governor under this proposal could lend his political might to national political campaigns which would strengthen the state's influence in western regional and national politics.

    Rep. Zolman then distributed materials titled "Voter Turnout Statistics" and "Gubernatorial Election Years of the 50 States." He explained that Utah is in the clear minority by having its state officer elections coincide with the presidential election. He concluded that the state would be better served if state officers were elected in midterm elections.

    Speaker Brown noted that the proposal as drafted would take effect the same year in which it was passed. This election, he said, happens to be the election of statewide officers. This means that the candidates running for governor that term would not know until after the election whether their term was to be for two years or four years. The Speaker questioned whether another method of implementing this change could be employed so that the candidates could know in advance the term of the office for which they were running.

    President Beattie explained that in Utah midterm elections traditionally have a lower voter turn out than the presidential elections. He questioned whether low voter turn out would persist under this proposal. He asked staff to determine if any other state had switched its election cycle in this manner, and if so, what was the effect of that change on voter turn out.

    Senator Nielson noted that on the voter turnout statistics handout distributed by Rep. Zolman that one can extrapolate each high profile race in recent history because highly contested races bring out the electorate in either the midterm or presidential election cycle.

    Mr. Strong explained that the law requires a valid initiative petition to be signed by a certain percentage of those voting at the most recent election for governor. If the governor's election cycle is changed, and if that change has an impact on voter turn out, then the Legislature may consider how the initiative petition may be effected.

    Vice Chair Sullivan requested that staff research voter statistics in other states that have changed their election cycle from the presidential election to a midterm election as President Beattie requested for discussion at the next meeting.

3.     Taxation of Tangible Personal Property - Mr. Rees distributed a handout entitled "Taxation of Tangible Personal Property" that compared current constitutional provisions dealing with the taxation of tangible personal property with the language of five proposed alternatives. Like the current constitutional provisions, the two drafts entitled "Resolution Amending Revenue and Taxation Article to Allow Classification of Property," 1999FL-0011/006, and "Resolution Allowing Classification and Exemption of Tangible Personal Property," 1999FL-0010/011, preserve: the requirement that tangible personal property be taxed at a uniform and equal rate;

the ability of the legislature to exempt from taxation aircraft, water craft, motor vehicles, and other tangible personal property required to be licensed; the requirement that, if aircraft, etc. is exempted, the legislature must impose uniform statewide fees or uniform statewide rates of assessment or levy on that property; and other specific exemptions to the tax on tangible personal property. Both drafts would amend Article XII, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution to allow the legislature to create classes of tangible personal property and to apply different uniform fees or uniform rates of assessment or levy to different classes of property. In addition, draft number 1999FL-0010/011 would allow the legislature to exempt property from the uniform fees or uniform rates of assessment or levy.

    The other three drafts took a broader approach to the current constitutional language regarding the taxation of tangible personal property. The draft entitled "Resolution Authorizing Legislature to Tax or Exempt Tangible Personal Property," 1999FL-0266/001, would amend Article XIII to allow the legislature to tax or exempt tangible personal property as it saw fit. The draft entitled "Resolution Authorizing Legislature to Tax and Classify or Exempt Tangible Personal Property," 1999FL-0268/001, would have the same effect but would, in addition, explicitly authorize the legislature to create classes of tangible personal property and to apply different rates of taxation to different classes of tangible personal property. The final draft entitled "Resolution Prohibiting Tax on Tangible Personal Property," 1999FL-0270/001 would amend the constitution to prohibit the taxation of tangible personal property.

    The Commission discussed the five proposed alternate drafts and whether the current constitutional provisions allow classification of property and the imposition of different rates for different classes. The Commission concluded that reasonable classifications and rate structures are permitted under the current constitutional language and that there is not a need to amend the Utah Constitution to allow for either. The Commission decided to revisit next year the broader issue of the taxation of tangible personal property generally under the Utah Constitution.

4.    Local Government Subcommittee Report - Vice Chair Sullivan explained that the commission has spent the past eighteen months attempting to revise the local government provisions of the Utah Constitution, specifically relating to counties and cities. We have realized that there is a significant problem in the current constitution because it is self contradictory and there are wildly different interpretations of what the provisions actually mean. Part of the problem, he said, is that significant gaps exist in the constitutional language that need to filled if we are to have a rational constitutional scheme dealing with local government.

    The commission has received substantial testimony from both the counties and the cities. Our dilemma, he explained, is that the commission, counties, and cities have not always come to the same conclusions. So in an effort to bridge the gap between the commission, counties, and cities we decided to create subcommittee of the commission to negotiate the issues with counties

and cities so that the proposal would have the support of all the parties, knowing that the commission's proposals to date would not have had the support of the cities or the counties through the legislative process.

    Vice Chair Sullivan explained that one of the major decisions of the subcommittee was to decide whether it was in the best interest of the state and does it make sound constitutional sense to include constitutional authority for the counties in the proposal. We decided that it is critical for the counties to have its authority delineated in the constitution, he said.

    Vice Chair Sullivan then discussed the manner in which such county authority would be provided in the constitution. He said that the counties currently have been granted general welfare powers in statute, so they may exercise powers and perform functions that are reasonably related to the safety, health, morals, and welfare of their inhabitants. Furthermore, he said, the subcommittee concluded, and the proposal is premised on the notion that it is extremely unlikely that the legislature would ever repeal this statutory authority. As a matter of practice, the subcommittee could see no significant reason not to expressly grant this authority to the counties in the constitution provided the authority was conditioned on the Legislature's ability to preempt or prohibit specific powers that it deems the counties should no longer exercise.

    President Beattie questioned whether this proposal would permit counties to provide multiple services to unincorporated areas so that the area would never have to become a city. Vice Chair Sullivan said that he did not think the relationship between the cities and counties would change as result of this proposal. The real change here, he said, is that the proposal clarifies the current state of the law. The question you raise is whether, under this draft, the powers of the cities and the powers of the counties have changed. The answer is probably no.

    Mr. Worthen added that if this proposal were to pass, the powers of the counties would not change from what they currently are today. The difference is that the powers they exercise would be listed in the constitution rather than in statute. The reality is that the Legislature will not (and that is our assumption) remove the grant of general welfare powers from the statute so drafting them in the constitution has no practical effect at all.

    President Beattie noted that it is much more difficult for the Legislature to act to preempt a county than it is for the Legislature to grant authority to a county. Under this proposal the burden seems to have shifted from a grant to the counties to preempting what a county has already done, which is of course, a difficult position for the Legislature.

    Vice Chair Sullivan explained for taxation issues, counties must still be given a grant of authority before they can act. In general welfare issues, statutes have been passed which grant the authority, so the Legislature is currently in the position which has been described. Practically

speaking, therefore, the relationship between the counties and the Legislature is not different under this proposal than current law. President Beattie asked if the proposal has no effect on current law, then why is it important that it pass.

    Vice Chair Sullivan explained that the reason it is important is that there is nothing in the current constitution about counties. That is a serious omission in the constitution, he said. Something ought to be said about the role of the counties in the constitution. Concerning the cities, the constitution is confusing. Some provisions provide for the powers of cities, others the powers of charter cities. It is unclear whether the powers described for charter cities apply to all cities or only charter cities. Vice Chair Sullivan said that bond counsel has interpreted the language to apply all cities while some Supreme Court decisions have concluded otherwise. The issue is resolved in this proposal.

    President Beattie expressed concern that placing county authority in the constitution may provide a legal argument for individuals who have not received the services that the county now has the constitutional authority to provide.

    Vice Chair Sullivan explained that the other change in the this proposal is the provision concerning optional forms of county government. He explained that a concern was raised that the county may only select for its optional forms those prescribed in statute by the Legislature. In other words, the Legislature may not have authority to provide broad categories of optional forms of government but must specifically prescribe each form in statute. This amendment allows the Legislature to develop categories with certain parameters for counties to develop optional forms of government.

    Mr. Richard Strong questioned whether the subcommittee had discussed county authority to collect fees. In relation to taxes the collection of fees has been an issue for the Legislature, he said. Vice Chair Sullivan said that he could not recall a discussion of fees by the subcommittee.

    MOTION: Mr. Worthen moved to delete "within the limits" on page 4, line 21, and on page 9, line 2. At page 4, line 24 and page 9, line 5, he moved to delete "proscribes" and to insert "prohibits or limits."

    He also moved that the clause "as prescribed by statute" be moved to the beginning of subsection (a) and the "prohibits or limits" clause be moved to the end, to read as follows:

    (2) Counties may:
    (a) as prescribed by statute, levy, assess, and collect taxes and borrow money, and levy and collect special assessment for benefits conferred; and
    (b) provide services, exercise powers, and perform functions that are reasonably related to the safety, health, morals, and welfare of their inhabitants, except as the Legislature limits or prohibits by statute.

The motion passed unanimously, with Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

     MOTION: Rep. Bradshaw moved that Article XI, Section 6, Municipalities forbidden to sell waterworks or rights, be drafted as a separate bill . The motion passed unanimously, with Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

5.     Special Districts - Draft of Possible New Article XI, Sections 8 and 9 Relating to Special Service Districts and Other Local Government Entities - Mr. Rees explained that this draft of Article XI, Section 8 provides that the Legislature may authorize a county, city, or town to establish a special service district and that a county, city, or town may levy a property tax for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, equipping, operating, or maintaining facilities that the special district is authorized by the Legislature to provide. He said that the powers of special service districts are more clearly defined in this draft than in the current constitution.

     MOTION: Chair McKeachnie moved to delete in option A and B of Article XI, Section 9 "other than" and insert "in addition to." The motion passed unanimously, with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

     MOTION: Chair McKeachnie moved to delete in option A and B "furnish" and insert "provide facilities and".

     SUBSTITUTE MOTION: President Beattie moved to incorporate Chair McKeachnie's motions in Option A and to adopt Option A as amended. The motion passed unanimously, with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

     MOTION: Chair McKeachnie moved to amend Article XI, Section 8(1)(c) as follows: after "one time as" insert "may be". The motion passed unanimously, with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

    MOTION: Chair McKeachnie moved to insert "to be included in the special service district" at the end of Article XI, Section 8(3). The motion passed unanimously, with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

    MOTION: Mr. Linton moved to approve Article XI, Section 8 as amended. The motion passed unanimously, with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.

    Mr. Strong suggested Article VI, Section 1, could be more clearly stated by providing that the "approval or rejection" of an initiative be done by a majority of those voting on the legislation.

6.    Adjourn -

    MOTION: Mr. Linton moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. with Speaker Brown and Rep. Jones absent for the vote.