Utah Constitutional Revision Commission

the other eleven failed to pass. Mr. Howe then discussed each resolution, indicating what recommendation, if any, the commission made concerning the resolution to the legislature.

3.    Discussion of resolutions on the November 3, 1998 ballot

    Mr. Howe explained that a total of six resolutions will be on the November 1998 ballot. The following four were passed during the 1998 General Session:

    HJR 4 - Resolution Eliminating Voting Rights of Convicted Felons (Saunders)
    HJR 8 - Legislative Eligibility Resolution (Arent)
    SJR 10 - Resolution Establishing Wildlife Numbers (Blackham)
    SJR 13 - Resolution on Review or Tax Commission Cases (Stephenson)
    
    In addition to the above mentioned resolutions, the following three were passed during the 1997 General Session.

    HJR 8 - Resolution Repealing Marital Property Provisions (Bradshaw)
    HJR 14 - Acceptance of Trust Lands Resolution (Garn)
    SJR 1 - Resolution Amending Legislator Eligibility Standards (Beattie)

    Mr. Howe told the commission that 1998 HJR 8 replaced 1997 SJR1, leaving a total of six resolutions to be on the November 1998 ballot.

    Mr. Howe informed the commission that the Voter Information Pamphlet will be prepared this spring and summer. An impartial analysis and ballot title for each resolution will be prepared by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, he said. Arguments for and against each resolution are generally prepared by legislators pursuant to 20A-7-705, but if legislators do not write arguments before June 1, then the statute allows the general public to submit an argument for or against a constitutional amendment before June 15, he said.

     1998 Meeting Schedule

    Chair McKeachnie told the commission that it had received some criticism for not taking a position on some of the resolutions that were presented to the legislature. He mentioned that the volume of resolutions made it difficult for the commission to discuss all of them during the February meeting.

    Mr. Howe explained that the commission decided to meet in February because some bill requests are confidential until then. He noted that the legislature may act on constitutional amendments prior to the commission's February meeting.

     Rep. Dave Jones said that he made a motion at the Legislative Leadership Committee to

allow the commission to hold a meeting in January and February for the purpose of reviewing every resolution proposing to amend the Utah Constitution. The motion was approved, he said. He added that the only way to guarantee the commission's input is to hold two meetings.

    The commission reviewed its 1998 meeting schedule.

     MOTION: Mr. Sullivan moved to adopt the following meeting dates for the 1998 study period: May 8; June 11; July 10; August 14; September 9; October 9; November 13; with two additional meetings; one in January and another in February to be determined at a later date. The motion passed unanimously.

4.     Prioritization - Selection of 1998 study priorities

    Mr. Robert H. Rees, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, reviewed several study options. Mr. Rees indicated that the commission has expressed a desire to study several of the issues but has not yet been able to devote time to them. He also invited commission members to identify items for study that are not on the list.
    
    Property Tax Issues

     Mr. Rees explained that in1996 the commission recommended SJR 4, "Homeowner's Property Tax Exemption" which proposed to raise the maximum allowable property tax from 45% to 60%. The commission discussed the issue and decided not to place the item on its agenda.

    Mr. Rees explained that the commission recommended SJR1, "Resolution Amending Property Tax," which failed during the 1998 General Session. The commission discussed the issue and decided not to place the item on its agenda.

    Mr. Rees explained SJR17, "Resolution Amending Intangible Property Tax Provisions," which failed during the 1998 General Session. He said the resolution proposed to eliminate the 15-mill levy currently in the constitution on the rate of intangible property tax, and to eliminate the provision in the constitution that provides that all those intangible property tax revenues are earmarked to support public and higher education. The commission discussed the item and expressed an interest in studying the issue.

     Legislative Issues

    Mr. Rees explained SJR6, "Automatic Special Session" which was presented to the legislature in1996. The resolution, he said, provides for an automatic two-day special session within 60 days after the General Session. The resolution allows the legislature to review the governor's action on legislation as a matter of course rather than having to call a special session.

    Mr. Rees discussed HJR6, "Notice for Special Sessions" which failed in 1996. The resolution requires the governor to provide at least a seven day notice for special sessions, except in emergency situations. He said that the Legislative Process Committee has requested the commission to study the issue.

     Speaker Brown explained that the current legislature meets for 45 calendar days. During that time it legislates 30 days because it doesn't meet on weekends. Under the proposal, he said, the legislature would still legislate 30 days, but rather than having a 45 limit, it could be done within a 90 days. The extra days would be used to allow more public input and permit the legislature to study the issues in more depth. Speaker Brown emphasized the importance that this study be conducted by an impartial body.
    
    Mr. Rees discussed HJR7, "Legislative and Separation of Powers Provisions" proposed by the commission in 1992. Chair McKeachnie explained one of the issues discussed in 1992 was whether a person should simultaneously hold office in more than one branch of government.

    The commission discussed the items and decided to place the extended general session, notice for special sessions, and automatic special sessions on its agenda.

     Judiciary Issues

    Mr. Rees discussed SJR3, "Judicial Nominating Process" proposed by Sen. Taylor which allows the governor to reject the first list of nominees from the Judicial Nominating Commission and obtain a second list to select judicial appointments. The commission discussed the issue and decided to place this item on its agenda.

    Mr. Rees explained that the commission had expressed an interest in Article VIII, Section 9, Judicial retention elections and Article VIII, Section 15, Mandatory retirement. Justice Durham noted that the retention process is the culmination of a long evolution of judicial selection in Utah and there is not wide-spread dissatisfaction with the process. The commission discussed these issues and decided not to place them on its study agenda.

     Other Issues

    Mr. Rees explained that the commission discussed repealing Article XIV, Section 3, "Property Ownership Requirement for Bond Elections" which requires those voting in a bond election to have paid a property tax. The commission decided to place this study item on its agenda.

    Mr. Rees discussed the SJR11,"Labor Article"which the commission most recently endorsed in 1996. The commission discussed its work on the labor article and decided that it did not need to study the issue again because it still supports a revision of the labor article.
     MOTION: Mr. Linton moved that staff identify issues in the constitution that may be unconstitutional, inconsistent, or ambiguous for consideration by the commission as time permits. The motion passed unanimously with Senator Beattie absent for the vote.

    Sen. Nielson suggested that some issues in Article X, Education, be reviewed because several legislators have proposed amendments. The commission agreed to include a review of those issues as time allows.

5.     Discussion of draft language, "Resolution Amending the Local Government Article,"1998FL-0025/016.

    Mr. Rees explained that the draft of the local government article focuses on cities, towns, counties, and special districts. He said that the consensus of the commission, except for special districts, was to follow the Hutchinson Rule. The draft has been distributed, he said, and respondents are present to voice concerns and suggestions.
    
    Special District Association

    Mr. Mark Anderson, Attorney, Special District Association, discussed the draft and made the following suggestions to Article XI, Section 9, of the draft:

    .     at page 8, line 6: delete "such" and insert "identified in subsection 1b;" and
    .     at page 8, line 8, delete "listed" and insert "referenced."

    Mr. Anderson also said that the commission has recommended the repeal of Article XI, Section 6, Municipalities forbidden to sell waterworks or rights. Rather than an outright repeal, he suggested the following language: "No city, town, county, special district, or other political subdivision of the state, which provides water to the public, may forfeit or abandon water rights it holds." He said this single issue is of such significance that it should be presented to the people as a separate ballot item. This language, he said, would preserve water rights and the sources of the water supply for the inhabitants of the various communities.

     League of Cities and Towns

     Mr. Steven Allred, League of Cities and Towns, said that this draft of the local government article is the result of some very valuable discussion. Mr. Allred expressed four primary concerns with the draft:

     .     The draft does not offer a new direction for cities;
     .     Under current case law, Salt Lake City maintains extra territorial jurisdiction. The draft gives the legislature authority to authorize cities and towns to furnish local public services and to grant utility franchises. It remains to be seen whether the

legislature would provide similar powers that the court has already granted.
     .     Local government law is adequately practiced under the current provisions so no amendments are necessary; and
    .     If a constitutional amendment were needed, it should be for a grant of general welfare powers to local governments, not a statement of current law.

     Utah Association of Counties

    Mr. Brent Gardner, Utah Association of Counties, told the commission that its position on the draft is the same as indicated in the letter sent to the commission dated December 8, 1997.
Mr. Gardner explained that although the intent of the draft is to maintain the status quo, it allows the Legislature to withdraw powers that have been obtained through court cases. He also explained that the county desires to be involved with streets and roads. Article XI, Section 10 of the draft provides that consent of local authorities (cities and towns) must be obtained before the Legislature may grant rights to construct and operate roads within city or town limits. Counties maintain the largest number of road miles, he said, so consent should required from the counties as well. Finally, if the people are to be given the right to select a form of county government, that right should be broader than only the items approved by the Legislature.

    Mr. Gardner was encouraged to submit specific language to address these concerns.

     Bond Counsel

    Mr. Blaine Carlton and Mr. Dale Okerlund concurred with Mr. Anderson's suggestions regarding the technical changes to Article XI, Section 9. Alternative language, prepared originally by the commission in 1986, was distributed and the commission was encouraged to amend its current draft to reflect its 1986 draft.

    Mr. Carlton also suggested the draft more clearly state that special districts may provide for facilities as well as services.

     MOTION: Mr. Strong moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

    The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.