Salt Lake County Council
Committee of the Whole
~Minutes~
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
1:07:23 PM
Committee Members
Present: Randy Horiuchi
Jim Bradley
Richard Snelgrove
Arlyn Bradshaw
Michael Jensen
David Wilde
Sam Granato
Max Burdick
Steven DeBry, Chair
Legislative Briefing from the Utah Association of Counties (1:07:23 PM)
Mr. Brent Gardner, Executive Director, Utah Association of Counties (UAC), reviewed the following legislative interim issues it will be discussing at its Management Conference, being held April 10-12, 2013, at the new convention center in Provo. A group of county attorneys from the Civil Division will also be discussing the interim issues.
S.B. 72 8th Sub. – Prison Relocation and Development Amendments (Rep. Scott K. Jenkins)
This bill addresses the relocation of the state prison, including the development of the current prison land. It modifies provisions relating to the Prison Relocation and Development Authority; modifies the duties and responsibilities of the authority; establishes a process for the authority to issue a request for proposals for a new prison development project, current prison land development project, or master development project, receive and evaluate proposals, and make a recommendation to the Legislature and governor; provides requirements for a request for proposals and for proposals; enacts a provision relating to compensation and expenses of authority members; and enacts a provision relating to authority members' ethics and conflicts of interest.
The Legislature set up a committee of nine members to discuss this matter, but no one was appointed from UAC or the County. Since then, he met with the Governor who has agreed to put a County official on the committee as one of his six appointments. Mayor Ben McAdams has expressed an interest in being that representative, as have individuals from several other counties. This will be hotly contested at UAC’s meeting.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
H.B. 199 1st Sub. – Fiscal Period for Political Subdivisions (Rep. Daniel McKay)
This bill amends provisions related to the fiscal period for a county, local district, and community development and renewal agency. It requires that a county adopt a budget for an annual fiscal period that begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of the following year or a biennial fiscal period that begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the second year immediately following; provides language related to the transition of a county from a calendar fiscal period; requires that a local district adopt a budget for a fiscal period that begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of the following year; provides language related to the transition of a local district calendar year entity to a fiscal year entity; requires that a community development and renewal agency adopt a budget for a fiscal period that begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of the following year; and provides language related to the transition of an agency from a calendar fiscal period.
Representative Daniel McKay wants to start an informal interim study group. UAC has volunteered to host it at its building, but has not heard back from Rep. McKay. He would let the County know when that gets going.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Referendum Amendment Bills
S.B. 66 1st Sub. – Referendum Revisions (Sen. Stuart C. Reid)
This bill amends and enacts provisions relating to a referendum petition to challenge a law passed by a local legislative body. It describes requirements for a referendum petition to challenge a law passed by a local legislative body; provides that when a clerk declares a referendum petition to be sufficient: the law challenged in the referendum does not take effect unless and until the law is approved by a vote of the people; the budget officer for the local government, in consultation with the attorney for the local government, shall determine whether, and to what extent, repealing the law has fiscal or legal implications, and shall prepare an unbiased, good faith written estimate of the fiscal and legal impact that will occur if the law is repealed; and the local legislative body shall hold a public hearing to consider the estimate and determine whether to repeal the law that is challenged by the referendum; describes requirements relating to the written estimate; and provides for a legal challenge of the written estimate.
This bill failed.
S.B. 265 2nd Sub. – Referendum Amendments (Sen. John L. Valentine)
This bill modifies the Election Code to address a referendum filed on actions taken with regard to property tax rates. It defines terms; sets different time periods for actions taken with regard to a referendum petition; addresses absentee ballots; exempts the referendum petition from the voter information pamphlet requirements; addresses the tax rate if the referendum passes or fails; provides language for the ballot; and addresses payment of costs.
This bill also failed. UAC tried to get Senator John Valentine to amend this bill to address it to the cities, but he could not find a legal way to do that.
Referendum Revisions/Amendments (Sen. Howard A. Stephenson)
Senator Howard Stephenson wants to keep the window open for signature collections on tax-hike referendums, thus making it easier to collect the required number of signatures to get a tax repeal referendum before voters. However, he has agreed to do away with the second Truth in Taxation requirement if it is replaced with an individual mailed notice requirement. However, that could be costly for the County.
Council Member Bradley asked what the threshold was on signatures.
Mr. Gardner stated it is still 10 percent of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. The bill to increase that did not pass.
Council Member Wilde stated people can sign even if they did not vote in that election.
Mr. Gavin Anderson, Deputy District Attorney, stated they have to be current registered voters. This bill is particularly problematic for the County because it operates on a fiscal year. When the Council adopts a tax increase through the truth-in-taxation process, it is required to hold a hearing in December when it adopts the budget, and another hearing in July or August. The second hearing allows tax increase opponents two chances to file a referendum petition. This creates a lot of uncertainty as to whether the County’s tax increase will go ahead or not; it may have to freeze any increase for a couple of years. The District Attorney’s tax unit has been looking at the current statute to see whether that second hearing requirement could be changed into some kind of notice, without the County having to go to the Legislature.
Mr. Gardner stated this has already impacted other counties. Summit County cannot vote on its tax increase until 2014. UAC will put together a group to discuss this with Senator Stephenson over the interim, and will have a joint session with the county clerks, auditors, and commissioners to talk about how to handle referendum and legal guise.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Privilege Tax Bill (Rep. Dixon M. Pitcher)
This bill could potentially invalidate the privilege tax. That came about because of some court decisions regarding the ATK case with Salt Lake County. The bill has been abandoned, but there will be a discussion in the interim with attorneys from both sides to try to hammer something out while preserving privilege tax.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
S.B. 267 – New Convention Hotel and Development Incentive Act (Sen. J. Stewart Adams)
This bill was three votes short of passing. It failed because there were a lot of new legislators who viewed this as a government give-away, which would adversely affect private enterprise of the free market. Little America led that chime. The legislators did not seem bothered about subsidizing private business in other ways, such as through Redevelopment Agencies, Community Development Agencies, and Economic Development Agencies, wherein out-of-state companies come in and get an advantage over businesses that are already here. If legislators do not approve of subsidizing private business, they should amend State statute to reflect that.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Funding
Mr. Gardner stated Appropriations just came out of session, and came up with about $8 million for human services. A lot of that will go to Salt Lake County for drug courts and other things. The Legislature also approved an additional $1 million in conditional probation funding, bringing that amount up to $12 million. That is ongoing money. Eventually, UAC hopes to reach the full funding amount of $16 million.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Melissa Kennedy GRAMA Appeal
This item was not discussed.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Joint Committee Report ~ District Attorney Building Project (1:23:19 PM)
Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to close the Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss a possible real estate puchase. The motion passed unanimously.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
During the closed session, the Council voted to reopen the Committee of the Whole meeting.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
Council Member Jensen, seconded by Council Member Wilde, moved to continue this discussion to a later date. The motion passed unanimously.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
District Attorney’s Hiring Freeze Opinion (1:45:34 PM)
Council Member DeBry stated he asked the District Attorney’s Office to give a legal opinion on the hiring freeze, as they expressed doubts about the legality of it. He also asked the Council’s Legal Counsel to opine.
Mr. Ralph Chamness, Deputy District Attorney, reviewed the District Attorney Office’s very narrow legal opinion as to the constitutionality of the hiring freeze, which indicates that the County Council may not, by way of legislative intent, and under current County ordinance, prohibit the filling of any vacant position that was previously approved. State statute provides options for the Council to exercise its authority to engage in the hiring process, and the Council has consented to do that by ordinance. County ordinance outlines the adoption of the hiring process as part of the budget process. However, the Council may reduce the personnel budget of each elected official, under the Fiscal Procedures Act, by giving notice. That is, in effect, what the hiring freeze does. The Council may, also, expand its ability to review vacant FTEs and continue the hiring freeze by amending Salt Lake County Ordinance § 2.12.070.
Council Member Wilde stated he interpreted the statute broader, and asked if the exceptions to the hiring freeze process could be considered part of the budget process.
Mr. Chamness stated the process of reviewing exceptions to the hiring freeze each week is not part of the budget process, unless it is noticed up as part of the budget process and the action is taken in accordance with the Fiscal Procedures Act.
Council Member Horiuchi asked if the District Attorney’s Office would feel good with the process if the Council formalized the process through an ordinance amendment.
Mr. Chamness stated the Council can continue the way it does the hiring process by changing the ordinance, and changing some policies so they comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, stated he read the statute much broader than the District Attorney. He, also, prepared a legal opinion indicating the Council does have the authority to do the hiring freeze as it is currently doing. That being said, he could write something the District Attorney would be comfortable with, whether it is the process the Council is currently following or a different process.
Council Member Horiuchi stated he did not want to do anything wrong, and he wanted to alleviate the District Attorney’s concerns.
Council Member DeBry suggested that Jason Rose draft an ordinance right away that would allow the current hiring freeze, and consider changes to the hiring freeze process at a later date.
Council Member Wilde asked what the Council would do in the interim. If the Council agrees with Mr. Rose’s legal opinion, it can continue with the hiring freeze process as it currently is. If it agrees with the District Attorney’s legal opinion, it would have to discontinue the hiring freeze until the ordinances and policies are changed.
Council Member Burdick asked what would happen if the Council continued doing what it was doing.
Mr. Chamness stated at best, it would be a technical violation. The Council has not held up other elected officials thus far; it has approved the exceptions to the hiring freeze, with a few exceptions.
Council Member Bradley stated the hiring freeze was implemented to deal with the budget crisis, and the crisis is no longer there. Therefore, he did not feel there was a need to lock in legislative authority in terms of implementing a hiring freeze. Instead, the Council should increase its scrutiny of each office and their hiring practices during the budget process. If, at that time, the Council does not agree with decisions that were made, it can make changes to budgets.
Mr. Sim Gill, District Attorney, stated it is not that the Council does not have the authority; it is that the Council has not exercised its authority in a lawful manner.