has long been the law that the legislative body of a city or town has advice and consent on some hiring practices, this change would also expand that power to firing.

While his initial approach is broad sweeping, he is interested in sitting down with local government officials to see if it can be tailored to our liking. Some of the points of concern that we mentioned in committee included concerns regarding giving council advice on consent on the firing of department heads that report directly to the mayor in a “strong mayor” form of government. We also raised significant questions regarding the application of the law in the various forms of government, especially municipal forms of government where the Mayor sits as the chair of the council. At the end of the discussion Rep. Herrod committed to working with the ULCT and the Local Issues Taskforce of the legislature to come up with a solution everyone felt comfortable with. Some possibilities include limiting the advice and consent on firing to appointed voluntary boards and commissions that report to the council regularly and also limiting the provision to applicable forms of government – i.e. the council-mayor form and council-manager form of government.

Lastly, the committee heard from Rep. Neil Hansen regarding his desire to see municipal elections every time a city or town disposes of a piece of real property with a value greater than $1 Million dollars. The bill was opposed by the ULCT during the last legislative session for several reasons to include: limitation of municipal governance, costs of administering local elections for such nominal matters, and built in disincentives for local governments to dispose of excess real property, which in essence keeps that property off of the tax roles for all taxing entities. The bill died during the last session and the appetite for such legislation hasn’t changed much since that time. The committee was not too warm to the proposal, but we do expect Rep. Hansen to continue to pursue the issue.

Now quickly on to Revenue and Taxation items. This committee also spent some time on municipal issues during this month’s interim. The staff of the committee provided a great report on the financing of municipal government in Utah. They worked very closely with the Utah League of Cities and Towns when preparing the report and derived the data from the municipal finance database that is maintained by the ULCT for the US Census Bureau and the Utah State Auditor’s Office and ULCT use. The staff and committee also spent some time discussing the new ULCT project regarding municipal clustering and new approaches for analyzing municipal finance. It proved to be a nice opportunity to share some of our municipal government insights with the committee.

In addition, the committee also spent some time discussing the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, where Rep. Wayne Harper is attempting to get one (1) sales tax rate for the entire state of Utah. Rep. Harper has been working with the League of Cities for some time on the issue, but there are still many hurdles to cross before municipal governments will be comfortable with the project. Those hurdles include: figuring out a way to have a rate sufficient enough to include all local option taxes (Zoo Art and Parks, Transportation, Transit, Etc.). That would mean some large increases in the tax rate in many rural parts of the state that don’t have the same local option taxes as the more urbanized areas. In addition, the ULCT has still not endorsed the idea that a requisite reduction in the property tax must accompany any forced increase in the sales tax. Those items are still “out there” to be addressed, but we have committed to working with Rep. Harper to see if something can come of the idea. Many members of the committee expressed interest in the idea and encourage the stakeholders to work with Rep. Harper on solutions that would allow for a uniform statewide sales tax.

Well, that about covers it for interims for local government. As you can see, there is a lot going on already. If you have any questions or comments, we would love to hear from you.

Until next time … ENJOY.

Lincoln