Lincoln's Legislative bLOG

2011 Legislative Session (Week 6 Udpate)

2011-03-06T16:46:00.001-07:00

Well, the week six may be redundant for all of you who are actively following the session through your local newspaper. Most of the issues we were dealing with in week six were covered extensively in the press….especially that little old lady GRAMA. So, lets launch right in to it.

GRAMA
Well she (GRAMA) dominated headlines this week as the Legislature looks to curtail “fishing expeditions” of public records by allowing for greater ability to charge for access to public records, and also deals with what constitutes a record…to exclude text messages and instate messaging. The reform quickly passed both the House and Senate and now sits on the Governor’s desk for signature. It was unveiled late last week and was passed in about 3 days. I think it is safe to say that the legislature is tired of the unwarranted voluminous GRAMA requests that are being made to both state and local governments.

IMMIGRATION
After a long Friday evening the immigration discussion is finally starting to come together. It looks like the omnibus bill approach is likely as Sen. Bramble’s bill now contains elements of several house bills. The house debated Rep. Wright’s guest worker bill late in to Friday evening and passed it over to the Senate for consideration. The final week will be huge as the final pieces come together on immigration, but it looks like a guest worker program with a much-modified enforcement bill will be the net result of this year’s debate.

FILM ENTERPRISE ZONE (undoing local zoning)
This issues should have been dead twice, but nothing in the legislature is dead until the clock strikes midnight on the last day of the session. While we thought we had the bill dealt with in committee last week, it was successfully “lifted from the grave” and placed on the Senate reading calendar for additional consideration. We will continue to explain to the Senate our concerns regarding the provisions that allow for the disregard of local land use control to allow for a “film enterprise zone”. This is a huge issue for local governments, and it appears it will come down to the wire in the Senate. We will keep you updated on its fate/progress.

Well that about does it for the highlights. We will be providing daily updates for the last four days as the budget discussions start to come together and we have a better handle on the outlook for the 2011-12 state budget.

Hope all is well…only four days left.

Sincerely,
Your ULCT Lobby Team

2011 Legislative Session (Week 5 Udpate)

2011-03-05T16:48:00.000-07:00

Week 5 Update
Utah League of Cities and Towns

While week five was fairly anti-climactic, the beginning of week six started with a bang.

Quickly to week five, we spent most of week five negotiating on issues that are to be discussed during this week. Two major issues, billboards and the ongoing saga of Salt Lake County issues were resolved to our liking during week five and were heard first thing Monday morning. On billboards, we successfully punted the contentious issues to the interim, where we will be discussing billboard illumination standards. In addition we were able to work with the interested parties to resolve disputes with the ReAL Salt Lake sign and Maverik Center sign… all in all a successful conclusion.

On the SL County issues, we discussed these during the last update (See week 4 update at www.ulct.org) and those bill were handled as described in that update.

Lastly, Jodi and I were able to successfully draft and amend the bill dealing with our regulatory authority over the use of knives. The bill will have an amendment drafted to allow us to use our criminal code to regulate and prosecute crimes that are committed where a knife is involved. Again another win for us.

Like I said, most of the fire is to come in week six and seven.

Because one of our cohorts did such a great job on his update (thanks Wilf Sommerkorn of SLC) I have taken the liberty to include his summary of some key land use bills that were discussed during Monday’s deliberation.

An eventful day for land use bills Monday.

SB243 on historic districts was substituted, then failed to pass out of committee on a tie vote, not sure what happens next with this.
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillint/sb0243s01.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51333796-76/committee-bill-district-moratorium.html.csp

Another boxcar gains language, SB293, which makes some modifications to the MIDA law, primarily over annexation procedures
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillint/sb0293.htm

SB231 on the film studio enterprise zone, was not voted on in committee yesterday due to procedural issues, but did have its hearing and will be voted on in committee this afternoon. Link to a news story below:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51329982-76/bill-committee-county-legislation.html.csp

HB487 was amended (much better, thanks Jodi!) and voted out of committee favorably yesterday
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillint/hb0487s01.htm

I hope this update finds you all well.

Enjoy,
Your ULCT Lobby Team

2011 Session -- Week Four

2011-02-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Week 4 Update
2011 Utah Legislative Session

Week 4 proved to be a great week for the ULCT. Not only did we mark the midpoint of the session last week, but we were successful in four major areas of our priority list (immigration, energy tax, alcohol, and RDA reform). So, lets get to the quick update.

Immigration:
While the press and others are continuing to call HB70, Rep. Sandstrom’s immigration bill and “Arizona-style” bill, it has been amended to the point in which it is very different from what was contemplated in Arizona…especially as it pertains to local law enforcement responsibilities.

The bill was passed out of the House on Friday with a significant margin and was debated heavily prior to passage. During such discussions, the ULCT worked closely with Rep. Sandstrom and other members of the house to get the following changes.
- Significantly limited local law enforcements ability to be sued by a private party for the way in which we choose to enforce the bill
- Provided discretion for officers in determining the priority of the stop as it relates to other potential emergency calls
- Removed the requirement to check immigration status on Class B and C misdemeanors
- Allowed for small jurisdictions (with only one officer on duty at a time) to have greater discretion on how to enforce the provisions of the law
The only additional outstanding question is how to handle the “awarding of public benefits” which is prohibited by this bill until immigration status can be verified. The question is what constitutes a public benefit. We are currently examining that provision to ensure that simple public services, such as sanitary services, etc. are still allowed. As soon as we have answers on those issues we will let you know.

Due to the significant changes in the enforcement provisions, we estimate that the enforcement of this bill will have a nominal budgetary impact to local governments. All-in-all, a big win for us on the financial aspects of the bill.

Alcohol:
Week for also ushered in the release of the alcohol reform bill (SB314). Please see the text of the bill here:http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0314.htm

The bill will be heard Wednesday morning in committee and should move smoothly through the legislative process. We will keep you posted on its progress

RDA Reform:
Our RDA bill was also heard in committee late last week. While the bill will be getting some tweaks in the coming week, we will be making some significant steps forward to ensure that RDA administration and TEC approval processes for RDA’s are less onerous on the agency. The major point of contention on the bill, dealing with an easier approval process for new central business district projects (simple majority vote instead of super majority) may get pulled out of the bill, but it appears that there is no agency chomping at the bit to get one of these started. As a backstop, we do have commitments that key legislative players will be watching upcoming TEC approvals of these types of projects, and if there are any problems we have a commitment to address them in the next session. With that, we have some comfort in dropping this provision from the bill.

Energy Tax:
What proved to be one of the biggest steps forward in week four was a commitment from SL County to drop pursuit of the Energy Tax authority this year in exchange for us agreeing to work with them on some key legislative issues (extension of police fee authority for the county and consideration on the Double-Taxation issue).

In a late-Friday meeting key parties in the ongoing SL County/City discussions came to terms on the major legislative issues dealing with the dealings of SL County and the cities in SL County. Here is a quick run-down on the agreement:

- SL County will not pursue the energy tax, and in exchange the cities will assist in amending legislation that would prohibit the county from imposing the police fee. We will be working with the county to amend the bill to allow them to continue to impose the fee for a few more years.
- The cities will not pursue legislation dealing with Double-Taxation concerns centered on HAZMAT and bomb services that are provided by the county and also provided by cities. In exchange, SL County will work on an inter-local agreement with cities to provide a “contracting” agreement for such services, where the county will contract with cities to provide those services. In addition the county will delve deeper into the issue of double taxation on other services
- In addition, the cities will not pursue legislation that would affect how the county pays for emergency services in recreation areas. In exchange the county and the cities will look further into the issue to see if any changes in the current practice are needed.

So, as you can see, it was a pretty good week for local governments. Here is a quick list of things to come during week 5.

- Working on terms of a billboard bill that governs off-premise signs
- Putting sales tax back on food is in committee early this week
- Appropriations issues will start to take center-stage as final budget numbers come in
- This may be the final week for committees, as they will begin to focus on floor time for bill consideration.

I hope this update proved helpful and please let me know if you have any questions on these or any other issues we are following.

2011 Session -- Week Three

2011-02-22T09:53:00.001-07:00

Alcohol:
With Valentine’s Day upon us, it was only appropriate that Sen. Valentine visited extensively with ULCT Policy Makers in week 3 on alcohol reform measures. While we are all still waiting on the final draft of the bill, Sen. Valentine went over his bill in extensive detail, outlining the key components and dispelling many of the rumors regarding the “monetization” of the licensure process. The key components of the bill have been covered extensively and include the conversion of existing tavern licenses to full-service restaurant licenses; modification to the current DABC application process to statutorily codify many of the current practices of the DABC, and also codify, what he describe as, the current process of allowing an incoming restaurateur to acquire an existing business and the associated license (monetization). Sen. Valentine had a very different take on what monetization would look like and assured us that it is simply a codification of the current practice and not a new concept for the DABC or this area of the law. Because we still haven’t seen the actual draft there are still some anxious folks, but in the spirit of Valentine’s Day, Sen. Valentine “showed us the love” and committed to working with the ULCT to ensure that our concerns are addressed and also committed to delay the effective date of any DABC practices amendments to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.
Immigration:
In addition to alcohol reform, this week marked major changes in the immigration discussion as HB70 was significantly modified to remove the requirement to inquire on immigration status when police officers confront someone on routine traffic stops (Class B and C misdemeanors). It would only require and immigration inquiry on Class A’s and Felonies. With this change, there should be a significant reduction in the cost associated with the enforcement of this law. The bill included several other changes as well to include changes in the detention and booking requirements, as well as changes in who has standing to challenge the enforcement of the law. Because of the major changes, we have just included a link to the new bill for reference

Web Link: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0070.htm

City/County Issues:
On another note, this week was also a big week on the dealings between SL County and the cities in SL County, with the hallmark of this discussion being the request the county is making to be able to impose the energy tax. It appears that much of the energy is being let out of that request and questions on whether or not the legislature should continue to allow the county to impose the police fee are resurfacing. We will continue to negotiate with the county on how we accomplish our goal of wall-to-wall cities through effective utilization of the current tax structure and ensuring that county-wide services are paid for by county-wide taxes and unincorporated services are exclusively paid for with the county unincorporated “municipal” tax. This discussion will likely continue well into the week 4 and 5 of the session.

RDA Issues:
Finally, our large RDA rewrite is now published and out for review, so please take a look and let us know if you have any questions regarding this bill. It is fairly technical in nature so please have your redevelopment experts review the bill as well.

Web Link: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0070.htm

We hope this update finds you well and look forward to seeing many of you on the hill during week 4.

2011 Session -- Week Two

2011-02-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

Well, it proved to be a fairly slow week in committee and on the floor during week 2, but big things were happening behind the scenes. Most notably, this week marked the final week to number and title all bills – that means we now know all the bills that are out there and will be actively looking at each piece of legislation to determine the impact on local government.

In addition, the week also included the unveiling of the much anticipated HB70 Immigration Reform Bill by Rep. Sandstrom. While the bill has changed significantly from the original concept, it still has a large enforcement component that will impact local governments. The ULCT was asked to assign a fiscal impact assessment to the bill, which we did. Conservatively, we anticipate the impact to be approximately $11.5 million on cities and towns in Utah. The number was analyzed by the fiscal analysts office and was determined to be prudent.

So, what do we expect for this week; there are a few things already taking shape. One, the committee process should start speeding up as time become more and more of a factor in the session. In addition, the simmering issue of townships/double taxation/and county services is also on tap for this week with a large meeting of all the cities in SL County and the County governing body getting together today to discuss all of the surrounding issues.

We will begin doing midweek reports this week as well since things will likely start speeding up.

As usual, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call or write.

2011 Session -- Week One

2011-02-22T09:49:00.001-07:00

ULCT Week One Legislative Highlights and Recap (2011)

It was a very successful first week of the 2011 session for the ULCT. In addition to a great Local Officials’ Day Event, where over 750 local officials and youth city council members visited the capitol and met with their legislators, we were largely successful on all major issues that were being debated in standing committees and on the floor. Here is a quick recap of this week’s highlights.

Elections

· This week two of the major election modification bills (SB14 and SB18) passed out of the Senate and are on their way to the house. Both bills deal with the technical aspects of administering an election. The first bill allows for the cancellation of an election if the election is uncontested. There are still some minor “tweaks” that need to be made to SB14 to address timing concerns expressed by clerks and recorders, but the ULCT has been in contact with the sponsor and the Lt. Governors office and coordinated those changes to be made in the House. The second bill deals with contracting for election services and specifies that contracts for election administration must be cost based. This bill doesn’t appear to be of any major concern and should run smoothly.

Due to the departure of Rep. Frank, the bill dealing with moving the election dates for certain elections has been transferred to Sen. Hillyard for sponsorship. The ULCT will be working with Sen. Hillyard to ensure any change in election dates does not affect municipal elections.

Land-Use

· HB197 -- Regulation of Temporary Signs – The ULCT worked all week with the interested parties on this bill and it appears that it will likely be addressed during the interim where greater consideration to the nuances of regulation of speech/signage can be addressed. The bill was scheduled for a committee hearing during the first week, but was pulled from the agenda while we continue to work with the sponsor on the bill.

· HB78 -- Development Fees – This bill likely needs to be discussed with everyone. It appears there is some confusion over what the anticipated practical effect of this bill would be. The ULCT will be working with the sponsor to address the concerns that have been expressed about the potential negative impact to the current development fee structure.

Taxes

· HR1 – 2/3^rd vote on a tax or fee increase. This bill was successfully defeated in committee this week on a 7-7 vote. Because of the close nature of the vote, there may be some chance that the bill would come back for consideration. We will be keeping a close eye on this one to make sure it “stays in the grave”

· Energy Tax for Counties – It appears that SL County has found a sponsor for their energy tax authorization bill. This bill was strongly opposed by the policy committee and we will be working to ensure its defeat. We have already met with the sponsor, Sen. Jerry Stevenson and will be working with him to ensure our position is understood and addressed. In addition, this bill is being run while two other bills are being run to limit the county’s ability to impose the police fee. We will also be watching those bills to ensure that they don’t get amended to provide the energy tax as the alternative funding source for the police fee.

Immigration

· HB70 -- Rep. Sandstrom’s bill is now public and available for review. It has not yet received the fiscal note, but will soon be given one and then sent to the committee for consideration. The bill has been amended a good deal since the original concept was aired, but it appears the agreement on an immigration policy is far from done. We will be watching this one closely as it is prepared for committee consideration.

Alcohol

· While some alcohol bills have been heard in committee (HB42), the major alcohol bill, Sen. Valentine’s bill, is still being prepared for committee consideration. We have been working diligently behind the scenes to aid in the creation and promotion of this bill. The one component of the bill that is still fairly controversial is the concept of allowing for the monetization and private sell of one’s license. This provision is still being debated heavily. We likely need to discuss our strategy on how to deal with this aspect of the bill.

Spice Ban

· HB23 --The spice ban bill was also debated in committee this week and passed out with a favorable recommendation. It appears that this bill is well on its way to passage.

Well that sums up some of the major topics for week one. As more unfolds, we will provide additional updates.

We hope this finds you well, and hope you have successfully survived the first week of the 2011 session.

October 2010 Legislative Update

2010-11-05T10:08:00.000-06:00

Immigration:
Most parties acknowledge that America’s immigration system is broken, and communities through out Utah and the country are suffering the consequences. Those consequences include divisive dialogue on how to solve this problem, cultural mistrust, community isolation, criminal activity, and economic inequality that continues to foster a divide in our communities.

In light of the many concerns regarding the current state of the issue, several Utah legislators, on both sides of the issue, are working to address the problems that they perceive, and many of the legislative efforts are focused on enforcement-based solutions. With an understanding that any enforcement-based solution will require local governments to act as the enforcement entity, the ULCT has begun to compile data from the state’s various police departments on the anticipated costs and resources that will be required to carry out any potential law change.

While the ULCT Policy Committee has not yet weighed in on the social and policy issues surrounding immigration reform efforts, we have been working diligently with legislative leaders, the state fiscal analysts, and most city police departments to gather pertinent fiscal information that will be necessary to fully understand the fiscal impact of immigration reform.

We anticipate that once formal proposals have been formulated, the ULCT Policy Committee will also begin to focus on any policy issues that may cause concern. We are in the process of compiling the fiscal information we have received and will be sending out the numbers and analysis in the next few weeks which will hopefully provide more insights into the costs and resources required of local government for this effort. If you have questions about the various proposals that are being contemplated please let me know.

Budget:
As is likely the case in your community, the tough budget continues to drive much of the dialogue on Capitol Hill. While in June, the state fiscal analysts were telling legislators to anticipate the year-end deficit (ending in June) to be as high as $150 million, with tax collections complete and the report from the State Division of Finance released, there was some “good news” issued in late September. I say “good” in the sense that it is better than the anticipated $150 Million potential deficit.

Instead of the anticipated $150 Million shortfall, actual revenue to actual expenditures left the state with a $28 Million deficit. That was created by tax receipts being $48 Million less than anticipated, but state agencies spent $20 Million less than authorized, leaving a net $28 Million deficit. That $48 Million short fall in receipts is held both in the education fund and the general fund, with $4 Million assigned to the general fund and the remaining $44 Million attributed to income tax shortfalls that are dedicated to the education fund.

So, what does it all mean? Well fortunately during the 2010 session the State anticipated and provided resources to address these small deficiencies to avoid a mid-year crisis. So there is no “dooms-day” to speak of. In addition, the state is much better off than they anticipated back in June, so I guess that can be construed as “better” news … maybe not “good news”, but certainly “better news than anticipated”. Inevitably, however, the state will still be looking to grapple with a daunting budget during the 2011 session, making appropriations requests and general program funding a difficult task for all involved.

Land Use:
The Land Use Task Force and its subcommittees have been working diligently this summer to identify and negotiate beneficial land use bills for the 2011. The most comprehensive effort has been directed toward an Impact Fees Act re-codification, which we are proud to report reorganizes an otherwise difficult act, clarifies agreed intent and actually adds flexibility for those local governments who, because of the slow economy, have either decided to support affordable housing projects by waiving impact fees for the project, or have decided to repeal or suspend their collection of impact fees for the near term.

This year, the Land Use Task Force also concentrated on revisions to the Local District statute to bring local districts under the same impact fees, reasonable diligence, rip cord and exactions mandates that govern cities, towns and counties.

A third Land Use Task Force bill will add accounting parameters to the imposition and collection of Development Fees. The notion is that Development Fees should be similar to business license fees in that they should be imposed only for the actual cost of delivering the service. However, the bill does not restrict the types of development services for which fees are collected. Nor does it require a fee study prior to the imposition of development fees.

The Billboards subcommittee of the Land Use Task Force negotiated to a détente with the Billboards industry during the interim and other than a beneficial bill to strengthen UDOT enforcement of billboard regulation along the state highways, we expect no billboards legislation this year.

Finally, the Water Law subcommittee of the Land Use Task Force has negotiated a one year hiatus from change application legislation as it continues to develop a consensus based approach to reforming what some have characterized as a “secret decoder ring” process to change water from agriculture to urban uses in the State Engineer’s Office.

The Land Use Task Force has been as successful in channeling dialogue about certain land use issues as it has been in developing consensus-based legislation. We have received commitments that proposed legislation to restrict aesthetic or historic district legislation will not be pursued this year. Similarly, threatened Transfer Fee legislation should not surface in 2011.

As in the past, we believe we will receive united opposition from each of our members (developer and government alike) to any proposed land use legislation that has not been vetted through the Land Use Task Force.

Taxation:
Although the budget situation continues to focus on revenue shortfalls there appears to be little likelihood of tax increases. Several “one-time” tax adjustments mentioned during the last session (quarterly estimated payments and modification or elimination of the vendor sales tax discount) remain part of the discussion. The ongoing funding for transportation may at some point involve a gas tax increase. The critical issue for cities is to ensure that any change is part of the existing distribution formula. Lastly, there is an ongoing examination of public education capital equalization options. All general agreement as to the need there is wide divergence as to the funding method.

General Government:
Because the legislative elections have been consuming most legislator’s time during the summer and fall, very little is being discussed regarding general municipal government issues. As usual, there will be several pieces of legislation with a municipal impact, but there are not major issues being contemplated by legislators that we are aware of. ULCT staff has, however, been working with stakeholders of a few proactive municipal changes. Most of these changes affect just a handful of communities, but a quick run-down of the items may be helpful. If you have any questions on any of these items don’t hesitate to drop us a line and we will be happy to provide more detail.

1. Alcohol Reform: Working on legislation to create more full service restaurant liquor licenses in exchange for a reduction in unused tavern licenses
2. Redefining a qualified “food bank” to include municipal operated “food banks” – this allows for state assistance with operations of municipal food banks.
3. Allowing for council reappointments during military deployment of a councilmember.
4. RDA Changes – Address urban core redevelopment and TEC approval process for such activities.
5. Legal Non-Conforming Use of rental dwellings and building code upgrade requirements that can be imposed.
6. Change in form of government process clarifications.

Recap and Overview:
As you can see, preparations are well underway for the 2011 session with plenty of items to consider. We anticipate that the pace will increase significantly after the November elections, with a mad-dash to the start date to the session. We will keep you apprised of the pertinent municipal issues as they become available.

Until Next Time....Enjoy!!

Pension Reform Taking Center Stage Nationally

2010-06-28T07:57:00.002-06:00

It looks like several states are contemplating major changes in public pension reform. Even the staunches allies of public employees are realizing that the "run-up" in benefits is now the largest threat to the current pension system. Reform efforts are being discussed by many state legislatures. I wonder how many will follow Utah's lead.

Here is a great article from the NY Times on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/business/28union.html

Enjoy,
Your Legislative Team

E-Verify Compliance (SB81-2008)

2010-06-07T10:14:00.003-06:00

Many of you may be in receipt of a letter from the Attorney General's office regarding the implementation of SB81 from the 2008 session. This bill requires the verification of immigration status when city, town, county or special district issues an RFP for a contract.

The law stipulates that beginning July 1, 2009, a public employer may not enter into a contract for the physical performance of services within the state with a contractor unless the contractor registers and participates in the Status Verification System to verify the work eligibility status of the contractor's new employees. The bill only applies to RFP's and does not affect "sole source" work. In addition, the law DOES NOT apply to volunteer work. It should also be noted that the law DOES NOT require you to verify immigration status; but rather the bill requires the contractor who is responding to the RFP to certify that they are verifying the immigration status of their employees. Hopefully this nuance should make municipal compliance far easier.

The AG's office will be issuing a follow-up letter with additional implementation details to assist you in your compliance efforts. In addition our general counsel, David Church, is drafting a policy outline that can be utilized and should satisfy the requirements outlined in the law. As soon as it is complete, we will be sending out the information via email and will also make it available on our website.

We do anticipate the immigration discussion to continue during the 2011 legislative session, so please anticipate more changes to come. We will post regular updates and information in an effort to keep you apprised of the status of this issue.

Until Next Time...Enjoy!

Half Way There

2010-02-15T21:18:00.004-07:00

So, we are officially half way through the 2010 session and we are faring very well. Here is a quick recap of several major items.

Billboards: All "anti-regulation" legislation affecting billboards has been successfully shelved for 2010. We intend to work on these issues extensively through out the summer.
Eminent Domain: There has only been one major eminent domain bill that is making progress this year. All other bills have been successfully sidelined. The one bill, SB81 has been amended substantially. What originally started as a bill that would allow for prevailing party attorneys fees in condemnation cases has now morphed into a bill that facilitates condemnation settlement by allowing both parties to submit preferred offers and only if the courts determine that a settlement is outside of the range of both offers is there liability for attorney's fees. In those circumstances, fees are capped at $50K.
Anti-Trust: Our proactive bill to clarify the municipal exemption from anti-trust litigation is moving well. Is is scheduled to come out of committee and go before the Senate this week. No major road blocks are foreseen.
Retirement: The two major retirement bills, SB43 and SB63, have both passed out of committee favorably. The first, SB43, restricts "double-dipping", whereas the second makes major cost-saving changes to the current retirement system by changing the benefit structure for new employees hired after July 2011. Both are now before the Senate and we anticipate passage of both.
Land-Use/Impact Fees: We have fared very well this year on this front, successfully amending or stopping bills that would hamper our cities ability to regulate land use or utilize impact fees
Water: It has been a fairly quiet year for water bills this year. Our only major bill, which allows for a municipal/domestic preference in water rights during times of shortage is scheduled for committee this week and should go well. It was slow out of the gate so we will be sure to keep a close eye on this bill and keep you apprised of any changes.

So, what to expect for this week. It is a huge week this week, as budget numbers come out on Wednesday and will largely shape the remainder of the session. As soon as they are out we will let you know what they look like.

Please contact the ULCT with any questions you may have on local government issues (www.ulct.org)

Enjoy,
Your ULCT Lobby Team

2 Weeks Down and Major Progress Made

2010-02-05T17:17:00.004-07:00

So we are two weeks in to the 2010 legislative session in Utah and things are going well for municipal government. Here is a quick recap of some of the major events for week 2.

We have come to terms on HB102 Impact Fee Amendments. With a substantial substitution the bill is a major improvement on the original. We have maintained the integrity of impact fees for school facilities and have simply provided for a mechanism for appropriate credits toward impact fees for improvements made by school districts. -- MAJOR WIN FOR US
We have a settlement on all four pieces of billboard legislation. All of the legislation was aimed at limiting a cities ability to regulate billboards. We successfully negotiated to stop all legislation regarding billboards in the 2010 session and force them to interim study during the 2011 interim period
Housing Regulation -- Several of our cities had concerns with a state preemption on housing regulation and interactions between landlords and renters. We have successfully amended the bill to create a baseline standard for "Fit Premises" and have still allowed for local autonomy to create additional local ordinances governing fit premise.
Eminent Domain -- We are still negotiating on major eminent domain legislation that would award prevailing parties attorneys fees to litigants in certain circumstances. Hopefully we will have this issue resolved this week.

So, as you can tell from the quick and dirty breakdown, we had a great week. Thanks for all of the support of our member cities.

For more information please feel free to call.

Thanks,

Your ULCT Lobby Team

Utah League of Cities and Towns

Great Local Officials' Day Event of Capitol Hill

2010-01-27T21:56:00.002-07:00

We had a great Local Officials' Day event on Capitol Hill today; providing an opportunity for local elected and appointed officials to interface with Utah State Lawmakers and also creating a great luncheon environment with former Mayor Rudi Giuliani. We hope all who participated enjoyed the event.

On a business note, we will be posting blog updates as frequently as possible on the progress of the session and will be sure to recap each week at a minimum. If you have any questions on issues facing local governments on Utah's Capitol Hill, please call the ULCT office to be routed to my cell phone, which serves as operation central during the legislative session.

Thanks for watching our blog and look for updates on a frequent basis.

Enjoy!
Lincoln Shurtz

One Week To Go until the '10 Session

2010-01-18T10:25:00.004-07:00

We are now one week out from the 2010 legislative session and the preparations for the session are well underway.

Please make sure you check this blog regularly for municipal updates on the session. While we will inevitably be watching several bills this session we try and keep our updates focused on the 10 or so major policy issues that will be dominating the agenda for the cities, towns, counties and the legislature.

This year we have already been spending an immense amount of time on the following issues:

State Budget: Because of the difficult financial and economic circumstances that we all face, the budget will be a major driving force for all decisions at the legislature this year. We plan to provide up to the date feedback on budget negotiations, legislative initiatives related to the budget and any municipal impacts associated with the budget balancing effort
Retirement Reform: While this has dominated most of our summer, it is only going to get more intense and the session begins. We will keep you up to speed on the 4 reform bills that will be making there way through the legislature
Anti-Trust: There is a growing concern about the lack of clarity in the current exemption that is afforded to cities and towns in anti-trust litigation. We will be proactively addressing this issue to help clarify the current exemption, and will be sure to provide frequent updates on our progress
Water: There are several water bills this year ranging from domestic provider preference in water rights to tax treatment of public and private water companies. Because cities and towns are one of the largest owners of water in the state we always spend a lot of time on these issues. Watch for the updates as they come in.
Land-Use: We anticipate a fairly slow year on land use issues, but the perennial billboard issues and impact fee issues will likely pop-up, and as they do we will be there to report on their progress or lack thereof.

In addition to the blog, please check our website (www.ulct.org) where we will also post our updated status sheet of all legislation that we are tracking. Hopefully between these two resources (Blog and status sheet) we can keep you apprised of the occurrences of the next 45 days.

Enjoy!

The Final Part -- Part V: Water and Land-Use

2009-11-03T05:00:00.001-07:00

Here it is -- the final post in our five-part series. I hope you have enjoyed it as much as we have enjoyed writing it. Without further adieu, here it is:

Part V: Water and Land-Use

Land-Use Issues:

The Land Use Task Force has reached closure for the 2009 interim and has unanimously recommended two bills this year: and impact fee bill and a subdivisions bill.

The subdivisions bill simply takes away the state mandate for a public hearing on certain minor subdivision amendments such as lot line adjustments, internal lot revisions, etc. The bill won’t alter your local ordinance requirements, but it removes the state requirement for the public hearing. To take full advantage of the legislation once it becomes law, each jurisdiction will then need remove the public hearing requirement from its ordinances for these types of minor subdivision amendments. Senator Stuart Adams has agreed to run this bill.

The impact fees bill is slightly more complicated. The big news is we have achieved consensus that the cumbersome notice requirements to plan for and amend impact fees enactments will be reduced to electronic notice on the state public notice website! (Yes, that’s right: no more sending notice of the beginning, middle and end of the process to the Utah Homebuilders, Utah Association of Realtors, Utah Association of General Contractors, Daughters of the American Revolution, etc.) An entire forest has breathed a sigh of relief in anticipation of the bill passing! The bill also defines the word “encumber”, declares that any refund belongs to the person in title to the land on the date an impact fee was paid, and extends appellate relief to those who pay impact fees during the gap between an adverse opinion of the Office of Property Rights Ombudsman and a similarly adverse decision from the court system. Senator Wayne Niederhauser will run this bill on behalf of the Land Use Task Force.

Water Issues:
There are many water bills that will grace the legislature this year. Many are technical bills that remove arcane requirements from the antiquated state water laws. The bill that we were most interested in last year: the domestic water preference bill sponsored by Kerry Gibson, has been reworked, and approved by the Water Coalition and the Executive Water Task Force. The bill allows a preference for drinking water, fire flow and sanitation purposes in time of a temporary water emergency that is declared by the Governor. The preference can last as long as two years. Just compensation is required to be paid to the water rights holder that sacrificed his water for the emergency needs of the public system.

As other water bills get drafted, we will provide updates on what they entail.

We hope these updates have been helpful and again please let us know how we can be of any assistance.

Your ULCT Legislative Team!

Part IV: Ambulance Service

2009-11-02T05:00:00.001-07:00

And now with our fourth installment -- Emergency medical services.

Part IV: Ambulatory Service Issues:

As cities and counties are uniquely positioned, and asked, to provide for the general health, safety, and welfare of their communities, the ability to regulate emergency transportation within their jurisdictions is a key cornerstone to the provision of public safety and health. Local governments throughout the state have worked closely with private providers to assist in this effort, and in many circumstances, rely heavily on the private sector to help with these services.

The current licensing and regulation framework, where the state applies universal licensing provisions for private and public providers, but allows for local regulation of some practices has positioned Utah as one of the best managed states in the nation in its provision of emergency transportation.

For the past several years, a private provider has complained that the current process of state licensure is anticompetitive and has asked for law changes that would allow for direct negotiations between emergency transportation operators and hospitals with little or no city or county oversight. Cities and counties have continued to express concern with these proposals due to the potential that such negotiations could undermine the ability of single providers to remain profitable within a given geographic area. With current licensure requirements that require ubiquitous service within a given geographic area, it is imperative to ensure that the license holder is self-sustaining. In addition, cities and counties have increasingly begun to assist in providing such services as the public provider. Those public provider contracts are obtained either through direct negotiations with the current private provider or through the awarding of a contract to the public provider by way of an RFP process.

While we currently do not anticipate legislation this year, we do wish to continue to educate the legislature on this matter to ensure a complete understanding of our position, which includes the following key components:

Cities and Counties are charged with the maintenance of general health and safety, and emergency transportation is a key component to the provision of public safety and health.

Ensuring the viability of a single provider, within a geographic area, is imperative to ensure adequate public safety service and response.

Cities and counties should be able to regulate certain aspects of the operation of emergency transportation within their communities to maintain general health and safety.

Cities and counties should be able to provide emergency transportation services if a private provider is not capable or willing to provide adequate service.

Competition should not occur at the hospital level, but should occur at the licensure level, where geographic service areas are considered in their entirety and universal service and coverage are contemplated as a part of a larger service component.

Allow Cities and counties to designate a single dispatch system such as VECC for all ambulance service requests. Such a system eliminates confusion for the public, provides a single medical protocol and consistent dispatching of ambulance service to meet the correct medical and transport needs of the public.

We look forward to working with the legislature in the coming years on this important public safety issue, and appreciate the support we have received to maintain our high standard of public safety response and service.

Part III: Transportation Funding

2009-10-30T05:00:00.003-06:00

Here is our third installment of the five-part legislative update series. Today we will focus on local transportation funding.

Part III: Transportation Funding

With the continued increase in costs associated with construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure the necessity for local government to be adequately positioned to address the growing transportation needs of their respective communities is equally growing. In 2008, the local government portion of the motor fuel tax covered roughly 50% of the cost of highway construction and maintenance, and with the reduction in motor fuel tax receipts and the growing demand for infrastructure, we anticipate that gap to widen in 2009.

With that dynamic in mind, we are also cognizant that the State of Utah is facing an unprecedented economic downturn that will inevitably limit the state’s ability to enhance the current revenue sharing arrangement that exists for the current motor fuel tax. As both the state and local government grapple with shortfalls in their respective general funds our ability to continue to subsidize transportation construction and maintenance with general fund revenues is diminishing significantly. While we all recognize that with a downturn in the economy it is difficult to look at revenue enhancements as an acceptable solution to the problem, we are anxious that if we do not get in front of this issue the cost to retrofit and repair dilapidated roads when the economy recovers will cost the taxpayers significantly more money than staying on top of the issue from the outset.

We would like to explore the opportunity of pursuing authorizing legislation which would allow counties, with the endorsement of the cities within the given county, to pursue a local option user fee revenue source to address critical transportation needs within the county. There are several facets to the concept that are outlined below:

Pursue legislation that would allow the county to adopt an additional local/county option user fee (motor fuel tax/sales tax) to address transportation infrastructure issues within the county.

Require that a majority of cities within the county must affirmatively request the county to examine the local option authority prior to implementation by the county.

Require that a portion of all proceeds be spent on projects of regional significance within the county where the funds are generated.

Require that the remaining portion of funds generated from the user fee be split between the various cities and the authorizing county based upon a statutory formula similar to the current local B&C formula (weighted lane mile).

All funds generated within the county stay in the county where the funds are generated.

We would like to work closely with the legislature to examine this or other possible tools that may be pursued by local governments to address the important issue.

Part II: Public Sector Retirement Issue

2009-10-29T05:00:00.002-06:00

As we continue our five part legislative update, here is part II, which deals with the public sector retirement issues. We will be highlighting transportation funding in part III.

Part II: Public Sector Retirement Issue

As the economic downturn continues to take its 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 steady 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 been 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 discuss 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 discussing various alternatives to the current system.

Thus far, two alternatives have come to the forefront of the discussion. They are outlined below:

Alternative 1: Defined Benefit with Employee Contributions
This alternative would not reduce any pension benefit for any retirement sub-system, and would allow for the continuation of a defined benefit system for future public sector employees. It would allow the state and local government employers to cap the employer contribution rate at the 2009-2010 rate (11.66% Local, 14.22% State, and 26-30% Public Safety), and require that participating employees contribute the remaining portion of the required, actuarially adjusted contribution rate for the 2010-2011 year (1.7% Local, 2.1% State and 1.8%-3.7% Public Safety) and all future years, where the rate is yet to be determined. This option would allow for all employee contributions to be exempt from vesting requirements, thus increasing employee portability from URS. With the establishment of the employer contribution rate, it is anticipated that the employee contribution amount will float from year to year based on actuarial assumptions that will be made by the URS.

This option would limit the amount of employee contribution to not allow an increase of over 2.5% year over year (smoothing), thus limiting employee exposure. This option would also require that the employer make a 401K or 457 payments to the employee if the actuarial assumptions require less contribution than what has been established as the capped employer rate, which would be based on the 2009- 2010 rate (11.66% Local, 14.22% State, and 26-30% Public Safety) . This option would not preclude the employer from “picking up” the employee’s required contribution as a part of an employee compensation package.

Fiscal Implication: This option would eliminate the need for additional state and local government appropriations for the 2010-11 fiscal year, but would require the employee to either take a compensation reduction commensurate to the employee contribution match or payment of the additional contribution could be negotiated with the employer as a part of the municipal or state compensation arrangement.
Alternative 2: Prospective Defined Contribution Option
This alternative would guarantee existing public employees a defined benefit system as currently constituted and not require any additional employee participation in the defined benefit system. This option would, however, not allow new employees employed after 2010 to participate in the defined benefit system. Instead, a defined contribution system would be offered to all “new hires”. The defined contribution amount would be negotiated by the employer and employee at the time of employment. It would also require that a portion of what otherwise would have been paid into a defined benefit system under the current system be set aside by the employer for all “new hires” to underwrite the cost associated with phasing out of the current defined benefit system for existing employees.

In essence, this proposal looks at moving toward a Defined Contribution plan for all new employees while guaranteeing the current benefit package for all existing employees.

The ULCT is working closely with legislative leadership and members of the Legislative Retirement Committee to evaluate these options and others that may be contemplated. This process is still very fluid, and we will continue to provide periodic updates as they become available. The next legislative meeting on this issue is scheduled for November 12, 2009.

Legislative Update: A Five-Part Series

2009-10-28T08:09:00.003-06:00

As we prep for another legislative session, we thought it would be helpful to highlight some key issues we have been working on over the interim period. To avoid an overly-long posting, we thought we would break the issues into five separate posts -- I know you can hardly wait to read them all. Today we will focus on our first issue -- General tax policy and budget review:

PART I: General Tax Policy and Budget Review

Well, there isn't much to say about the state budget, other than it is not looking any better as we begin to approach the 2010 legislative session. We are currently staring an $850 Million dollar shortfall in face and don’t anticipate any improvements prior to the session -- in fact, many are bracing for an even wider state funding gap. This year there will be no federal stimulus funds to back fill cuts to critical programs and, as of now, there is little or no momentum to look at revenue enhancements. State appropriations committees are beginning discussions on how to cut roughly 15% from each department of the state, and some of those cuts will obviously have a trickle down effect on local government programs that utilize state funding.

We are keeping a close eye on most of these discussions and will continue to keep you updated as committees make recommendations on budget cuts. In addition to budget cuts we do anticipate discussions to begin on revenue enhancements at some point. The likely candidates at this point include the tobacco tax, alcohol tax and possible reinstatement of sales tax on food, but as mentioned earlier those discussions are still appearing fairly premature. We will keep you up to date as they proceed.

On another tax note, the Revenue and Taxation Committee of the legislature is also examining a few issues of general interest. There will be a recodification effort on the code sections dealing with transportation taxes. We have been heavily involved in this effort to ensure that the recodification did not inadvertently harm current local option transportation tax authorities, and those discussions have been very successful. The effort will simply look at “cleaning up” the code with no real substantive changes. In addition, there has been some discussion regarding statewide equalization of the basic property tax levy for education. While the ULCT has not engaged on this issue due to conflicting points of view among the various cities, we did want to make you aware that the discussion is occurring, and if it is of interest you should make sure you are contacting your legislator to articulate your opinion on the equalization effort.

As always there are likely to be additional tax bills of note, but this at least captures some of the very general concepts that are being discussed.

Look for Part II to this legislative update tomorrow, where we will focus on the public sector retirement issue.

Water Issue Update

2009-08-06T09:27:00.002-06:00

The Executive Water Task Force met yesterday, August 4 at the Department of Natural Resources. Lt. Governor Gary Herbert addressed the Task Force with respect to its new responsibility to provide the governor with recommendations for enhancing canal safety for 6600 miles of public and private water canals throughout the state. Lt. Governor Herbert stressed the urgency of the task at hand, emphasizing his perception that “our review and oversight [has been] inadequate-- particularly since we’re the fastest growing state in the nation.” He charged the group to start asking the right questions: “Who is responsible? What is local government’s role? What is a high hazard canal? What about multiple use of canals? What is the state’s responsibility? How can we better assess canal safety? What are funding sources for canal improvements? Are there better methods for moving surface water?”

Rick Ellis, from the Utah Geologic Survey presented his thoughts on the recent canal break in Cache County. He stressed multiple causes for the canal break—including irrigation of lands surrounding the canals and public use of the canals as storm water conveyance systems.

Sterling Brown, Utah Farm Bureau lobbyist, heads a subcommittee of the Task Force assigned to address these issues. Mr. Brown noted that the subcommittee considered taxing the population surrounding the canals for tax revenues to fortify the canals and providing private canal companies with immunity from liability for negligently maintained canals. Warren Peterson, who is also on the subcommittee, placed the blame of poorly fortified canals on the public, which surrounds them. “These canals were not a hazard until people started to live around them. It is clear that the community has externalized the cost of new development on the canal company.”

Most of the Executive Water Task Force appeared to want to place blame on “communities”, which allow development and appear to want local government to be the funding source and regulatory body for canal safety. The Executive Water Task Force is clearly stacked with interests, which would like to pass blame from the canal companies to anyone they can (other than the state or the canal companies).

It is interesting to note that, independently, the Land Use Task Force has been discussing the role of public and private irrigation canals in the subdivision process. From the developer’s perspective, the canal companies hold them hostage for system-wide improvements to canal systems in exchange for getting the canal company to sign off on subdivision plats.

Local governments appear to be smack dab in the middle of the controversy, both as potential regulators, but also as potential contributors to canal surcharging during storm water events.
Both the Executive Water Task Force and the Land Use Task Force will continue to study the problem and develop proposals to enhance canal safety.

For a surprisingly accurate account of the Executive Water Task Force, see also http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12992357 and http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12992378

Public Employees Retirement System Update

2009-07-14T10:12:00.005-06:00

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

2009-07-06T14:22:00.002-06:00

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:

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

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

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

Rainwater capture

Taxing authority for appointed boards

Shareholder change applications]

Accountability of the State Engineer with respect to pending adjudications

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

Elimination of the State Engineer bond

Colorado River over-appropriation

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:

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

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

2009-06-26T08:27:00.004-06:00

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

2009-03-01T20:38:00.007-07:00

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

2009-02-22T11:28:00.003-07:00

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.

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).

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

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

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

2009-02-12T20:04:00.002-07:00

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

2009-02-09T21:11:00.002-07:00

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

2009-02-03T21:29:00.003-07:00

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

2009-01-29T21:50:00.002-07:00

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

2009-01-28T16:20:00.002-07:00

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

2009-01-27T21:16:00.003-07:00

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 !!

2009-01-26T18:15:00.002-07:00

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

2008-12-10T09:46:00.004-07:00

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?

2008-06-11T11:35:00.003-06:00

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

2008-05-09T10:22:00.006-06:00

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

2008-04-24T11:21:00.005-06:00

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.

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

Review of Property Tax Study

Item #159, Local Regulation of State Land Development

Item #161, New Entities and Boundary Changes

Item #163, Riparian Overlay Zones

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

2008-03-05T07:17:00.002-07:00

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

2008-03-02T08:33:00.002-07:00

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

2008-02-28T06:32:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-25T07:09:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-20T07:26:00.002-07:00

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

2008-02-14T07:22:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-11T08:22:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-10T17:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-05T20:51:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-02-03T14:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-30T06:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-28T22:16:00.001-07:00

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

2008-01-27T16:39:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-01-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-23T05:52:00.001-07:00

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

2008-01-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-26T13:42:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-10-01T20:22:00.001-06:00

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

2007-09-20T10:14:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-31T14:13:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-07-25T08:58:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-12T08:48:00.000-06:00

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

2007-06-29T09:11:00.000-06:00

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

2007-06-22T12:27:00.000-06:00

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

2007-06-07T10:17:00.000-06:00

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

2007-05-30T08:42:00.000-06:00

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

2007-05-18T09:11:00.000-06:00

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

Update on Economic Development Tools

2007-04-26T15:22:00.000-06:00

Recently I have been asked to speak regarding the available economic development tools that for local governments and state governments. Since the creation of the new Redevelopment Law, several members of the local government sector and development sector are scratching their heads when trying to figure out what can and can't be done with incentive based programs for economic development.

Fortunately, Utah Dialogue was able to record one of the sessions where I was speaking on this topic. The process of redevelopment, economic development and community based development was "broadly" explained. Below is a link to the audio recording of the panel workshop on this topic.

http://www.utahdialogue.com/edarda-and-the-industrial-assistance-fund/

I hope you find it useful. If you have questions please feel free to contact me. Contact information can be found at www.ulct.org.

Until next time....ENJOY

Comparing the Old and New Law for Transportation Funding

2007-04-23T13:59:00.000-06:00

Well, it looks like the newly passed law, HB383 Amendments to Transportation Funding, will have some positive impacts for the cities and towns of Utah. We recently received estimates from the Utah Department of Transportation on what can be expected in the coming year for the Class B and Class C roads funds allocation. For those not familiar with this local government funding allocation, the B&C allocation allots a percentage of all gas tax and vehicle registration fee revenues (Transportation Funds) from the state of Utah to local government.

This ULCT initiated legislation (HB383) increased the local government share of the State Transportation Fund from 25% of all revenues received to 30% of all revenues received. In order to get the increased share of the fund we did have to give up a 1/16% state sales tax dedication to local road projects. The net result of the increased share of the transportation fund minus the 1/16% state sales tax dedication is revenue positive for local governments. Cities and Counties can anticipate a net increase of roughly $3 Million in new B&C road funds. In addition, since the transportation fund is growing, we will greater proportionate share of the associated growth.

For more information on the B&C road allocation you can click HERE.

Here is a link to a spreadsheet with specific information, by city and county, for you to review.

I hope this finds you well.

Until next time .... ENJOY!!!

Local Sales Tax Rate Comparisons

2007-03-30T15:04:00.000-06:00

Since many Utah cities and towns are examining municipal finances during this time of year, we thought it would be appropriate to link to some pertinent information on the various sales taxes that are imposed by the state, cities, counties and towns of Utah. If for no other reason that comparison, this should provide some interesting information on the sales and uses taxes imposed in various location in Utah.

Here are links to two key charts on sales and use taxes:

General and Specialized Sales and Use Tax Rates

Other Taxes and Fees (Transient Room, Municipal Energy, Municipal Telecom)

Enjoy -- Lincoln

How to Handle Changes in Utah Tax Law -- Municipal Perspective

2007-03-23T11:48:00.000-06:00

There have been a number of questions about the tax changes made during the 2007 Legislative session and how they will impact Utah cities and towns. In particular, there have been questions about what action cities may have to take in response to legislative actions.

It should be noted that virtually all of the tax changes were part of the comprehensive and voluminous tax bill which incorporate virtually every tax change made during the session. This bill was Second Substitute Senate Bill 223 sponsored by Sen. Niederhauser. The bill incorporated not only all of the sales tax related changes but also the income tax reform. It also included a number of special business tax changes. The principal exception was the municipal telecommunications tax change that was done through House Bill 238 by Rep. Wayne Harper.

The following information outlines the primary changes that affect our cities. Obviously all cities are not impacted by every tax change. However, there was enough of an overlap that we chose to outline all of the tax changes in this single letter.

The Removal of Food from the Specialty Taxes

Non-prepared food was exempted from the sales tax base for the specialty tax levies (previously referred to as the “boutique taxes”). In some instances there have been attempts at offsetting revenue increases. All sales tax changes take effect on January 1, 2008. Be aware that the actual impact of the food removal will vary from community to community and will depend entirely on what portion food sales represent of your community’s tax base.

Municipal Local Option Tax (1%)

This municipal local option tax was not affected by the partial removal of sales tax from unprepaired food items. There will be no revenue implications associated with this revenue source.

Municipal Transportation Tax Levies and Transit Levies

There are a number of specialized transportation levies that were impacted by the removal of food. To offset the impact of the food removal the tax rates were raised on the remaining tax base. The increase will take place automatically on January 1, 2008. No action is required by cities or towns.

Resort Community Tax

The legislation authorized an increase in the base resort community tax rate cap from 1% to 1.1% to minimize the impact of removing food. Since this action involves an increase in a rate cap, cities will have to pass a new ordinance to implement the new rate cap. Be aware that although the law change itself does not take effect until Jan. 2008, current law requires a 90 day notification to the tax commission prior to implementation. As such, impacted cities should not delay making decisions and necessary ordinance change. Lastly, there was no offsetting rate increase on the additional .5% resort tax dedicated for debt reduction.

ZAP/RAP

Generally this tax rate is imposed at the county level. However there are a few cities that impose the tax. The legislature did not authorize any offsets for the elimination of food. Therefore, impacted communities should anticipate a loss of revenue.

Generally speaking, the offsets that were provided in the legislation cover any anticipated losses that would be associated with a reduction in the tax base. While this is predicated on the composition of the tax base for each affected community, it is fair to say that most cities and towns will see little or no negative impact related to the removal of sales tax on food, and in many circumstances the net result will be revenue positive.

Municipal Telecommunications Tax

All of our cities and towns have been on notice for some time that eventually the rate cap of 4% for the Municipal Telecommunications Tax would be lowered. This is the year it happened. Beginning July 1, 2007 the new rate cap will be 3.5%. It is important to note that the legislation incorporated language authorizing the Utah State Tax Commission to automatically make the adjustment for cities imposing the tax at the 4% cap. As such, cities do not need to go through the process of changing the ordinance and notifying the tax commission. (Cities will probably want to adjust their ordinance anyway to reflect the actual rate cap. However, you are not under the tight time frames associated with meeting the July 1st deadline. Regardless of what you do – beginning July 1st you will only receive revenue associated with a 3.5% cap.)

This automatic process does not apply to a city that: (a) is currently at 4% and wants a rate other than 3.5%; (b) a city not currently at 4% that wishes to change its current rate; or (c) a city that currently does not impose the tax. These cities will need to enact the appropriate ordinance and notify the tax commission. Please note for these cities action will need to be taken very quickly in order to meet the appropriate deadlines.

These two bills, SB223 and HB238, generally capture all of the statutory tax changes made during the 2007 session. It is not, however, reflective of all legislation effecting municipal revenues. If you have questions regarding these two bills and their impacts or any other legislation please do not hesitate to call Lincoln Shurtz at the ULCT office - 801.328.1601. All in all it was a very good year for local government on Utah’s Capitol Hill. Please check your mailboxes soon for additional insights on the 2007 legislative session. In addition, please plan on attending the ULCT Midyear Conference in St. George on April 12-13 for a great post-legislative session recap.

Sincerely,

The Utah League of Cities and Towns Lobbying Team.

Fiscal State of the Nation Is Questioned By All

2007-03-06T15:13:00.000-07:00

As many cities and towns in Utah prepare for the onslaught of "Budget Season", I thought this video link to a recent 60 Minutes interview regarding the fiscal condition of the nation would provide some sense of ease-- at least for now. As you will see the dilemma that we face nationally makes our local issues pale by comparison -- Hey whats $23 Billion in transportation needs in Utah when David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, is talking about Trillions upon Trillions in entitlements with no way of sustaining the inevitable demand.

So why should cities and towns in Utah care? Well, as we continue to rely on partial federal and state funding for many of our local projects the pressure that many of these entitled federal programs will place on mandatory federal and state spending will have a ripple effect on much of the discretionary spending that we as cities and towns rely upon for matching funds. Matching funds for security, policing, transportation, water development, critical lands protection, social services, CDGB, etc. will all suffer from an unsustainable federal budget that is currently being consumed by current mandatory spending programs.

While many in the past have looked at similar analysis as a "Chicken Little" approach to the the economy and fiscal condition of the nation, it should be noted that the current assessment is almost universally accepted. The one thing that becomes clear is that simply "growing our way out" of this mess is not the answer. While it may be part of the solution, we will have to be far more creative and nuanced in our approach to federal, state and local tax policy in the years to come.

Hopefully the work of the Utah State Legislature, Governor and others is a sign that we are not the only ones who recognize the Tsunami that is ahead of us unless we get out in front of this problem now.

Take a look -- I would love to know your thoughts.

ENJOY -- Lincoln

Entering the Home Stretch

2007-02-28T06:39:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like it is almost over for the 2007 Utah Legislative Session and despite a tough set of circumstances, local government has done pretty well this year. So lets quickly recap what has happened and what still needs to get done before we end at midnight tonight.

Removal of Food from the Sales Tax Base for the Boutique Taxes. While the original bill, HB282 is yet to pass, the necessary offsets to ensure that local governments are in large part compensated for the reduction in the size of the sales tax base is moving quickly. We were successfully negotiated a 0.1% increase for all resort communities and a 0.05% increase for the municipal transportation tax and mass transit taxes that are imposed by many of our communities. In addition, it looks like a bill to increase the B&C allocation for local road projects will also pass today. That bill is sitting on the 3rd reading calendar of the Senate and should be heard early this morning. That bill will generate an additional $2.5 million for local road projects to also help offset any losses associated with the removal of food from the boutique sales tax base
Omnibus Land-Use Bill. Our omnibus land-use bill, SB-215 also passed this year. This was bill was a consensus based bill that was being heavily pushed by local government and the development community. This bill clearly signifies that when stakeholders come to the table during the interim, good legislation moves quickly through the legislative process.
Environmentally Sensitive Zoning. Thankfully for all local governments, the legislature saw the wisdom, albeit imposed by local government pressure, to not pursue a bill to limit local governments ability to regulate development of sensitive lands to include watersheds, flood plains, steep grades, etc. This bill will not move forward this year and will stay circled on the House reading calendar.
Retirement. While the legislature did not fund an increased COLA adjustment for state and local public safety officers, they also didn't impose the increased COLA adjustment on local government without funding the benefit enhancement. In years past the legislature has attempted to award the benefit without the requisite funding, fortunately the bill was introduced this year with a complete funding package, but due to the fiscal impact, the bill was not funded and will therefore not pass. Also on retirement, a significant push to remove the defined benefit pension program from state and local government employees was also stripped of most of its language and now only provides an employee option between defined benefit or defined contribution plans and that option only exists for IT employees of the state -- in essence, the bill went from a full on assault of the current retirement program to a much more delicate and thoughtful approach, an nice outcome for local government.
Telecommunications. The much opposed statewide franchise bill for telecommunications service has also looks to have failed this year. This bill would have stripped local governments of the local franchising authority for cable services. As you can imagine, we feverishly opposed the measure. The bill will likely stay in the House Rules Committee and thus fail to be considered by the House of Representatives. We will, however, be seeing more of this idea during the interim. Also on telecommunications, it looks like the local gross receipts tax will be slightly lowered this year from a 4% max rate to a 3.5 % max rate. This bill was not opposed by local governments, as we realized that unanticipated gains in the tax were not the intent when the tax was initially implemented a few years ago. This bill should put the end to the debate on the rate for taxation of telecom services.
Elections. It looks like our elections bill HB-347 will easily pass this morning. We have been working hard to prepare for the upcoming municipal elections, and this bill should help significantly. This one should be done by noon today.
Eminent Domain. Some gains, but still some anxiousness. It looks like we will successfully regain limited eminent domain authority for our redevelopment agencies, but HB-334 which further restricts our ability to use eminent domain for recreational trails and emergency access is still out there. We have significantly delayed the debate, but there is still some potential for this bill to pass. We will be watching the senate closely to see if it gets considered.

Well, that about covers our laundry list of issues. If you have others to add please don't hesitate to leave a comment. Also, please be watching for our session "wrap" , where we cover, in detail, all legislation that had the potential to affect local government. This publication will be available in early April.

Until next time....ENJOY

Telecom Stalemate and Eminent Domain Fight Loom

2007-02-22T21:59:00.000-07:00

After a short meeting with many of the cable franchise stakeholders and the two powerful legislators (Senator Curt Bramble and Representative Steve Urquhart) who happen to be on opposite sides of the cable franchise debate, it appears that a stalemate on the issue will be unavoidable.

While Qwest, Broadweave and AT&T are attempting to impose some variation of a statewide franchise for cable service, the Utah League of Cities, Comcast and Orange Broadband have resisted the effort, largely siting local, municipal control as the main issue that must be protected in any franchise arrangement.

Senator Curt Bramble will likely run SB209 early Friday. This bill imposes a statewide franchise arrangement and removes many aspects of municipal control from franchise arrangements. The current draft of the bill would turn many of the traditional franchise functions over to the state public service commission. The bill will likely pass easily out of the Senate but will have a much tougher time in the House. With only 4 days left in the 2007 legislative session, it is likely that we will be talking about this issue for much of the summer. The obvious default position will be to not pass the legislation in the House and just study it during the interim period ....will see how prophetic this post proves to be.

On another note, it appears that an inevitable fight is on the horizon regarding HB334. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, would significantly modify provisions relating to municipal use of eminent domain for emergency access and trails. We have been working hard in the House to express our opposition to the bill, but the vote will be close. If the bill is going to be considered it must happen before tomorrow, so please stay tuned to see how the big debate turns out. If you are interested in the talking points please see them below.

Until next time ... ENJOY.

HB-334
Eminent Domain Amendments
Rep. Aaron Tilton
ULCT Position: OPPOSE
February 22, 2007

HB-334 redefines some “parks”, “trails” and “emergency access ways” to exclude any of these uses from the definition of a public purpose for which eminent domain may be used. The bill also includes intent language that intimates that trails and parks as defined in this bill have NEVER been a public purpose for which eminent domain may be exercised – which is categorically untrue.
ULCT Policy Concerns:

While a legitimate legislative discussion is warranted on the issue of condemnation for walking trails and parks, this bill is far over-reaching in an attempt to provide undue influence in pending litigation between ONE land-owner and ONE municipality. It would be an unhealthy precedent to use our legislative process to “trump” the due process procedures that are embodied in the judicial system. This bill is absolutely unnecessary.

The ULCT does not necessarily oppose clarifying the definition of a trail and park as outlined in this bill, there is deep concern with expanding the exclusion of eminent domain to retroactively apply to any case where such a use has been deemed appropriate by previous statute and our courts. We hare happy to clarify the definition to apply PROSPECTIVELY.

In addition, the ULCT opposes the exclusion of emergency access as a public purpose for which eminent domain by be used. One of the reasons we have the ability to condemn for public utility easements is so that we may access the utility IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY – We are very concerned with the unintended consequences of this legislation.

The bill falsely implies that the state statute has never allowed for condemnation for trails or parks as defined in this bill, which is just untrue. The sole purpose of this portion of the bill is to provide undue influence in pending litigation. It would be unhealthy to use statewide policy for single legal case that is born of spite. In addition, this section has the potential to reopen legal arguments in previous circumstance were eminent domain was used for trail and park systems. We would encourage the legislature to only clarify the definition in a prospective fashion.

Sales Tax on Food Negotiations Prove Successful

2007-02-20T20:15:00.000-07:00

First of all, thanks to all who communicated the League of Cities and Towns concerns to legislators with regard to HB 282, Sales and Use Taxation of Food and Food Ingredients. Needless to say, the debate over boutique taxes and uniform sales tax on food and its impact on local revenues and finances have been intense on Capitol Hill. Our grassroots efforts in opposition both last year and this session have made a significant impact with legislative leadership in their policy approach. As discussed at Monday’s LPC meeting, we have negotiated with House and Senate leadership to have revenue losses in affected cities offset by a 0.1% increase in the resort tax and a 0.05% increase in local option transportation taxes. While these numbers may look small on there own, in many circumstances they represent a 10%-30% increase in the sales tax rate that is being imposed to offset the 10%-30% in revenue losses associate with removing food from the sales tax base in places where such taxes exist. In addition, rural communities will receive an ongoing state appropriation to cover funds lost from the rural hospital tax. While such an arrangement will require some adjustments and doesn’t guarantee a 100% hold-harmless position, we appreciate that state policymakers were cognizant of municipal needs. Speaker of the House Greg Curtis and Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble presented the proposal to LPC on Monday and in turn LPC unanimously endorsed the plan.

Consequently, we ask you to join the ULCT in ceasing our opposition to HB 282 with your legislators. We have come to an agreeable arrangement with the legislature and we want to work together in good faith to see that it is implemented. Please continue to stay engaged as we approach the final calendar week of the session and continue to adamantly oppose the land-use bills HB 233 and HB 334. While we think a deal is being negotiated to ensure that these two bills are also resolved to our liking (i.e. not passed) we want to ensure that our opposition is still present until such a time that the “deal” is finalized. This should take place within the next day or so, and we will be sure to keep you apprised of the issue as things change.

We appreciate your involvement on these issue and look forward to many more joint efforts to successfully “tell local government’s story” on Utah’s Capitol Hill.

Until Next Time....Enjoy.

President's Day Celebrated

2007-02-19T06:49:00.000-07:00

Hopefully you are reading this post from home, as you sit before a nice warm fire and enjoy this wintry President's Day in Utah. For those involved in Utah politics, we will be celebrating President's Day by conducting the public's business on Capitol Hill.

As we turn the final corner of the 57th Legislature, this week signifies the end to considering a bill from one's own chamber -- After Friday, no more House bills will be heard in the House and no more Senate bills will be heard in the Senate. This week also means the end to committee hearings. Wednesday will be the last day for committee hearings, so if you still have a bill that has not yet been heard by a committee it is certainly "crunch time". As you can see by the events that will unfold this week, the end is near -- This will actually be the last full week of the legislature and we will only spend three days of next week going through theses issues.

While the end is in sight, the fun is just beginning. Significant debates on Transportation Funding, Tax Cuts (Sales and Income Tax), Telecommunications, and Land Use regulation still need to be conducted. In fact, it is safe to say the most of the work will actually be done in the next 8 days. Late nights and early mornings are now the mantra as we all try to put the finishing touches on our 2007 lobbying adventure.

We have a few final bills in committee this week, so please stay tuned as the events unfold.

Enjoy.

Hope you Enjoyed Valentine's Day

2007-02-15T06:38:00.000-07:00

While many of us may consider this a day to simply celebrate the love of our significant others, it takes on a whole new meaning when the Utah State Senate President is Senator John Valentine. We hope you all took an opportunity to embrace the Day of Senator Valentine. Wednesday was filled with the spirit of love on capitol hill, and as such, local government had another good day.

First, the much opposed HB-166 Transportation Amendments Bill, which would place the Utah Transportation Authority (UTA) under the State Department of Transportation was sent to a favorable committee for local governments. While it was anticipated that the bill would go to Revenue and Taxation Committee, the bill was actually sent to Political Subdivisions. We will be working closely with that committee to ensure that they too understand the pitfalls of putting the local transportation district under the auspices of the state. It is likely that this bill will be heard early next week. Please stay tuned.

Also on Wednesday, SB-30 Creation of New School Districts passed the House and will be sent to the Senate for enrollment. The issue of creating new school districts still has several issues that need to be addressed, but the bill does establish an interim study item to ensure that those issues are resolved. This issue is quite contentious for several cities on the issue of who gets to vote when a district may be split into two smaller districts. As drafted and passed, the bill states that only the newly created school district gets to vote while the remainder of the existing district does not vote on the split. The issue of voting on the split will be the main topic in the months to come. Because of the split feelings among city leaders on the issue, the ULCT took a neutral position on the bill. We will, however, be watching the issue closely as it continues to be discussed.

That about does it for local governments on Capitol Hill for Valentine's Day. We will check back this afternoon with more information on Thursday committee meetings and schedules.

Here is the Schedule for Thursday, February 15, 2007:

House Revenue and Taxation--8:00 AM--Room W135

1. HB0383 Amendments to Transportation Funding Provisions (R. Lockhart)

2. HB0372 Local District Amendments (R. Lockhart)

3. HB0078 Property Tax Deferral - Senior Citizens (G. Froerer)

House Government Operations--8:15 AM--Room W010

1. HB0454 Voting Machines Used by Municipalities (N. Hansen)

Senate Business and Labor Standing Committee--8:15 AM--Room W015

1. HB0046S01 Disaster Recovery Funding (C. Oda)

2. HB0277S03 Construction Amendments (M. Morley)

House Political Subdivisions Standing Committee--8:30 AM--Room W125

1. HB0365 Eminent Domain Authority of Community Development and Renewal Agencies (S. Urquhart)

House Retirement and Independent Entities--5:30 PM--Room W025

1. HB0387 Post-retirement Benefits Restrictions (J. Dougall)

Sifting Begins in House and Senate

2007-02-13T20:50:00.000-07:00

You can tell that the end is near when the bill sifting process begins. In essence, this process takes the bills that have been approved by a standing committee but have not yet made it out of the "legislative body of origin" and sends them all back to the Rules Committee, where they are methodically released for consideration before the entire legislative body. This process usually signifies the end to many bills, but savvy bill sponsors can still work diligently to ensure that important bills are considered by the body. Those sponsors that may not understand this process fully may suffer the ignominious fate of "death by processing".

For cities and towns, the sifting process did catch plenty of legislation that was close to consideration. Now those bills, to include SB172, HB334 and HB233 have all been sent back to rules and will await their ultimate fate. While it is likely that all three bills will be sent to the floor for additional consideration at some point, that "point" is still yet to be determined. As you can imagine, this is where the real negotiations begin as people beg to get issues considered. Interesting "horse trading" takes place, and it becomes very important to understand which issues are being used as bartering chips. Since we have a lot of outstanding issues such as the three aforementioned bills plus others to include HB-282 Sales Tax on Food Modifications, we need to be especially attentive during this time of the session. We will keep you posted as the REAL poker begins and the legislative process operates in its fullest glory.

Just as a reminder, please still contact your legislators on the important issues of HB282, HB334 and HB 233. If you need talking points on those issues please either contact League Staff or visit our previous posts on these issues.

Until next time....ENJOY!

Fortnight To Go!!!!

2007-02-13T08:35:00.000-07:00

Another Monday on the Hill and another successful Legislative Policy Committee meeting. We had a spirited discussion about the future of the small school districts legislation and confirmed which legislators had been contacted by our city officials regarding HB 233 (Morley’s Environmental Zoning bill) and HB 282 (removal of food from boutique tax base). With attendance of well over 100, we took positions on several bills, including support of SB 215, Senator Bell’s modifications to LUDMA negotiated over the past year with League staff and the development community.

Also on Monday, he Senate Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee rejected HB 255, Representative Neil Hansen’s attempt to restrict the use of any ticket quotas for law enforcement officers. The Senate also unanimously advanced the second substitute to Senator Carlene Walker’s SB 41, Municipal Forms of Government, to the third reading calendar. ULCT is supporting the compromise bill as substituted, which calls for an interim period without any government changes and a task force made up of legislators and municipal officials to study and clarify municipal forms of government.

It is only going to get busier as February 28 is just a fortnight away!

Weekly Legislative Update (Week 4)

2007-02-09T05:53:00.000-07:00

Taxes

Outside of the much publicized Soccer/TRT Tax Discussion there is not much to say in terms of a weekly tax update. Things are somewhat on hold as we await the framework of the battle between the Senate and House. The primary issue will center on the size of any proposed tax cut. The next issue will be the composition of that cut. - sales and/or income tax. As we stated last week - the primary sales tax vehicle is the elimination of food from the specialty taxes. The ULCT has taken a position to oppose this legislation - HB 282 and we have requested assistance in conveying that message to the Senate.

Telecommunications
Regarding telecommunications issues. This week the Telco rate cap legislation moved out of committee with a rate cap of 3.5% which is down from 4%. This issue continues to be part of ongoing discussions about regulatory/franchise issues between the cities and various cable providers.

Land-Use
In terms of ULCT issues, land-use has consumed much of the week. The debate on Morley's HB-233 and Tilton's HB-334 has changed venues and several local government leaders are contacting their representatives on this issue. The bills are still pretty far down the reading list for the House, and will likely be heard next week. If you have not had a chance to learn about these bills, please see some of the previous posts where we highlight the ills of both pieces of legislation.

On a more positive note, Senator Bell's consensus based SB-215 Land Use Amendments Bill has also started to move. This bill address several issues that were raised during the interim by the League and several members of the development community. The bill essentially expedites the land-use appeal process in some circumstances and also institutes the notion of "fundamental fairness" into the Utah land use process. This bill should move fairly quickly through Senate -- and we will keep you posted on the progress.

Transportation
It has also been a slow week for much of the transportation discussions. With most of the transportation funding debate tied into the tax issues and the relative size of the tax cut, this issue will likely take shape as soon as the budget/tax cut discussion get underway. It will be another week or so for this issue. There have, however, been a few anti-UTA bills introduces this week to include HB-166. This is the bill that would take UTA and put them under the control of the Department of Transportation. With it getting fairly late in the session this bill may have a tough time, it will just depend on the tenor of leadership toward the largest Transit District in Utah. We keep you posted as this one moves along.

As you can probably see, the "hurry up and wait" game is well underway. The session is certainly beginning to take shape, but there is still a lot to be done in every major policy area. Please check back often for a status of these and other important issues.

Enjoy the weekend.

TRT Tax is approved for Soccer Stadium

2007-02-07T06:52:00.000-07:00

While many of us assumed that the Soccer Stadium was flat-lined last week with the announcement that the County had no intention of approving a funding mechanism to assist in the Sandy project, we saw the living-dead once again walk at Capitol Hill. Yesterday, the Senate approved a proposal to dedicate portions of Salt Lake County's Transient Room Tax to purchase the land and assist with the construction of a parking facility that will be used by the soccer stadium. The bill passed out of the Senate 20-8-1 and will go back to the House for concurrence. In all likelihood the House will concur and soccer, once again, will be among the living. Outside of that news, very little happened in committee or on the floor regarding municipal legislation. Wednesday, however, will be a very different day as several bills will be considered in committee and on the floor.

We will keep you posted as the events unfold.

Enjoy.

Half-Way Mark for the 2007 Legislature

2007-02-05T19:18:00.000-07:00

That's right, today marked the half-way point for the 2007 legislature. While the legislature may be physically half over, most of our work is yet to be done. As typical of the legislative process, most of the large decisions are being left for the waining hours. So far, it has been a fairly successful session for Utah's cities and towns as most critical issues have been resolved prior to committee hearings and floor debates, but that scenario is not fool proof. As has been mentioned in the last few posts, two issues dealing with a land-use matter in Mapleton city have plagued local governments this year, and have broken the trend of resolution prior to committee hearings. Both Tilton's bill dealing with condemnation for trails, parks and emergency access and Morley's bill dealing with zoning of sensitive lands (geological hazards) have passed out of committee and are now before the House for further debate. We have unsuccessfully opposed both bills in committee and now wait for them to be considered by the larger body. As we have said before, the multiple steps of the legislative process is geared to "kill" bills, and we hope that is the fate of both of these bills. We will be updating you on as these two issues work there way up the list for consideration. It will likely be next week before anything else happens.

Today was also a critical day for appropriations prioritization. Many subcommittees worked late tonight to finalize the appropriations requests that will be forwarded to the executive appropriations committee. Now that that step is behind us, we will likely see the budget take shape as the executive appropriations committee begins to sift through the requests and set the "legislative priorities". This is where most pundits assume the "discussions" between house and senate leadership will also begin to take shape and larger negotiations on the size of the tax cut and the viability of removing the sales tax on food will also be weighed. Stay tuned as this issue continues to mature.

On a final note, we will now also begin a more concerted effort to track bill progress as most critical issues are in the process at some point. This is where the juggling act begins as we are watching budget items, committee schedules in both the House and Senate and also watching floor schedules for both bodies. It is somewhat like the orchestra with a lot of separate parts all moving at once. Stay tuned as we turn down the home stretch.

Until next time....enjoy

Eminent Domain Evokes Emotion

2007-02-02T08:05:00.000-07:00

While it probably doesn't need to be said, eminent domain is still an emotional issue for most people including members of the Utah State Legislature. Yesterday, local governments were dealt a small blow in the House Government Operations committee, where HB-334 was passed out with a favorable recommendation. The bill strengthens legislative language on the prohibition to condemn for recreational trails and emergency access. While the most offensive language was successfully struck from the bill, the remaining language is still troublesome for some communities in Utah. While this bill still has a long way to go before passage, it appears that the emotion associated with condemnation authority is still ripe and will likely drive much of the debate on this issue. If you wold like to read more, here is the Salt Lake Tribunes COVERAGE.

Local government was, however, successful in several other legislative committees. We were able to successfully delay a vote to lower the Telecommunications Gross Receipts Tax in House Revenue and Taxation. This bill has been linked to the issue of local franchise authority and a push by some of the telecom industry to move to a statewide franchise. The tax bill will be back in committee on Monday, where it is likely to pass, but the delay does provide some benefit in the negotiations that are taking place on the related statewide franchise bill. We will keep you posted on this.

In addition, we also successfully opposed HB-203 which would allow for a redistribution of the local option sales tax. The bill did not pass out of committee and will likely be modified prior to coming back for additional consideration. We will see what modifications are made, it does appear that the bill will eventually pass the committee, but as time continues to tick away, this bill is be harder and harder to pass this year.

On a final positive note, it looks like Rep. Bigelow has done his part to ensure that east-west transportation needs will be met in the western half of the Salt Lake Valley. He successfully passed HB108 out of the House, which allocates 1.5 million for a corridor study on the west side of Salt Lake County. Hopefully all of our West Valley and West Jordan readers take a chance to thank Mr. Bigelow. For more please take a look at the Deseret News COVERAGE of the story.

Until next time...ENJOY

Mapleton Resident Takes-Up Cause at the Legislature

2007-02-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

In this one legislative session a Mapleton resident is directly responsible for at least 3 pieces of legislation that are devastating to municipal government, and unfortunately two of those bills will be heard today. We will be sure to update you soon after the committee hearings.

Here are the talking points from a municipal perspective on these two bills:

HB-334
Eminent Domain Amendments
Rep. Aaron Tilton
ULCT Position: OPPOSE

HB-334 redefines some “parks”, “trails” and “emergency access ways” to exclude any of these uses from the definition of a public purpose for which eminent domain may be used. The bill also requires an agency to condemn excess property by requiring the agency to condemn the property to the owner’s property line if the effect of the conceived condemnation would split a parcel of property. Lastly, the bill includes intent language that intimates that trails and parks as defined in this bill have NEVER been a public purpose for which eminent domain may be exercised – Which is categorically untrue.
ULCT Policy Concerns:

While a legitimate legislative discussion is warranted on the issue of condemnation for walking trails and parks, this bill is far over-reaching in an attempt to provide undue influence in pending litigation between ONE land-owner and ONE municipality. It would be an unhealthy precedent to use our legislative process to “trump” the due process procedures that are embodied in the judicial system. This bill is absolutely unnecessary.

The removal of eminent domain authority in this area last year has already impeded completion of trail systems in Washington and Utah Counties to include connectivity of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Highland and the St. George River Walk. The bill will also likely slow completion of the Jordan River Parkway in Salt Lake and Utah County.

Requiring local governments to condemn to an owner’s property line if a smaller area of condemnation is all that is warranted would foster the holding of excess property by local governments for unnecessary reasons, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Title 78. The law currently stipulates that we must pay severance damages if it is shown that a condemnation detrimentally affects the value of associated property – this portion of the bill is absolutely unnecessary.

The bill prevents local governments from condemning a right of way for emergency access – if the ability to respond to emergencies is not a public purpose what is?

The bill also falsely implies that the state statute has never allowed for condemnation for trails or parks as defined in this bill, which is just untrue. The sole purpose of this portion of the bill is to provide undue influence in pending litigation. It would be unhealthy to use statewide policy for single legal case that is born of spite. In addition, this section would reopen legal arguments in previous circumstance were eminent domain was used for trail and park systems.

HB-233
Environmentally Restrictive Zoning Districts
Rep. Michael T. Morley
ULCT Position: OPPOSE

1. HB-233 invalidates every geological hazards (landslide, unstable soils, floodplain, and avalanche) and wildfire protection ordinances in the state of Utah!

a. Lines 266-299 of HB-233 describe the method that all cities and towns must use to enact ordinances which protect public health and safety in environmentally restrictive zoning districts. Because the HB-233 method is new, none of the existing ordinances have been adopted according to the method and all would be invalid.

b. The new HB-233 method for enacting protective ordinances requires a city to prove through "compelling" means a need to protect public health and safety. This standard of judicial review will simply discourage many jurisdictions from regulating environmentally sensitive areas and will lead to a reduction in public health and safety.

2. HB-233 circumvents the work and findings of the Governor's Geological Hazards Task Force.

a. The Governor's Geological Hazards Task Force recommends greater enforcement of local land use regulation to prevent construction in geologically hazardous zones.

b. The Governors Task Force has offered drafted a model geological hazards ordinance and is developing training for local jurisdictions in the use and enforcement of the model ordinance.

c. There are no standards for geotechnical experts in Utah. One action item for the Governor's Geological Hazards Task Force in 2007 is to recommend standards for geotechnical experts in Utah.

3. HB-233 creates a lose/lose scenario for local government.

a. HB-233, changes the presumption of legality of local ordinances would allow any "competent professional", to trump local enforcement of geological hazards ordinances. Because there are no standards for "competent geotechnical professionals" these code lines will be the source of endless confrontation and litigation.

b. As newly subdivided lands slide and homes are lost as a result of this bill, cities (not the developer) will be sued by homeowners for allowing their homes to be built in geological hazard areas.

4. HB-233 is another attempt to settle pending litigation matters for Dr. Wendell Gibby.

House Government Operations -- Hard at Work

2007-01-30T17:10:00.000-07:00

The House Government Operations committee has been busy over the last few meetings, and has been dealing primarily with the issues of municipal government. Late last week and early this week the committee sided with municipal governments and opposed legislation that would have required a public vote in any circumstance where a municipality is trying to dispose of a piece of real property and also would require annual audits of municipal bonds that are backed by private lease payments.

They will again be asked to support municipalites on Thursday as two critical pieces of legislation that will come before their committee. Unfortunately, we are again asking the committee to oppose bills. The bills in question are HB233 – Environmentally Restricted Zoning Districts and HB334 – Eminent Domain (regarding trails). Both bills are being run to benefit one disgruntled citizen in Mapleton, Dr Gibby, who has repeatedly lost legal battles with the city on issues regarding the use of his property. In fact, the case is still before the court of appeals and much of this legislation would apply retroactively to issues that he has lost in previous court decisions. We feel confident that the legislature will see the wisdom in allowing the legal process to take its course prior to stepping in on an issue where everyone involved has sided with the municipal government.

Fortunatley, the League of Cities has been able to solve most issues prior to reaching the House or Senate Floor. We hope the trend continues, as it is always easier to resolve issues in smaller settings prior to the larger debate. We will keep you posted on our progress.

Sales Tax on Food Revisited - A City Perspective

2007-01-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

As promised in an earlier post, here are some additional thoughts on the removal of sales tax on food -- this time from the municipal perspective:

Tax Cuts or Revenue Substitution

The impact on government revenues will be determined by whether the policy decision is to simply cut taxes or whether there would be an attempt to mitigate the loss by imposing an offsetting tax burden. The impact on local governments is different than the impact on the state because of the individual economic factors of individual cities and towns.

Municipal Impacts

The term “revenue neutral” is rather casually employed when discussing revenue offsets. The most-commonly discussed means of achieving “revenue neutrality” is to increase the tax rate on non-food items sufficiently to achieve the same revenue as existed with food in the tax base. In truth, this objective may be achievable in the aggregate (overall city sales tax revenues). However, on an individual city basis the revenue neutral goal is much more problematic. Critical to the determination is the fact that food represents a different component in each municipality’s tax base. Furthermore, some communities have the capacity to export more of their tax obligations than other cities.

Simply put, an increase in the tax rate will result in a tax windfall for some communities and would likely result in a shortfall for others. It would be possible to create some type of “hold harmless” mechanism that would share the additional revenue from the increase from the winners and losers. However, hold harmless efforts are not look upon favorably by the legislature. I think that it is fair to say that any type of “hold harmless” would be relatively short-term and purely transitional.

Of course it is mathematically possible to increase the sales tax sufficiently to ensure that there would be no losers. Such an outcome is not likely from a political standpoint, however. I would summarize the likely impact on cities and towns as follows.

1. Any change in the 1% local option would politically require some revenue offset. The most likely approach is a rate increase in non-food items. Last year’s proposals as an increase from 1% to 1.1%.

2. There would be winners and losers with such an approach. The losers’ situation could be mitigated by a transitional hold harmless proposal.

3. Municipalities that have a relatively large number of grocery stores or other food sale outlets would in the long-term see a reduction in sales tax revenues from what they would have been if food had remained in the base. Conversely, cities that receive sales tax from a more diverse retail base would benefit.

There should be some mention about the unique nature of some Utah communities that have a high degree of export potential in their tax base – namely tourists. In general these cities and towns rely more heavily on the sales tax than most other communities. In some cases, Utah law has authorized a specific sales tax levy, the resort community tax for example, to reflect the unique nature of their situation. A rate offset would likely need to be significantly higher for these communities than for most other locales.

Lastly, in some cases communities may have incurred bonded indebtedness associated with their sales tax revenue. Because of the sensitivity raised by this issue last session I want to emphasize that the existence of this indebtedness does not mean that the legislature may not ever change the tax base. However, the removal of food from the tax base is not a small change and its impact is not the same across all communities. Therefore, the impact of eliminating food from the base and replacing it with a rate increase offset may not cover the indebtedness in every situation.

Simply put, Utah cities and towns have used the sales tax as a significant revenue source for nearly 50 years. Reliance on the sales tax has increased significantly in the past 15-20 years. The result is today sales tax represents the major revenue source for most Utah municipalities. Removal of the sales tax on food would represent the single largest adjustment to the sales tax base in recent memory and merits careful understanding of both the policies and impacts.

Have any thoughts on the issues -- We would love to hear about them please feel free to comment.

Now on to other legislative items. Here are the agenda items for early next week. We hope to see many of our local officials on the hill for some of these important items.

Until next time...Enjoy

Cops, King George and Municipal Government

2007-01-25T20:33:00.000-07:00

Yeah, its a strange linkage but its all in a day's work at the Utah State Legislature.

Cops

Today, the House Law Enforcement committee considered HB-255 Prohibition of Citation Quotas by Representative Neil Hansen of Ogden, which would prohibit local police departments from using any ticket "quota" system for police performance evaluations. The bill, which was written fairly broadly attempts to target specific daily quotas, but would also prohibit police departments from using any ticketing information to evaluate police officers. As you can imagine may local police departments testified in opposition to the bill. The bill did, however, pass the committee by a one vote margin and is now on its way to the House floor for further consideration. The Utah League of Cities and Towns, Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and Association of Counties will all be working together to oppose the bill on the House floor. Stay tuned on this one.

Now moving to King George

Yes, is excellency was actually invoked during a committee debate today regarding the splitting of school districts. SB-30S1 Creation of New School Districts sponsored by Senator Carlene Walker of Cottonwood Heights would allow portions of an existing school district to split out of that school district and create a new, smaller district. The bill is fairly nuanced, covering issues such as asset distribution, interim school boards, and the process for actually proceeding with the split; but the issue that received the most attention in committee today was the voting aspect associated with the split. The argument centered on whether the entire district should be allowed to vote on the split or just the portion requesting to split. And that is when it happened, during the testimony an individual representing the City of South Salt Lake and arguing for the voting to remain solely with the splitting faction asked if the 13 colonies would have been created if all of England and King George had an opportunity to vote in the Declaration of Independence. While you may scoff, the argument, buoyed by others testifying in the same vein, carried the day and the committee passed the bill out with the provision which only allows the splitting portion of the school district to vote on the creation of the smaller school district.

It is unlikely that this debate is over, and it "splits" right down the Jordan River in Salt Lake County, where most "east-side" communities support the idea of only allowing the splitting portion to vote, and most "west-side" communities supporting and idea that would require the entire district to vote on the split. At this point the ULCT has not taken a position on this aspect of the bill, but our Policy Committee did support the original legislation which allows cities to initiate a split in the current school districts. Fortunately, Senator Walker has expressed willingness to sit down with all interested parties to find an amicable solution for all involved. As you can imagine, the ULCT will be watching this one closely as it moves through negotiation and the legislative process in general.

And Additional Items for Municipal Government

In addition to the committee hearings, today marked the first milestone in the 2007 legislature. It was the last day that a bill file can be requested by a legislator. As such, tomorrow we should see a much longer list of "requested" bills. Once we have a chance to peruse the comprehensive list we will begin posting/tracking all of the municipal legislation on this website and our homepage www.ulct.org.

Please check both places for tracking and update information.

Until next time....Enjoy

Food Sales Tax Bill Now Sits Before Senate

2007-01-24T17:59:00.000-07:00

Today HB-282 Sales and Use Taxation of Food and Food Ingredients passed the Utah House of Representatives and now awaits action in the Senate. The bill passed the House without much fan-fair, which was to be expected, but the road will likely be much rougher in the Senate. With the size of the fiscal note, the bill will likely be on hold for quite some time while other budget related negotiations continue between the two bodies, and this bill is likely to be a significant bargaining point for both.

Traditionally the Utah League of Cities and Towns has opposed efforts to remove sales tax on food due to the significant impacts that such a change could have on our cities and towns ability to provide essential services. This year, however, the Speaker of the House has initially entertained various ideas to make up lost revenues, and several of our most heavily affected municipalities are still gathering information on the "exact" impact such a change would have.

As you can imagine, this is a significant issues for many local governments and it is likely that a definitive course of action will be established by the ULCT within the next few days. In the meantime, here are a couple of thoughts on this issue.

General Tax Policy

The basics of tax policy theory would argue against exempting food from sales taxation. Classic economics would support broadening the sales tax base and using as low a rate as possible in order to generate adequate revenue. Indeed, the primary concern of all studies of the current sales tax base is the increasing narrowness of the base and the absence of economic activity that is not part of the system – particularly services.

Essential purchases present a particular question since by their very nature they constitute the most stable component of the sales tax base. In short, they are somewhat recession proof. Given the inherent fluctuation of the tax system concerns over stability are legitimate. This fact is an increasing concern for Utah municipal finances as we have shifted so heavily to sales tax as a funding source. Clearly the elimination of food from the tax base increases fiscal instability – it is however, a fair question as to what extent the system instability would actually be impacted.

Systemic Fairness

Given the fact that “good tax policy” would argue for including food in the tax base, why is it that most states do not tax food and there is generally clear popular support for its removal? The answer lies in the debate over such terms as “tax fairness” and the “morality” of taxing essential purchases. These terms are also highly subjective. Furthermore, the popularity of such an exemption is obvious. The following information addresses these issues in more detail.

Regressivity

There are three classic terms used to describe the relationship of taxes and income: regressive, progressive, and proportional. The term “regressive” means that as income increases an individual’s tax obligation in percentage terms decreases. Conversely, “progressive” means that as income rises the tax obligation in percentage terms also increases. Lastly, “proportional” means that an individual’s tax obligation stays constant in percentage terms as income changes.

Virtually all flat rate taxes, particularly consumption taxes, are inherently regressive – the tax burden in percentage terms decreases as income increases. Individual consumption patterns are such that although consumption increases with additional income it usually does not increase as much as income does. In other words, regardless of how rich you are there is only so much you can eat. Yes, you may eat different things but overall the money spent on food does not relate proportionally to income increases. As such, the tax obligation decreases in percentage terms in relation to income – the definition of a regressive tax.

Traditionally modern society has generally been somewhat troubled by the concept of tax regressivity. Even if there was skepticism of progressive taxes, there was not broad public support for actually reducing the percentage tax burden as income increased. Nonetheless, that is the functional effect of flat-rate consumption taxes.

There have been various approaches to addresses regressivity. One of the more common approaches is to eliminate some essentials, such as food, from the sales tax base. In other words, the value of not taxing food is much greater to a lower income person than a wealthier one. The result of the elimination is to reduce an aspect of tax regressivity from the system. The challenge, however, is that this elimination is very expensive. The reason for the hefty price tag is that all consumers, regardless of income, receive the benefit.

This high cost has caused some other states (although clearly a limited number) to address the impact of regressivity through other means such as an income tax credit or by increasing the progressivity of other taxes such as the personal income tax.

Morality – Essentials should not be taxed

This argument is completely philosophical and should be analyzed as such. The underlying assumption is that there are certain purchases that should be removed from the tax system because of their unique, essential nature. There are legitimate questions, however, about what is or is not an essential purchase. This argument needs to be assessed against a countervailing premise that all citizens should pay something for the operation of government. That goal can be accomplished if in fact essential purchases are taxed.

One item that should be noted: The original food exemptions that were incorporated as part of the first sales tax systems – usually in the 1930’s - were associated with the purchase of raw food stock. Most meals were prepared from scratch at home from raw ingredients. Today, most meals involve some element of pre-packaged food. One can therefore ask the question about why a pizza delivered to a home is fundamentally different in moral terms from a frozen pizza that one merely puts into a microwave. With the food exemption the frozen pizza is exempt and the delivered pizza taxed.

Note: One question that is often raised concerns the definition of food – what qualifies as an exempt food purchase. The work of the national SST committee has resulted in a national definition of what qualifies as an exempt food purchase. However, the fact that there is definitional uniformity does not mean that there is not still some very strained line-drawing. This line-drawing results from the ever-increasing number of food items that are bought in various stages of preparation for consumption.

Assistance to the Poor/Everyone should pay something

Associated with the “morality” argument are concerns that the current tax system overall is somewhat harsh on lower incomes. There is some legitimacy to the argument that the current Utah system overly burdens some income groups in relations to others. The removal of sales tax would indeed mitigate some of this impact. One question is what is the cost of this removal and how would the benefit be distributed?

Because the removal of the food sales tax impacts everyone regardless of income the majority of the benefit will inevitably go to the non-poor. As a means of assisting a particular income group, the removal of food is a rather blunt instrument – everyone receives the benefit regardless of income. The counter-argument is that the removal of food sales tax is simply a tax cut for everyone – but has the added benefit of providing a more valuable impact for lower income categories.

The assistance to the poor argument is often rebutted by the position that every resident should be required to pay something for government services. The sales tax on essentials, such as food, ensures that some tax obligation is imposed on virtually all citizens. This position has taken on some added impetus because of concerns over illegal immigration.

By some measures this position is mitigated by the fact that there would still be essential purchases required other than food that would be subject to taxation. Furthermore, there are still taxes embedded in the price of other commodities such as rent that are paid by consumers – even though these payments are indirect. Nonetheless, the taxation of food does have a much more direct result of imposing a tax on all residents.

Another argument uniquely applicable to Utah is associated with family size. There have been those who have argued that a “head tax” should be imposed because of the impact of large families on schools and other related services. For a variety of reasons the imposition of a head tax has been rejected by Utah policy makers. However, it can be argued that the sales tax on food is a near-perfect substitute for a head tax given the disproportionate impact on larger families.

And now you may be asking about the municipal specfic pro's and con's of such a proposal. That information will be available on our next post -- please check back tomorrow.

-- Enjoy

The Telecom Debate Has Started

2007-01-23T18:08:00.000-07:00

It is about 6:15 on a Tuesday evening and the first formal debate on the "Statewide Telecommunications Franchise" Bill has just concluded. All of the interested parties to include Comcast, Orange Cable, Broadweave, Qwest, AT&T, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Department of Commerce and the Association of Counties all sat around the table to discuss the intricacies of municipal franchise arrangements. As can be imagined, with a group of this size, very little was accomplished but at least we have staked out our proverbial "territory". Senator Bramble will be hosting several of these forums in the near future to determine if a compromise position can be attained -- We will see where that goes.

The ULCT has consistently held a policy position to ensure that all communities have telecommunications and cable options for their citizenry. This tenet is often gained through effective local franchising arrangements that ensure fair telecommunications competition and basic service to all residents within the city.

The major issue in franchising deals with local government “build-out” requirements in some cities and towns. These franchising arrangements require incumbent and new telecommunications providers to provide, or have a plan to provide, telecommunications services on a city-wide basis. While not all cities require build-out, some cities feel that these requirements are critical to ensuring service to all residents within the city while maintaining a fair and competitive telecommunications market.

Since the Utah League of Cities and Towns has been consistently involved in telecommunications issues ranging from the transition from the old franchise arrangements to the new Telecom Tax as well as issues such as UTOPIA and iProvo, we would like to continue to be a part of the dialogue on this important issue.

Our basic philosophy is to maintain local government autonomy on franchising arrangements so that we may effectively ensure a fair and comprehensive telecommunications environment in our communities.

We will be providing consistent updates on this issue as the legislature continues.

Taxes Will Likely Consume Utah Legislature

2007-01-19T08:07:00.000-07:00

Taxes:

There will be a large tax cut but at this point the Governor/Senate/House are all playing poker as to the size and composition of the cut. The House has proposals for a cut of nearly $300 million. The Governor has proposed a cut of $100 million. The Senate has yet to play a figure. One challenge is that most of the "surplus" money is in the income tax. This fact means that the cuts are likely to be primarily in the income tax or the state minimum property levy.
There are a number of rumors and other guessing regarding tax changes that could impact cities and towns. Those receiving the most serious discussion involve the "boutique" taxes (resort community,ZAP, special transit taxes). The Speaker would like to remove food from the tax base for these taxes. The result is more serious discussion about shifting some of these taxes to a property tax levy. The net impact is a resurrection of the single-sales tax proposal floated in previous sessions. These discussions will be ongoing but it is fair to say that there is more impetus behind them now than in prior years.

Telecommunications:
In some ways this area is also a tax issue since it involves the municipal telecommunications tax. However, the broader subject area also incorporates the concept of a state-wide franchise for cable television. Our cities and towns have been on notice for several years that a downward adjustment on the rate cap was coming. It is currently 4%. We have indicated that a 10% (3.6%) cap cut is "swallowable". However, there are others that may be pushing for a greater cut.
Enter the franchise issue. Qwest and others are pushing this concept which would alter the role of cities in granting operating franchises to cable companies. When all is said and done the primary issue is that of "buildout" or whether a new cable company can be obligated to serve an entire community as a condition of operating in a city. This is an issue since prior franchises have imposed the buildout requirement on companies such as Comcast. We have had cities take conflicting positions on the buildout questions and have to date asserted that this issue one of individual city choice. However, the FCC recently issued an order which would restrict city choice in this area and there are varying opinions about if and how Congress may address the issue.
Like it or not discussions on the rate cap and the franchise authority are going to be related if not linked.

As you can imagine, these are not the only issues before cities and towns this year in the Utah legislature -- expect more to come in future posts.

-- ENJOY

Utah Local Officials Head to Capitol Hill

2007-01-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

Well, kind-of. Since the construction crews are still putting the finishing touches on the renovation of the Capitol, we invited the legislature and Utah's local government officials to a meeting "off the hill". Nearly 500 local elected officials and youth city council members made the trip to Salt Lake City to meet with there legislators at the downtown Sheraton Centre, where they got a brief preview of legislative agenda for 2007.

In addition, we showed a video which clearly demonstrates how little our constituents know about government in general. The video was fashioned after a Jay Leno "Jay Walking" segment, where we asked elementary civics questions to Utah residents. In typical "Jay Walking" fashion we were not surprised at how little Utah citizens know about basic civics. We, as the League of Cities, hope to help in the education process by kicking of an extensive Public Information Campaign on the issue of civic engagement and the role of local government in Utah. Please look for it in the coming months.

If you attended and wish to see the video again, please check the ULCT blogs regularly. We will be getting it put on the web soon for your viewing pleasure.

Our event had several notable guests including Speaker Greg Curtis, President John Valentine, and Governor Huntsman, who all joined us to learn more about the issues affecting local government. On the whole it was a very successful day for local government. With the great turn-out for this event the message was sent loud and clear – WE CARE ABOUT THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES. Thanks to all who attended.

In terms of actual legislation, today was fairly uneventful for municipalities at the Utah State Capitol. While the negotiations on large legislation is well underway, we fortunately had nothing of note in committee today for consideration. It also looks like a fairly lite committee day for Thursday as well. We should, however, start seeing several municipal bills in committee starting early next week and as soon as those schedules are available we will post them on the BLOG.

Until next time -- ENJOY

Lobbying 101 -- The Golden Rule

2007-01-17T06:15:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks I have been asked to speak to a few association groups on the issue of citizen/association advocacy and the in's and outs of the legislative process. After completing the circuit (okay, so I had dreams of the speaking circuit as a youth), I realized that I had probably internalized most of this information, but had spent little time conveying this same information to our Utah League of Cities and Towns membership. So, with that being said, here are a few critical points from the lobbyist "creed"-- according to Lincoln

Understand that politics are in play: Often times association groups and citizens rely solely on the policy positions in which they espouse and forget that politics are definitely in play. Now that shouldn't be taken as a criticism of the process, but more a statement of fact. As has been reported recently in the print media, our legislature is dealing with Senate/House/Executive dynamics that can often surround our issues. We also forget how individual legislators are dealing with several issues, which are often intertwined by several factors to include: Past experience with the advocacy groups, sponsorship, appropriation requests, etc. -- The job of a lobbyist is often to see how the "dots" connect and determine how to use that knowledge to their benefit.

Respect a Legislator's Time: It is a very busy 45 days, so the best policy is to be concise and to the point. It is often best to make series of contacts, whereby information can be left with the legislator and you can then follow-up at a later date to answer any questions or address any concerns that are expressed. "Single-Shot" lobbying rarely, if ever, works.

The art of compromise: By our very nature, most of us wish to avoid conflict -- thus compromise is at the very core of the legislative process. Legislators are generally looking to balance interests. Be willing to compromise, but at the same time, maintain a firm understanding of what it is you are trying to accomplish. Don't let "winning" get in the way of achieving your objective.

Incrementalism: You are in this for the long-haul. Remember that the theory of incrementalism is your friend and be willing to take the little "wins". Be willing to work slowly but methodically to achieve your goals and remember that it may take several years to get there.

Plan for the Win-Win: Attempt to make your proposal an win-win situation for both you and the legislature. Long-term thinking is key this process. Inevitably the legislature will meet again, and you will likely be looking for assistance from this group in the future as well. Attempt to align interests and educate versus simply winning once.

Find Friends: It is always best to broaden your base of support. Consider whose opinion can also influence the process: Colleagues? legislators? politicians? other interest groups? and then use those resources in your lobbying efforts.

Never Get Defensive: Just because a legislator is asking questions does not mean they are coming after you. Utilize this opportunity to educate and reiterate your perspective. It is best to understand why those questions may exist and proactively address the issue versus becoming defensive and reacting as such.

Maintain Contact Throughout the Year: If you only contact a legislator when you need something then you don't have a REAL relationship. Build legislative relationships that are deeper than simply asking for favors. People will get tired of you if they feel that you are only in this for yourself. Ask how you can help versus always asking for the favor.

Honesty: The one fundamental key to lobbying is to gain and maintain trust. If you expect people to rely and value your opinion they must trust you -- and people have a long memory when it comes to this issue. Integrity and Honesty is one of the only commodities you have to offer.

Hopefully this information is useful, and we hope to see more of you on Capitol Hill

--Enjoy

Ony 44 Days Left!!!

2007-01-15T17:21:00.000-07:00

I know it may be early, but yes, the countdown has already begun. The opening day ceremonies have just concluded and many on Capitol Hill already have their eye on the finish line. It is not that we don't love our fine legislature, but the process, by its very nature, has the potential to induce unforeseen panic attacks and levels of excitement that are only advised under strict medical supervision.

Call us sick, but many of us do, however, love the process and relish the opportunity to provide input on the democratic process that is before us. Thank goodness that those who proceeded us had the wisdom to only allow this exercise to last for 45 days a year.

Now that the first day ceremonies are behind us, the legislature will be in full swing tomorrow. I have included a list of a few items we will be watching on Tuesday-- and we can expect that list to grow exponentially over the next few weeks.

At this point, it is time to fasten your seat belt and keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle for the duration of the ride. 44-days here we come!!!

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Committee Schedule:

House Political Subdivisions – 8:00 am – Room W125
HB0069 County and Municipal Land Use Provisions Regarding Schools (L. Wiley)

House Government Operations – 8:30 am – Room W010
HB0061 Election Law Amendments (D. Aagard)

House Revenue and Taxation – 9:00 am – Room W135
HB0098 County Option Sales and Use Tax for Highways, Fixed Guideways, or Systems of Public Transit Amendments (C. Frank)

You can anticipate updates on these items in tomorrow's blog posting.

Until next time enjoy.

Key Legislative Issues for 2007

2007-01-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

It looks like Utah's Legislative Research and General Counsel has outlined several of the key issues that will be dealt with in the 2007 legislative session. The four page outline can be seen HERE. In addition, Utah's municipal governments will be watching the following issues closely.

1. Telecommunications Reform: There has been some discussion regarding a push toward statewide franchising for the telecommunications industry. The Utah League of Cities and Towns has been working closely with some members of the cable and telecommunications industry to maintain local control of franchising and will be watching this issue closely.

2. Additional Funding for Local Roads: The Utah League of Cities has also been working closely with members of the House and Senate to lift the "cap" off of the 1/16th cent state sales tax diversion for local road projects. Currently the fund is capped at roughly $18 Million. With the removal of the cap we would see an additional $5-7 Million come into the fund annually.

3. Land Use Regulation/Property Rights: As growth continues to be a major issue for Utah, the management of that growth is being increasingly scrutinized. Local governments will be watching closely for attempts to unilaterally change the code governing local land management decisions to further address developer interests. Local governments have, however, been working with a majority of the land developers in the state to come up with mutually acceptable solutions for the growth challenges we face.

And these three issues are just the beginning. As local governments, we anticipate a very busy 2007 legislative session and will likely be tracking roughly 60-80 bills. If you know of other issues that deserve attention please feel free to add to the list

-- Enjoy

Preparations for 2007 Elections are Underway

2006-12-15T15:20:00.000-07:00

With the passage and implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) the landscape of elections in the United States have changed significantly. Overwhelming acceptance and success with the electronic voting equipment during the 2006 Utah elections has allowed some election officials to breathe a sigh of relief, but the costs and procedural nuances of pulling-off a successful, fully electronic election for the 2007 municipal elections could prove problematic for many cities in Utah.

Significant cost increases, technical complexity, and statutory ambiguity are weighing heavily on many city recorders and election experts in Utah as the preparations begin for the 2007 election cycle. The Utah League of Cities and Towns and members of the Utah Municipal Clerks Associations have conducted a series of meetings with the Lieutenant Governor and several counties over the last few weeks to address many of these issues and will recommend a series of statutory changes to the Lieutenant Governor (Utah’s chief election officer) and the Municipal Policy Committee for the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

The ULCT and the Municipal Clerks have identified the following issues that will require legislative action during the 2007 legislative session in order for the cities and towns to adequately conduct a successful election.

Changes in the Municipal Election Primary Date: Due to recent statutory changes which require 14 days of early voting in both primary and general elections, we felt it necessary to extend the time period between the municipal primary and the municipal general election. Currently, there is approximately one month between the primary and general election, leaving little time to conduct early voting and address any election issues that may arise during a primary election. We will be suggesting a change in the municipal primary to allow approximately two months between the primary and general to ensure that any primary election challenges that may occur can be adequately addressed prior to the general election.

Greater Consolidation of Voting Precincts: Due to the cost associated with using the electronic equipment, we felt that greater consolidation of voting precincts would help manage the cost associated with the deployment of voting equipment. The current state statute only allows 1st and 2nd class cities to consolidate up to two precincts when conducting elections. The law does, however, allow smaller jurisdictions to consolidate as many precincts as practicable. We will be recommending that 1st and 2nd class cities be allowed to consolidate up to four precincts when conducting municipal elections as a cost management strategy.

Clarify that Electronic Voting Equipment is not required during municipal elections: There are several portions of the current statute which leave some ambiguity as to whether electronic voting equipment is required when conducting municipal elections. We will be making a suggestion that several technical “clean-up” changes be made to Title 20A of the Utah State Code to ensure that there is no requirement that cities use the electronic voting equipment. We would like to ensure that optical scan balloting and paper balloting are still viable options for those communities that wish to use them. We are assuming that many jurisdictions will use the electronic equipment, but want to maintain flexibility on this issue, again as a cost containment issue.

Changes to Early Voting: Finally, we will be recommending that changes be made to the interpretation of the statute governing early voting to ensure that our small jurisdictions are only required to make early voting available during the regular operating hours for there given city or town. Currently the statute says that early voting must be made available for at least 4 hours a day during “normal business hours” for the two weeks preceding the primary and general election. Since the business hours of cities and towns vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we would like to clarify that early voting be made available for the two weeks preceding the election, but the time frame for the requirement can be determined by the municipality.

We will be meeting with Lieutenant Governor Herbert next week to go over these recommendations and have already acquired a bill sponsor to address these issues. We will be finalizing the recommendations with our Policy Committee in early January, and will be working with the bill sponsor, Representative Doug Aagard, on these issues during the legislative process.

Local Telecommunications Issues Highlighted at the FCC

2006-12-12T09:58:00.000-07:00

The US Federal Communications Commission may vote on Dec. 20 to change some of the rules regarding cable franchising. FCC chairman Kevin Martin has circulated a proposal to the other four commissioners to require local authorities to decide within 90 days on some phone-company applications to offer TV in competition with cable providers. The plan would require local authorities to rule within 90 days on video-franchise applications from companies that already have a community's rights-of-way. Localities would have 180 days to rule on applications from companies that don't already have such access. Martin also called for limits on the types of fees local agencies can "reasonably require" new TV providers to pay in franchise deals. The FCC also may limit local regulators' ability to impose "build-out" rules, which typically require a company selling TV in a cable market to offer service to all households in that region.

Unrelated to the FCC Dec. 20 vote, on Nov. 13 and 14 Comcast filed effective competition petitions with the FCC for selected communities in seven states. Under federal law, if a cable provider can demonstrate that effective competition exists in a community, it can apply to the FCC for relief from regulation of basic cable rates and for associated equipment and installation. These filings affect 831,344 customers nationally. Already more than a million of all Comcast customers have been certified by the FCC as being subject to effective competition. These filings demonstrate the increasing and aggressive competition present in the multichannel video marketplace. Congress and the FCC set up a process allowing cable companies to petition for regulatory relief when effective competition is demonstrated. Federal law recognizes that where certain competitive conditions exist in a marketplace, regulation of basic cable programming and equipment and installation rates is no longer necessary. These filings are customary when effective competition can be demonstrated. Comcast has filed and previously been granted numerous applications for effective competition. When effective competition exists, consumer protection is ensured by market forces, rather than rate regulation. If approved by the FCC, Comcast would still be subject to other requirements of its local franchise agreements including the payment of franchise fees and carriage of public, educational and government access channels, strict customer and technical service standards, and requirements to serve every neighborhood.

While both issues deal with telecommunications, it is important to understand that they are in no way related. While the first issue may have significant ramifications on local franchising, the ladder issue will not impact a municipalities ability to govern the franchise arrangement with Comcast within their operating area. The first issue, which deals with the FCC rule change, is problematic, but there are several national groups working to preempt any action taken by the FCC, arguing that it will take congressional action to impose “build-out” and other franchising rules.

If you are interested in additional information here are some helpful links:

www.fcc.gov

www.natoa.org

http://www.nlc.org/Issues/Telecommunications___Technology/index.cfm

And They Say Utah Has a Part-Time Legislature

2006-11-17T11:29:00.000-07:00

It certainly didn’t feel like a part-time legislature this week as the state legislature conducted it’s last round of interim meetings prior to the 2007 General Legislative Session. With a robust discussion on transit/road funding in Executive Appropriations on Tuesday, all-day interim meetings on Wednesday, and a Water Issues Taskforce meeting on Thursday, the ULCT stayed busy this week tracking issues of importance for local government. We will try to summarize the week’s events as concisely as possible.

Transportation Funding

An important lesson was learned on Tuesday when the Wasatch Front Regional Council presented, for the first time, information to the Executive Appropriations Committee on the transportation project prioritization process that the Salt Lake County Council of Governments had adopted for the new 0.25% sales tax authority. It is a lesson that should be learned early when dealing with the legislature, and that is: YOU MUST BRING PEOPLE ALONG!

Unfortunately little work was done with individual legislators to ensure an acceptable level of comfort with the recommended process, and it showed in the hearing. Members of Executive Appropriations bombarded spokespersons from WFRC with pointed questions on the prioritization process and ultimately moved on to other agenda items without taking action on the presented material. The practical effect of that action is minor, in that the item will likely be back on the agenda in December. Hopefully WFRC and the other interested parties will work closely with members of Executive Appropriations in the coming weeks to ensure that the legislature clearly understands and accepts the rationale behind the recommended process – Better Luck Next Time.

Also on transportation, Senator Howard Stephenson presented an idea to the Transportation Interim Committee regarding increased bonding for highway corridor preservation. While it may astonish some folks that Senator Stephenson is in favor of any program that is associated with government spending, he has actually been one of the leading advocates for increased bonding for such projects. His logic is that if we can buy anticipated highway corridors now, we will save money in the long-run by preventing future development in the corridor. The only touchy point of his proposal is that the state does in essence get into the land speculation business because any excess land that is purchased can then be sold by the state at a later date for market prices. Despite that issue, the idea was received warmly by the Transportation Committee, and received immense praise from the committee chairperson, Senator Sheldon Killpack, who has been the foremost legislative advocate on proactive corridor preservation measures. Hopefully that bodes well for the bills future.

Taxation

Now on to tax matters. While the Revenue and Taxation interim agenda was quite busy, it was relatively quiet for local government. The committee only touched on one item of real interests for local government, and that was the issue of property tax deferments for elderly citizens.

The bill would allow anyone over the age of 65 to apply for a property tax deferment on any increase in property tax over a base amount that would be established when the deferral is requested. Those property taxes would still be owed on the property, but would act as a lien on the property, and would be paid in full upon sell. The bill would also create a revolving fund to ensure that taxing entities still receive the associated taxes by taking funds gained through liens that are paid and distributing those funds to taxing entities that are impacted by new deferrals. The bill was received with some mixed emotion. Even though the bill was not passed out with a committee note, it is likely to still be pursued during the 2007 general session.

General Government

During the Wednesday interim meeting of the Political Subdivisions Committee in issue dealing with the available forms of municipal government was discussed in great detail. The committee was presented information by Representative Dave Hogue regarding the City Manager by Ordinance form of government. Representative Hogue was asking the committee to consider legislation to remove the availability of the City Manager by Ordinance form. In essence, the City Manager by Ordinance form of government allows the city council to pass an ordinance which gives the executive powers of the mayor to a professional city manager that is appointed by the council. The option is available for third, fourth, and fifth class cities.

In light of recent municipal transitions to the city manager by ordinance form of government and heated municipal discussions on this issue, Rep. Hogue felt a change in law may be necessary. Several people spoke to the merits of the bill, and felt that the only way a change should be pursued is through a vote of the people. Others, including Mark Christensen of the Utah City Managers Association also spoke in opposition to the bill, stating that the option should be preserved to ensure that cities have an opportunity to quickly respond to the needs of their individual city. In the end, the committee took no action on the bill and will look for additional information in future meetings.

Water

On Thursday the Water Issues Taskforce met for the final time and discussed several issues of importance to the water community – FYI: That means everyone who uses water. Of particular note to local government, a piece of legislation was discussed that would prohibit cities and towns from regulating certain aspects of landscaping to include xeriscaping. Since the bill was wrought with vagueness and contradiction for local government practitioners, the chairs of the taskforce encouraged proponents to work closely with the Utah League of Cities and Towns to ensure that there is broad buy-in to the concept by local governments who will be charged with enforcing local landscaping ordinances. ULCT staff and Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Coordinator of Salt Lake City met with proponents of the legislation on Friday and encouraged a more proactive education campaign instead of statewide legislation. Hopefully we will be able to work together in a cooperative manner to achieve the desirable goal of water conservation in Utah.

As you can see things are starting to ramp up for the 2007 legislative session. Heck, we only have 58 days left until the fun begins. Until next time ----

-enjoy

Utahns Want Local Leaders Regulating Land Use

2006-11-06T13:46:00.000-07:00

Utahns are looking to local planning commissions and other local elected officials to make land use decisions affecting their community. According to a recent Dan Jones & Associates survey, when asked who should have the input regarding new development 37 percent of the Utahns surveyed said local planning commissions should have the most input, while only 2 percent said the Legislature should have input. Twenty-five percent stated local city council and mayor should have the most input.

The challenge according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns however is training and educating voluntary planning commissions and city councils of constantly changing land use policy. Since 2000 the Utah State Legislature has introduced over 100 land-use related bills.

“It is difficult for our volunteer planning commissions to constantly be updated on changing land use legislations,” said Midvale Mayor JoAnn Seghini. “By the time we figure out the law, the Legislature is considering changing it.”

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is working with the Utah Realtors and other representatives of the development community in an attempt to remedy this concern.

The survey, commissioned by the Utah League of Cities and Towns, also showed that residents are becoming increasingly more concerned about overdevelopment in their community. Nine percent of respondents identified overdevelopment as one of top three issues of concern in their community. In 2001 when asked the same question no respondents mentioned overdevelopment as an issue of concern.

Other top issues of concern mentioned were education, transportation, crime, taxes and overall growth -- all issues closely related to Utah’s growth pressures.

Pollster Dan Jones indicated that concern for open space is one of the most interesting findings of the survey. "What it really shows is that people are much more concerned today than they were 10 to 15 years ago about how open space is parceled out to contractors, individual homeowners or businesses," Jones said. "People are much more knowledgeable about planning commissions and zoning regulations and how zoning comes about."

Dan Jones & Associates polled 605 residents during Aug. 7-15. The margin of error for the survey results was four percent.

---------- 2006 Land Use and Services Survey ----------

Summary

Conducted: August 7-15th 2006, by Dan Jones & Associates
Sample Size: 605 respondents, statewide
Error Rate: +/- 4.0%

I. Demographic highlights:

a. 88% - of respondents have lived in Utah longer than 10 years (40% lifelong)
b. 63% - have lived in their community for more than 10 years
c. 89% - own their home
d. 48% - identify themselves as Republican
e. 32% - college graduates
f. 56% - identify their community as rapidly growing
g. 40% - from Salt Lake County
i. (16% Utah, 11% Davis, 8%, Weber, 25% rest of state)

II. How would you rate the quality of life in your community?

44% - Excellent
49% - Good
6% - Fair
1% - Poor

III. What are the three most important issues facing your neighborhood today? (Top responses, unaided question)

Education - 27%
Transportation - 22%
Crime/Gangs - 18%
Growth - 15%
Taxes - 15%
Overdevelopment - 9%

IV. Which of the following should have the most input in determining the appropriate level of new development in your community?

37% - Local Planning Commission
25% - City Council/Mayor
9% - Land Developer
9% - County Gov't
8% - Don't Know
2% - State Legislature

V. From what you know or have heard, is your community actively engaged in a general (long range) planning process at this time?

57% - Yes
20% - No
23% - Don't Know

VI. Regarding undeveloped land in your community, should local leaders…?

Preserve open spaces to resist further development -- 32%
Allow density and uses consistent with the general plan -- 24%
Allow public use of the land -- 20%
Revise the general plan to allow other uses -- 7%
Other or don’t know -- 17%

VII. Which of the following should be local government’s first priority with respect to development of private property?

64% - Protecting existing residents private property rights and property values
16% - Preserving open space
10% - Don't Know
7% - Providing new affordable housing
2% - Protecting a developers property right to develop vacant land

VIII. Which of the following would best describe your local government’s planning and zoning efforts?

29% - Community bases
27% - Developer Friendly
14% - Don't Know
12% - Short Sighted
11% - Community Based
7% - Overly Restrictive

This is just a brief insight into a much more exhaustive survey. The survey, in total, is 125 questions spanning issues such as land-use planning, development and municipal service demands. For more information on the complete survey please contact the ULCT -- www.ulct.org

- Enjoy

Utah's Cities and Towns Enter the Electronic Domain

2006-11-02T11:26:00.000-07:00

We have entered the electronic Domain, not to be confused with the highly controversial eminent domain. The hope of the ULCT Legislative bLOG is to inform both the public and our members on issues of importance to local government. We will be making frequent posts throughout the year on this bLOG and will also be using it for the daily updates during the legislative session. If you are interested in local government issues in Utah, this will hopefully become a one stop shop for the most recent news, opinions and innuendos.

We at the Utah League of Cities and Towns hope you enjoy, and look forward to your comments. If you are interested in more information on the Utah League of Cities, you can also visit our newly designed website at www.ulct.org.

-Enjoy