If a state House of Representatives’ committee gets its way, the process to change a county’s form of government may soon change in Utah.
The House Political Subdivisions Committee passed second substitute House Bill 224 out of its committee on Feb. 7 with an 11-0 vote.
SSHB 224, sponsored by Rep. Gage Froer, R-Huntsville, would make the process of changing the form of county government mirror the process of changing the form of government for cities in Utah.
The current process of changing a county’s form of government, which has been underway in Tooele County since Feb. 2017, involves either a resolution by the county legislative body, or a petition of voters to call for an election to approve the formation of a study committee.
If voters approve the formation of a study committee, an appointment council is formed to select the members of the study committee. The study committee then has one year to study the forms of government that the Legislature has authorized for county government, and then create a report on whether the form of government should be changed and if so, what form it recommends.
After the study committee has prepared its report, if the form of government is to be changed, the issue must be placed on a ballot by resolution from the county legislative body, or another petition from voters.
“The current process throws up a lot of obstacles and makes it difficult for the people to be heard,” Froer said.
After hearing Jeff McNeill of Grantsville describe the process, Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville, called it a “horribly inefficient mechanism.” McNeill was one of the sponsors for the petition that ultimately led to the creation of Tooele County’s government study committee last year.
Froer’s proposal would do away with the study committee process and put the decision on the form of government in the hands of the originators of the request to change the form of government, which could still be either a resolution of the county legislative body or a petition by county voters.
The approved forms of government wouldn’t change and the number of signatures needed on the petition wouldn’t change, according to Froer.
“Instead of the study committee, the legislative body or petition sponsors would select the form of government that goes on the ballot,” he said.
There would be only one resolution or petition and only one election, with four required public hearings held prior to the election, when voters would vote on changing the county government to a specified form.
“That sounds like a clean process and all public,” said Rep. Elizabeth Weight, D-Salt Lake City.
But Washington County Commissioner Victor Iverson testified against the proposed changes.
“Whenever we change government it should be a slow and deliberate process,” he said. “… This might be one of those laws with unintended consequences, when you would be undermining good government in our counties.”
Daniel Pacheco of Tooele, testified in favor of the changes. Pacheco is a member of the Tooele County Government Study Committee, which just submitted its final report to the county on Feb. 2. That report recommends that the current three-member commission form of government be changed to a five-member county council elected by district with a hired manager.
“To be asked to go back out again and get a petition signed again, requires additional hours of work for a county that has already gone through the process,” Pacheco said.
Tooele County Commissioner Shawn Milne, who said he was representing the Utah State Association of County Commissioners, spoke against the bill.
Milne said he liked the idea of two petitions, one to form the study committee and one to vote on the recommendation.
“When changing the form of government there is a difference between ‘shall we study’ and ‘this is what we recommend,’” he said.
But when pressed by Rep. Curtis Webb, R-Providence, to give one really good reason why the process that has worked for cities would not work for counties, Milne said he could not because the members of USACC have not seen Froer’s second substitute bill.
Froer gave his final comments before the committee’s vote.
“I know there are county commissioners concerned that they feel this is a way for them to lose office,” he said. “My opinion is this: It’s up to the public. If those commissioners are doing their job and performing in what the public would see as their best interest, they have nothing to worry about.”
SSHB 224 is waiting for a final vote on the House floor before it goes to the Senate.