2002 general session preview - utah...

Utah State Legislature

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND GENERAL COUNSEL

436 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0121 Phone: 801-538-1032

P.O. Box 140121 http://www.le.state.ut.us Fax: 801-538-1712

2002 GENERAL SESSIONPREVIEW

A report to the 54th Legislature on recommendedlegislation and studies from the 2001 Legislative Interim

Committees

Utah State Legislature

2002 GENERAL SESSION PREVIEW

A report to the 54th Legislatureon recommended legislation and studies

from the 2001 Legislative Interim Committees

Prepared by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel436 State CapitolPO Box 140121

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1202(801) 538-1032

Fax: (801) 538-1712Internet: www.le.state.ut.us

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

2002 General Session Preview i

INTRODUCTIONThe General Session Preview is prepared each year by theOffice of Legislative Research and General Counsel. Theyellow pages contain summaries of legislationrecommended by the interim committees and task forces forthe upcoming legislative session. It also contains asummary of pertinent interim committee and task forcestudies. In this publication, the summaries are categorizedby committee. More information on these studies may beobtained from the Office of Legislative Research andGeneral Counsel. Minutes and committee histories ofinterim committee meetings are available on the Utah StateLegislature's website–http://www.le.state.ut.us.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Legislative Management CommitteeEach study item selected by a committee is approved forstudy by the Legislative Management Committee. Many ofthe items studied by interim committees are selected from“The Master Study Resolution” passed during the previouslegislative session.

MembershipSpeaker Martin R. Stephens, ChairPresident L. Alma "Al" Mansell, Vice ChairSen. Ron Allen (Minority Whip)Sen. Gene Davis (Assistant Minority Whip) (as of 9/28/01)Sen. Mike Dmitrich (Minority Leader)Sen. Karen Hale (Minority Caucus Manager) (as of 9/28/01)Sen. Peter C. Knudson (Assistant Majority Whip)Sen. L. Steven Poulton (Majority Leader)Sen. Pete Suazo (passed away 8/20/01)Sen. John L. Valentine (Majority Whip)Rep. Patrice M. Arent (Minority Whip)Rep. Ralph Becker (Minority Leader)Rep. Jackie Biskupski (Democrat Caucus Leader)Rep. Greg J. Curtis (Assistant Majority Whip)Rep. Kevin Garn (Majority Leader)Rep. Brad King (Assistant Minority Whip)Rep. David Ure (Majority Whip)

StaffMr. Michael E. Christensen, DirectorMs. M. Gay Taylor, General CounselMs. Beverlee LeCheminant, Administrative Assistant

Office of Legislative Research and GeneralCounselThe Office of Legislative Research and General Counselconducts research and drafts legislation for committeesand individual legislators. In addition to staffing interimand standing committees, task forces, and commissionsof the Legislature, the office assists in the bill processduring legislative sessions and serves as legal counselto the Legislature.

Managing StaffMichael E. Christensen, DirectorM. Gay Taylor, General CounselO. William Asplund, Assistant DirectorStewart E. Smith, Managing Research AnalystMark J Allred, Information Systems ManagerBeverlee LeCheminant, Administrative Assistant

Support StaffBrooke Anderson, Legislative IT StaffChris Calcut, Legislative IT StaffChris Peterson, Document Technician SupervisorClay Hatch, Information ConsultantGlen Johnson, Legislative IT StaffJason Reed, Law ClarkKaren R. Brown, Legislative Data ManagementLorraine K. Ripley, Document Technician/ParalegalMark Steinagel, Information ConsultantMaureen J. Wilson, Legislative Data ManagementNancy A. Ellison, Document TechnicianNina R. Norton, ParalegalPeggy R. O'Connor, Document TechnicianShelley Day, Information ConsultantSherman Anderson, Research AssistantSpencer Scott, Law ClarkThad LeVar, Law ClerkTracey H. Fredman, Receptionist


ii 2002 General Session Preview

2001 Committee StaffAccess to Health Care Coverage Task Force

Analyst: Jami MombergerAttorney: Catherine J. DupontSecretary: Jennifer Markham

Administrative Rules Review CommitteeAnalyst: Arthur L. HunsakerAttorney: Susan Creager AllredSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Business and Labor Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Mary Catherine PerryAttorney: Patricia OwenSecretary: Jennifer Markham

Child Welfare Legislative Oversight PanelAnalyst: Mark D. AndrewsAttorney: Paul W. HessSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Constitutional Revision CommissionAnalyst: Jerry D. HoweAttorney: Robert H. ReesSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Education Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Constance C. SteffenAttorney: Dee S LarsenSecretary: Wendy L. Bangerter

Energy Policy Task ForceAnalyst: Chyleen A. ArbonAttorney: Patricia OwenSecretary: Jennifer Markham

Enhancement of Public Education Task ForceAnalyst: Constance C. SteffenAttorney: Dee S LarsenSecretary: Wendy L. Bangerter

Government Operations Interim CommitteeAnalyst: John Q. CannonAttorney: John L. FellowsSecretary: Alicia Laughlin

Government Revenue and Tax System Task ForceAnalyst: O. William AsplundAttorney: Rebecca L. RockwellSecretary: Sandra Wissa

Health and Human Services Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Mark AndrewsAttorney: Catherine J. DupontAttorney: Paul W. HessSecretary: Sandra Wissa

Implementation of Water Fluoridation Task ForceAnalyst: Arthur L. HunsakerAttorney: Cherylann S. FeltSecretary: Alicia Laughlin

Information Technology CommissionAnalyst: Richard C. NorthAttorney: Robert H. ReesSecretary: Junie G. Anderson

Judicial Rules Review CommitteeAnalyst: Jerry D. HoweAttorney: Esther D. Chelsea-McCartySecretary: Glenda S. Whitney

Judiciary Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Jerry D. HoweAttorney: Esther D. Chelsea-McCartySecretary: Glenda S. Whitney

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice InterimCommittee

Analyst: Chyleen A. ArbonAttorney: Susan Creager AllredSecretary: Alicia Laughlin


2002 General Session Preview iii

Legislative Management CommitteeAnalyst: Michael E. ChristensenAttorney: M. Gay Taylor Secretary: Beverlee LeCheminant

Legislative Process CommitteeAnalyst: Stewart E. SmithAttorney: John L. FellowsSecretary: Glenda S. Whitney

Native American Legislative Liaison CommitteeAnalyst: John Q. CannonAttorney: Patricia OwenSecretary: Jennifer Markham

Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee

Analyst: Brian J AllredAttorney: Jeanenne B. LarsonSecretary: Joy L. Miller

Occupational and Professional Licensure ReviewCommittee

Analyst: Mary Catherine PerryAttorney: Keith M. WoodwellSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Olympic Coordination CommitteeAnalyst: J Brian AllredAttorney: Keith M. WoodwellSecretary: Joy L. Miller

Political Subdivisions Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Joseph T. WadeAttorney: Robert H. ReesSecretary: Joy L. Miller

Public Utilities and Technology Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Richard C. NorthAttorney: Robert H. ReesSecretary: Junie G. Anderson

Quasi-governmental Entities CommitteeAnalyst: Benjamin N. ChristensenAttorney: Dee S LarsenSecretary: Junie G. Anderson

Redistricting CommitteeAnalyst: Stewart E. SmithAnalyst: John Q. CannonAnalyst: Joseph T. WadeAnalyst: Mark D. AndrewsAnalyst: Jerry D. HoweAnalyst: Richard C. NorthAttorney: John L. FellowsIT Support: Mark J AllredSecretary: Alicia LaughlinSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Revenue and Taxation Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Bryant R. HoweAnalyst: O. William AsplundAttorney: Rebecca L. RockwellSecretary: Sandra Wissa

State Water Development CommissionAnalyst: Brian J AllredAttorney: Jeanenne B. LarsonSecretary: Joy L. Miller

Strategic Planning for Public and Higher Education Committee

Analyst: Constance C. SteffenAttorney: James L. WilsonSecretary: Wendy L. Bangerter

Tax Review CommissionAnalyst: Bryant R. HoweAttorney: Rebecca L. RockwellSecretary: Sandra Wissa

Transportation Interim CommitteeAnalyst: Benjamin N. ChristensenAttorney: Cherylann S. FeltSecretary: Junie G. Anderson


iv 2002 General Session Preview

Utah Tomorrow Strategic Planning CommitteeAnalyst: Chyleen A. ArbonAttorney: Paul W. HessSecretary: Cassandra Bauman

Workforce Services and Community and EconomicDevelopment Interim Committee

Analyst: Jami MombergerAttorney: James L. WilsonSecretary: Jennifer Markham

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2002 General Session Preview v

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Major StudiesAnnual Administrative Rules Sunset Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Foster Parent Requirements Governing Concealed Firearm Permit Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Limit on Number of Foster and Natural Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Rules of Judicial Conduct Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Other StudiesBroad and Specific Grants of Statutory Authority to Make Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

BUSINESS AND LABOR INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Major StudiesAlcoholic Beverage Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Fair Credit Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Regulation of Construction Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Other StudiesBusiness Recruiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Mobile Home Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Subcommittees/Task ForcesOccupational and Professional Licensure Review Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

EDUCATION INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Major StudiesAnnual Reports to the Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Applied Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Health Insurance for School District Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Needs for English Language Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Other StudiesComputers for School Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Impact of School Closures on School Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21School Uniforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Standardized Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Textbook Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi 2002 General Session Preview

Subcommittees/Task ForcesEnhancement of Public Education Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Strategic Planning for Public and Higher Education Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Major StudiesBoards and Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Election Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Other StudiesCampaign Finance, Ethics, and Lobbyists Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Campaign Fund Checkoff Monies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Debt Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26One-stop Shopping for Commercial Vehicle Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Performance Audit of the Utah Veterans' Nursing Home Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Seismic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Major StudiesAdult Protective Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Genetic Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Other StudiesDUI Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Emergency Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Long-Term Professional Development Programs for Disability Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Reports to Interim Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Sexual Violence Victim Assistance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Subcommittees/Task ForcesAccess to Health Care Coverage Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Physical Activity and Nutrition Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Tobacco Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Major StudiesChief Information Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2002 General Session Preview vii

Digital Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Information Sharing - Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Utah Education Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

JUDICIAL RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Major Studies2001 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

JUDICIARY INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Major StudiesParent Time Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Release of Custodial and Noncustodial Parents' Address, and Office of Recovery Services Amendments . . . 35

Other StudiesHate Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Judgment Lien Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Major StudiesDCFS Management Information System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Methamphetamine Prevention and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Transfer of Youth Services Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Other StudiesLaw Enforcement Database Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Prohibiting Intimacy with Youth Receiving State Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Sex Offender Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Major StudiesCommittee Notes on Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Initiating Legislative Special Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Legislative Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Ways and Means Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii 2002 General Session Preview

Other StudiesIndexing Appropriations Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Legislative Review Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Staff Role in Compiling Appropriations Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Major StudiesMutual Water Company Change Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Partial Forfeiture of Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Utah State Fairpark Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Other StudiesCricket and Grasshopper Infestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Department of Natural Resources/School and Institutional Trust Lands Memorandum of Understanding . . . . 46Sunset Review - Radiation Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Task Forces/SubcommitteesImplementation of Water Fluoridation Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47State Water Development Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

OLYMPIC COORDINATION COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Major StudiesSalt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee Budget and Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee Transition and Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Other StudiesAnnual Report of the State Olympic Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Department of Community and Economic Development Use of Appropriations for Olympic-Related Promotion

and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Funding of Soldier Hollow in Wasatch Mountain State Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Utah Olympic Public Safety Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Major StudiesResidential Lots Divided by County Boundary Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other StudiesAssociations of Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2002 General Session Preview ix

Municipal and County Land Use Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Municipalities' Plans for Moderate Income Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Quality Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Redevelopment Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54School Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Technical Draft Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Task Forces/SubcommitteesSpecial Districts Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Major StudiesClean Coal Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Electric Power Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Electronic Government Services Amendments - Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Electronic Government Services Amendments - Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Intermountain Power Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Net Metering of Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Protection of Commercial Sensitive Energy Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Record Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Tax Credit for Energy Efficient Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Universal Service Fund Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Task Forces/SubcommitteesEnergy Policy Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Major StudiesRetirement Act Recodification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Other StudiesPrivatization Transition Report of the Utah Technology Finance Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Retirement Systems Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Utah Housing Corporation - Independent Entities Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

TABLE OF CONTENTS

x 2002 General Session Preview

REVENUE AND TAXATION INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Major StudiesHigher Education Savings Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Implementation of the Farmland Assessment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Individual Income and Corporate Franchise and Income Tax Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Individual Income Tax - Bracket Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Marriage Tax Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Sales and Use Tax - Taxability of Parts and Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67State Earned Income Tax Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Other StudiesRemoval of Certain Individual Income Tax Contribution "Checkoff" Items from the Tax Return . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Tax Relief for Members of the Utah National Guard and Reserve Members of the Armed Forces Mobilized for

Active Duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Task Forces/SubcommitteesGovernment Revenue and Tax Systems Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Tax Review Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Telecommunications Tax Policy Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

TRANSPORTATION INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Major StudiesAdministrative Traffic Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74I-15 Reconstruction and Highway Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Motorboat Driving Licensing and Boating Under the Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Other Studies"511" Traveler Information Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Annual State Highway System Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Commuter Rail and Light Rail Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Digital Driver Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Governor's Council on Driving Under the Influence Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Legacy Parkway Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Olympic Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Other Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Unregistered Passenger Vehicles in Utah - A Performance Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2002 General Session Preview xi

UTAH TOMORROW STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Major StudiesWhat Will Tomorrow Bring for Utah Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

WORKFORCE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Major StudiesChild Care Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Department of Workforce Services - Subpoena Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Tourism Promotion Funding in Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Other StudiesAccess to Financial Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

xii 2002 General Session Preview

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDEDLEGISLATION

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION

2002 General Session Preview 1

The following is a summary of recommended legislation, listed alphabetically by committee. Furtherinformation on the legislation can be found on the page number provided after certain summaries.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE

Reauthorization of Administrative Rules(2002FL0689)–reauthorizes all administrative rules ofstate agencies annually, except those specified in thelegislation. (page 12)

BUSINESS AND LABOR INTERIM COMMITTEE

Application for Vehicle Title Amendments,S.B. 6–modifies the Motor Vehicle Code to allow thesignature of one vehicle owner on a motor vehiclecertificate of title in situations where there is more thanone owner.

Funding Formula for Alcohol Related Activities ofLocal Governments, S.B. 30–modifies annualappropriation amounts, how funds are distributed tomunicipalities and counties, and provides a mechanism tosuspend payments if it is found that a municipality orcounty is not using the monies for the specified purposes.(page 15)

Mortgage Practice Act Revisions, H.B. 23–clarifies theDivision of Real Estate's rulemaking authority, clarifiesstandards for reinstatement of the registration of anindividual or entity whose registration has been revoked,and makes it discretionary for the director to file suitagainst violators who do not seek an adjudicative hearingor against whom a permanent cease and desist order hasbeen issued in agency action.

Trustees of Trust Deed Amendments, H.B. 44–modifiesqualifications of trustees of trust deeds and obligations ofa trustee of a trust deed to send notices.

Utah Construction Contracts Prompt Payment Act,S.B. 19–requires progress payments on certainconstruction contracts, requires prompt payment by theowner upon completion of work, requires the owner to

promptly dispute a billing or estimate with which the ownerdoes not agree, and requires prompt payment by thecontractor to subcontractors and suppliers. Limits theamount an owner can withhold from a progress payment,provides for interest on late payments and for theawarding of costs and attorney's fees, requires the waiverof mechanics' lien rights by contractors andsubcontractors upon receipt of payment, and provides forthe interruption or termination of work on a constructioncontract in certain instances. (page 16)

EDUCATION INTERIM COMMITTEE

Annual Reports Given to the Legislature,H.B. 46–eliminates or modifies requirements to submitreports to the Legislature. Eliminates or reduces thenumber of reports the State Board of Education is requiredto make on a recidivism reduction plan, statewide testingtime lines, reading achievement, kindergartenassessments, a reading specialist scholarship program,textbook needs and spending, and highly impactedschools. Eliminates reporting of volunteer hours in theschool performance report. Sets a date for reports fromthe Job Enhancement Committee and the Families,Agencies, and Communities Together Council. Removesthe Education Interim Committee from the lists ofrecipients of reports from the Disability DeterminationServices Advisory Council and board of directors of theUtah Educational Savings Plan Trust. Consolidatesreports of the Technology Initiative Advisory Board andBoard of Regents relating to the Engineering andComputer Science Initiative. (page 19)

School Uniform Amendments, H.B. 5–eliminates astudent's ability to opt out of participating in the schooluniform program after an election has taken place unlessa principal finds extenuating circumstances. (page 21)


2 2002 General Session Preview

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE

Certification and Testing of Voting Equipment,H.B. 33–modifies the Election code by requiring electionofficers to ensure that voting equipment meets certainstandards. (page 26)

Election Campaign Fund Checkoff Amendments,H.B. 19–modifies tax code provisions governingrequirements for the Election Campaign Fund and makestechnical corrections. (page 26)

Overseas and Military Voters Amendments,H.B. 32–modifies provisions of the Election Codegoverning military and overseas voters by modifyingmailing requirements for overseas and military ballots.(page 26)

Provisional Ballot, S.B. 36–modifies the Election Codeby establishing a procedure for certain persons to vote aprovisional ballot in Utah elections. (page 26)

Repeal of Environmental Quality CoordinatingCommittee, H.B. 15–modifies the Environmental QualityCode by repealing the Environmental Quality CoordinatingCommittee (page 25).

Repeal of Health Benefit Plan Committee,H.B. 38–modifies the Insurance Code by repealing theHealth Benefit Plan Committee (page 25).

Repeal of Human Resource Advisory Committee,H.B. 13–modifies the Personnel Management Act byrepealing the Human Resource Advisory Committee.(page 25)

Repeal of Investment Advisory Committee,H.B. 10–modifies the Public Funds and Accounts title byeliminating the Investment Advisory Committee. (page 25)

Repeal of Local Government Information TechnologyReview Committee, H.B. 8–modifies the UtahAdministrative Services Code by eliminating requirements

to establish a Local Government Information TechnologyReview Committee. (page 25)

Repeal of Medical Examiner Committee,H.B. 9–modifies the Utah Health Code by repealing theMedical Examiner Committee. (page 25)

Repeal of National Guard Advisory Board,S.B. 8–modifies provisions governing the National Guardby repealing the National Guard Advisory Board.(page 25)

Repeal of State Advisory Planning Committee,H.B. 14–modifies the State Affairs in General title byrepealing the State Advisory Planning Committee.(page 25)

Repeal of Utah Occupational Safety and HealthAdvisory Council, H.B. 11–modifies the Utah Labor Codeby repealing the Utah Occupational Safety and HealthAdvisory Council. (page 25)

Revisions to Senate Advise and Consent Powers,S.B. 10–makes uniform the language in the Utah Codegoverning Senate advise and consent powers. The billresolves specific statutory conflicts relating to thegovernor's appointment powers by conforminginconsistent language with the general provisionsgoverning the governor's appointment powers. (page 25)

Utah Substance Abuse and Antiviolence CoordinatingCouncil Amendments, H.B. 41–modifies State Affairs ingeneral by eliminating certain committees of the UtahSubstance Abuse and Antiviolence Coordinating Counciland modifying provisions governing the council. (page 25)

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTERIM COMMITTEE

Access to Health Care and Coverage Task Force,S.B. 33–authorizes the Task Force to meet one additionalyear to study ways to improve access to health care,including basic medical services, for Utah's uninsuredpopulation. (page 28)



Adult Protective Services Amendments,H.B. 25–recodifies the adult protective services statute.(page 27)

Appropriation for Sexual Violence Victim AssistancePrograms, S.B. 5–appropriates $100,000 to the UtahCriminal Justice Commission for grants to sexual violencevictim assistance programs.

Cigarette Tax Stamp and Contraband Amendments,S.B. 7–prohibits a person licensed to sell cigarettes in thestate from selling cigarettes of a tobacco productmanufacturer who is not in compliance with the MasterSettlement Agreement escrow requirements and requiresreporting under those requirements to be made quarterlyrather than annually. (page 27)

Genetic Privacy and Discrimination, H.B. 56–prohibitsemployers from using private genetic information for hiringand promotion purposes, places restrictions on healthinsurers' use of genetic information, and provides a privateright of action for violations of the provisions.(page 27)

Immunity from Liability in Child WelfareInvestigations, H.B. 28–provides that there is noimmunity to governmental employee child welfare workerswho act or fail to act through fraud or malice, or whocommit perjury. (page 29)

Local Substance Abuse Authority Amendments,H.B. 48–expands the duties of local substance abuseauthorities to include services to people convicted ofdriving under the influence and authorizes the use ofproceeds from DUI penalties to fund those services.(page 28)

Reports to Health and Human Services, S.B. 4–reducesthe number of periodic reports submitted to the Health andHuman Services Interim Committee by legislative, judicial,and executive branch agencies. (page 28)

Technical Amendments to Tobacco Settlement TrustFund, H.B. 53–makes technical amendments to the

distribution of tobacco settlement funds to comply withUtah Constitution Article XXII, Section 4. (page 30)

Tobacco Amendments, H.B. 54–removes the limit on theamount of Master Settlement Agreement monies that maybe spent to enforce the prohibition of tobacco sales tominors. (page 30)

Underage Possession of Tobacco Amendments,H.B. 55–increases the minimum fine for underagepossession of tobacco and makes participation in atobacco education program mandatory. (page 30)

Use of Tobacco Settlement Interest Proceeds,H.B. 12–appropriates 50 percent of the annual interestand dividends earned by the permanent state trust fund fortobacco settlement monies to the Department of Health foralcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention, reduction,cessation, and control programs and makes technicalamendments necessary to comply with Utah ConstitutionArticle XXII, Section 4. (page 30)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

Electronic Government Services Amendments -Agriculture, H.B. 21–modifies existing code to allow theuse of electronic process in addition to paper-basedmethods for the provisions of government goods andservices (page 32). Electronic Government Services Amendments -Transportation, H.B. 22–modifies existing code to allowthe use of electronic process in addition to paper-basedmethods for the provision of driver licenses and relatedgovernment services. (page 32)

Private Records Amendments, S.B. 34–allows personalinformation provided to the state for specific onlineapplications to be designated as a private record underthe Government Records and Management Act. (page 32)



JUDICIARY INTERIM COMMITTEE

Amendments to Guilty and Mentally Ill, S.B. 27–createsa new plea of "guilty and mentally ill at the time of theoffense" and sets standards for jury instructions.

Attempted Murder Amendments, S.B. 22–provides thatan offense of attempting to commit certain first degreefelonies is also a first degree felony, and the indeterminateterm for these attempted first degree felonies is not lessthan 3 years, but may be for life.

Expungement of Juvenile Records, H.B. 35–clarifiesthat to expunge a record in juvenile court, the petitionermust be over the age of 18, have completed all courtrequirements, and not have an adult criminal record.

Office of Recovery Services Amendments,S.B. 25–requires that an applicant for child supportservices be informed that providing false information maylead to prosecution or case closure. (page 36)

Parent Time Amendments, H.B. 37–establishessanctions for the wrongful denial of visitation, prohibits thecourt from considering gender when determining custody,and specifies guidelines for the court when determiningparent-time. (page 35)

Release of Custodial or Noncustodial Parent'sAddress, S.B. 24–establishes procedures for the Office ofRecovery Services to release location information oncustodial and noncustodial parents. (page 36)

Repeal of Sunset Dates on Office of CourtAdministrator and Alternative Dispute Resolution,H.B. 47–repeals the sunset provisions for the Office of theCourt Administrator and Alternate Dispute Resolution sothat these sections of the code will no longer be subject tofurther sunset reviews.

Serious Youth Offender Amendments,S.B. 26–provides that certain felonies committed by aminor within a secure facility are not subject to districtcourt jurisdiction and clarifies when jurisdiction over a

minor is retained under the Serious Youth Offenderprovisions.

Statute of Limitations Amendments, H.B. 39–specifiesthat child abuse homicide, aggravated kidnaping, andchild kidnaping are not subject to statutes of limitations forprosecution and that a defendant's active concealment ofa crime tolls that statute of limitations.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERIM

COMMITTEE

DCFS Management Information System Amendments,S.B. 17–reorganizes and clarifies the statutes governingthe Division of Child and Family Services ManagementInformation System, including the LIS (LicensingInformation System). Requires that a finding ofsubstantiation for child abuse be determined by apreponderance of evidence by a committee of at leastthree division employees and requires the division toprovide a greater opportunity for an appellate hearingbefore an administrative law judge before informationabout an alleged perpetrator can be included in the LIS.Clarifies procedures for removing a person's name fromthe LIS if that person is vindicated by a court. (page 38)

Prisoner Escape Amendment, H.B. 45–clarifies that thecriminal offense of a prisoner leaving official custodywithout authorization includes those situations where aprisoner obtains the authorization to leave by means offraud or deceit.

Prohibiting Intimacy with Youth Receiving StateServices, S.B. 11–creates the criminal offense ofcustodial sexual relations and custodial sexual misconductfor employees of the Department of Human Services oremployees of the juvenile court who engage in sexualrelations with youth receiving state services. (page 39)

Public Safety - Division Name Change,H.B. 40–changes the name of the Division ofComprehensive Emergency Management within the



Department of Public Safety to the Division of EmergencyServices and Homeland Security.

Public Safety Bureau Name Change, H.B. 6–changesthe name of the Criminal Investigations Bureau within theDepartment of Public Safety to the State Bureau ofInvestigation.

Transfer of Youth Services Oversight, S.B. 12–changesthe oversight of Youth Services Programs which provideprevention and early intervention services to runawaysand ungovernable youth. The oversight would move fromthe Division of Child and Family Services to the Division ofYouth Corrections, both of which are in the Department ofHuman Services. (page 38)

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS COMMITTEE

Rules Resolution - Committee Notes on Bills,H.J.R. 2–creates definitions of “legislative committee” and“mixed committee” and requires the Director of the Officeof Legislative Research and General Counsel to place anote on any bill reviewed by a legislative committee ormixed committee where the bill is voted on with or withoutrecommendation. The note for a mixed committee will alsoinclude the number of legislators and non-legislators onthe mixed committee and the number of legislators whovoted for or against the bill. (page 42)

NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND

ENVIRONMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE

Access to Fluoridated Water, H.B. 43–allows a publicwater system whose entire water inventory is fluoridatedto supply water to a residence or business in an adjacentmunicipality or county that has not approved fluoridationunder certain circumstances. (page 48)

Fluoridation of Public Water Systems in anEmergency, H.B. 42–grants a waiver to a public watersystem that supplies water from its fluoridated inventory toa municipality or county that has not approved fluoridation

if it is due to a short term emergency and the public watersystem ceases to provide fluoridated water in a timeconsistent with repair times following best industrialpractice. (page 48)

Forfeited Water Right Allocation, H.B. 57–modifies theWater and Irrigation Code to allow a mutual watercompany to allocate water rights lost by forfeiture.(page 46)

Mutual Water Company Change Applications,S.B. 37–modifies the Water and Irrigation Code to allow ashareholder in a mutual water company to request achange in point of diversion, place of use, or purpose ofuse of water in a mutual water company. (page 46)

Water Forfeiture Amendments, H.B. 58–modifies theWater and Irrigation Code to amend provisions relating tothe abandonment and forfeiture of water. (page 46)

POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INTERIM COMMITTEE

Bonding Authority for Irrigation Districts,S.B. 20–modifies the Special Districts Code by amendingprovisions related to irrigation districts. Provides fordefinitions. Repeals existing provisions relating to bondingauthority of irrigation districts and enacts new bondingprovisions. Repeals outdated provisions relating toirrigation districts. Provides for the assessment of usecharges in place of annual assessments or taxes.Provides for the collection of delinquent use charges.Makes other changes to the irrigation district provisions.(page 55)

Municipal Plan for Moderate Income Housing,H.B. 49–modifies the Utah Municipal Code by amendingthe requirements for municipalities to plan for moderateincome housing. Redefines the contents and process ofdeveloping a moderate income housing plan. Limits thescope of the moderate income housing planningrequirement to cities. (page 54)



Prohibiting Residential Lots from Crossing CountyLines, H.B. 20–modifies the Utah Municipal Code and thecounty code to prohibit residential lots under 1 acre in sizefrom crossing county boundary lines. Prohibits the divisionof a residence by a county line. Provides for an immediateeffective date upon the governor's signature. (page 54)

Revisions to Redevelopment Agency Laws,H.B. 24–modifies the Redevelopment Agencies Act bymaking minor changes and technical correctionsthroughout the act. Resolves internal inconsistencies andmakes related changes within the redevelopmentagencies code relating to plan hearings, survey areas,owner participation, relocation plan requirements, timelimits for use of tax increment, benefit analysis, andpublication requirements. Amends the requirements forblight findings when expanding a redevelopment project.(page 54)

Technical Corrections to County Code,H.B. 26–modifies the County Code by making a technicalcorrection relating to investigations by the countylegislative body. (page 55)

Technical Corrections to Municipal Code,H.B. 27–modifies the Utah Municipal Code by making atechnical correction relating to capital budgets. (page 55)

Uniform Withdrawal Procedures for Special Districts,S.B. 18–modifies the Local Districts and Special DistrictsCodes by repealing existing procedures for withdrawalsfrom special or local districts and creating a uniformprocedure for withdrawal. Provides for definitions.Establishes the requirements for petitions for withdrawalfrom a local district. Creates a streamlined process forunopposed withdrawals. Provides a process for thecertification of petitions and for notice and public hearings.Provides a process for a local district and a municipality tojointly adjust the boundaries of a local district. Sets out thecriteria for a local district board to approve or reject aproposed withdrawal and outlines the procedures forallocating assets and liabilities upon withdrawal. Providesfor the continuation of tax levies in withdrawn areas andprovides other protections for local district bonds. Allows

for judicial review of the decision of the local district board.Makes other technical changes. (page 55)

Voter Residence Where Lot Is Divided by CountyBoundary Line, S.B. 35–modifies the Election Code toprovide for the determination of residency for votingpurposes when a person's residence is divided by acounty boundary line. Provides for an immediate effectivedate upon the governor's signature. (page 54)

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY INTERIM

COMMITTEE

Electric Power Facilities Amendments,S.B. 32–amends existing code relating to thermal powerby making the statutes applicable to electric powerfacilities instead. (page 57)

Electronic Government Services Amendments -Agriculture, H.B. 21–modifies existing code to allow theuse of electronic process in addition to paper-basedmethods for the provisions of government goods andservices. (page 58) Electronic Government Services Amendments -Transportation, H.B. 22–modifies existing code to allowthe use of electronic process in addition to paper-basedmethods for the provisions of drivers licenses and relatedgovernment services. (page 58)

Interlocal Cooperation Act Amendments,S.B. 29–authorizes the creation of public energy serviceagencies and broadens the Interlocal Cooperation Act toinclude public agencies from other states. (page 58)

Municipal Telephone Utilities Amendments,H.B. 59–provides small community telephone providerswith access to the Universal Service Fund for a limitedperiod of 4 years. (page 59)

Net Metering of Electricity, H.B. 7 –authorizes residentialand small business electric power generators to sell power



under certain conditions back to the state regulated powerprovider. (page 58)

Private Records Amendments, S.B. 34–allows personalinformation provided to the State for specific on-lineapplications to be designated as a private record underthe Government Records and Management Act. (page 59)

Protection of Commercially Sensitive EnergyInformation (2002FL0313)–prohibits the disclosure ofsensitive commercial information regarding the purchaseor sale of electricity, fuels, or related energy servicesprovided to public entities. (page 59)

Resolution Encouraging Research and DevelopmentGrants for Clean Coal Alternatives,S.J.R. 1–encourages the federal government to providegrants for the development of clean coal technology.(page 57)

REVENUE AND TAXATION INTERIM COMMITTEE

Higher Education Savings Incentive ProgramAmendments, H.B. 52–clarifies that a taxpayer maysubtract from federal taxable income the amount ofincome that was derived from money paid by the taxpayerinto a higher education savings account but only when thefunds are used for qualified higher education costs of thebeneficiary. (page 65)

Individual Income Tax - Bracket Adjustments,S.B. 31–requires the Utah State Tax Commission to makecertain adjustments to the individual income tax bracketsand amount of tax as a result of inflation or deflation.(page 66)

Individual Income Tax - State Earned Income TaxCredit, H.B. 60–establishes a nonrefundable state earnedincome tax credit equal to 5 percent of a taxpayer's federalearned income tax credit. Applies only if the taxpayer hasan adjusted gross income of $25,000 or less. Requires theUtah State Tax Commission to make transfers from theGeneral Fund to the Uniform School Fund equal to the

amount of state earned income tax credit claimed.(page 67)

Individual Income Tax Personal Retirement Exemptionand Deduction for Retirement Income - EliminatingMarriage Tax Penalties, H.B. 50–modifies the adjustedgross income amounts at which the subtraction fromfederal taxable income for retirement income and thepersonal retirement exemption are reduced. (page 67)

Sales and Use Tax – Taxability of Parts and Labor,H.B. 51–clarifies that no sales and use tax is imposed onparts or labor used in the repair of certain items of tangiblepersonal property when the purchase of that tangiblepersonal property is exempt from the sales and use tax.(page 67)

Tax Credits - Removal of Tax Credit from Tax Formand Prohibition on Claiming or Carrying Forward TaxCredit, S.B. 28–provides a mechanism to remove certainindividual income and corporate franchise and incomecredits from tax returns that do not meet a certain criteriain terms of number of taxpayers claiming the credit anddollar amount of credit claimed. Provides that a taxpayermay not claim or carry forward a credit that has beenremoved from a tax return.

TRANSPORTATION INTERIM COMMITTEE

Alcoholic Beverage Service-Warning Required,S.B. 13–changes the language of the warning signrequired to be posted in any establishment that is servingalcohol and that is subject to the Alcoholic BeverageControl Act. (page 78)

Amendments to Driving Under the Influence,S.B. 9–increases the required compensatory-servicehours for first time DUI offenders from 24 to 48 hours.Requires supervised probation whenever probation isordered for a felony DUI offender. (page 78)

Blood and Breath Alcohol Testing, H.B. 16–amends themethod of proving the elements of driving under the



influence related offenses by repealing a requirement thata test must be given with 2 hours of the alleged drivingand instead allows a subsequent test which shows aviolation either at time of the test or at the time of theoperation of the vehicle to be considered an offense. Thischange is made in sections relating to driving under theinfluence, commercial driver licensing, automobilehomicide, flying under the influence, and boating under theinfluence. (page 78)

Child Restraint Violations, H.B. 29–allows a reduction ofthe fine for a child restraint violation, if the person submitsproof of acquisition of child restraint device. Repeals theprovision which allowed for a dismissal of a first violationof a child restraint law by showing acquisition of a childrestraint device. (page 79)

Court Records of Driving Under the Influence Cases,H.B. 18–requires state courts to create and maintain adatabase of information on DUI cases. The database willbe used to ensure that sentencing and enhancementdecisions are made in accordance with current DUI andreckless driving laws (page 78).

Driver License Reporting, S.B. 14–clarifies provisions forreporting a person who has an impairment that may effectdriving ability. Provides that a report of an impaired driverthat is filed with the Driver License Division is a protectedrecord. A health care professional who submits a false orinaccurate report for an improper purpose is guilty ofunprofessional conduct and is subject to license penalties.A person other than a health care professional whosubmits a false or inaccurate report for an improperpurpose is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. (page 79)

License Plate Requirements, H.B. 31–repeals therequirement to have a county decal as one of theregistration decals on vehicle license plates. (page 79)

Master State Highway Amendments, H.B. 30–affectsseven state highways by realigning, transferring, adding ordeleting sections of highways on the state highwaysystem. (page 77)

Motor Vehicle Registration Amendments, S.B.21–allows a court to require proof of proper motor vehicleregistration as part of any sentence for a charge ofimproper motor vehicle registration. (page 79)

Motorboat Driver Licensing and Boating Under theInfluence Provisions, H.B. 4–defines a motorboat as anyvessel with an engine output of more than 10 horsepowerand beginning January 1, 2007, requires a motorboatdriver to be licensed by passing a written motorboat testadministered by the Driver License Division. After passingthe test, a motorboat endorsement is added to theperson’s driver license. Exceptions are provided for certaindrivers. A person under 12 years of age is prohibited fromdriving a motorboat. A person at least 12 years of age,may drive a motorboat after completing a motorboat safetycourse and if the person is accompanied by a licensedperson at least 18 years of age. A nonresident at least 16years of age, may drive a motorboat if the personpossesses a certificate of completion of an approvedboating safety course or if the person holds a nonresidenttemporary permit. A person at least 18 years of age, maydrive a motorboat if the person is renting a motorboat froma licensed boat livery and has a copy of the rentalagreement; and possesses a 14-day temporary motorboatlicense issued by an authorized boat livery. Places vesselnavigation and steering laws in statute and points areassessed for each offense in a point system kept byDivision of Parks and Recreation. After a certain numberof points for motorboat violations, a letter is sent to theDriver License Division indicating that the person’s driverlicense which includes the motorboat endorsement shouldbe denied or suspended. Combines driving under theinfluence provisions with boating under the influenceprovisions and provides that a violation results in the samedriver licensing sanctions. (page 77)

Multiple Driving Under the Influence Offenses,H.B. 17–clarifies the types of convictions that areconsidered as prior convictions by a court in a DUI caseand in a driver license suspension proceeding. Aconviction for driving with drugs, driving with acombination of alcohol and drugs, or any DUI related



offense that has been reduced by a court qualifies as aprior conviction in any subsequent DUI case. (page 78)

Organ Donation Checkoff, S.B. 15–allows a voluntary $1contribution to promote and support organ donation froman applicant for renewal of a motor vehicle registration ora driver license. Creates the Organ Donation ContributionAccount and allows the Department of Health toadminister the account. The Department of Health selectsand distributes monies to qualified organizations for thepurposes of promoting organ donation, maintaining astatewide organ donor registry, and providing donorawareness education. (page 79)

Traffic Offense Adjudication, S.B. 16–allows countiesand municipalities served by justice courts to impose acivil penalty for minor traffic offenses and to provideadministrative traffic proceedings to adjudicate thesecases. Allows justice court judges or administrative lawjudges to conduct administrative traffic proceedings.Specifies that a defendant in an administrative trafficproceeding shall have the right to present and refuteevidence, confront the defendant’s accuser, crossexamine witnesses, and have an attorney present.Requires a municipality or county that uses anadministrative law judge to adjudicate administrative trafficproceedings to establish a complaint and disciplinaryprocess. (page 75)

WORKFORCE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE

Child Care Amendments, H.B. 36–clarifies and expandsthe duties and responsibilities of the OCC (Office of ChildCare), requires the OCC to provide an annual writtenreport on the status of child care in Utah to the WorkforceServices and Community and Economic DevelopmentInterim Committee, and modifies and expands the ChildCare Advisory Committee to include key stakeholders inthe community. Clarifies the statutory roles andrelationships of those individuals and entities involved withthe Child Care Expendable Trust Fund. (page 81)

Tourism Amendments, H.B. 34–requires an annualreport to the Workforce Services and Community andEconomic Development Interim Committee, addressingthe coordinated efforts of the UTC (Utah Travel Council)and the 29 county legislative bodies. Requires an annualindependent audit of the TRCC (Tourism, Recreation,Cultural, and Convention tax) revenues. Requires thefindings of these audits to be reported to the interimcommittee. (page 84)

Workforce Services Amendments, S.B. 23–modifies thedefinition of consortium of counties and membership of theregional councils on workforce services. Authorizes theDepartment of Workforce Services to administer oaths,certify its official acts, and issue subpoenas. (page 84)

COMMITTEE STUDIES




MembershipSen. Howard A. Stephenson, Senate ChairRep. David Ure, House ChairSen. Mike DmitrichPresident Al MansellSen. Ed MayneSen. Michael G. WaddoupsRep. Judy A. BuffmireRep. James R. GowansSpeaker Martin R. StephensRep. John E. Swallow

StaffMr. Arthur L. Hunsaker, Research AnalystMs. Susan Creager Allred, Associate General CounselMs. Cassandra Bauman, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Administrative Rules Review Committee wasestablished by the Legislature in the 1983 GeneralSession. Section 63-46a-11(3)(b), Utah Code Annotated1953, requires that the Committee review agency rules toensure they do not exceed the bounds of legislativeauthority and intent and to determine their impact on theeconomy, state and local government operations, andaffected persons.

The Committee primarily reviewed proposed agency rules,which are published twice monthly in the Utah StateBulletin by the Division of Administrative Rules. However,Committee members expressed concern that existingrules, many of them based on quite broad grants ofstatutory authority, were still unreviewed.

In the 1988 General Session, funds were appropriated forfull-time staff to provide an existing rules component to theCommittee’s review process. The Committee directed staffto prepare legislation deleting the broad grants ofrulemaking authority in several state agencies andinstructed staff to work with each affected agency toensure that statutes, as rewritten, would still provide thespecific rulemaking authority needed. The Committee felt

that the effort to delete such grants from all agencystatutes would require several years to complete.

As part of an agreement reached between members of theAdministrative Rules Review Committee and the governorduring the 1989 General Session, legislation was passedwhich granted the Committee authority to prepare annuallegislation reauthorizing all rules of the state except forrules enumerated in each year’s bill. The Committeedelayed any action on broad statutory grants until after the1990 General Session.

From 1989 through 1994, the Committee examined therules of every state agency. Agency representatives werepresented with a detailed analysis of their rules and metwith the Committee to establish agreements regardingwhat rule changes would be made. This process promptedagencies to file more concise, carefully prepared rules thatwere in harmony with Utah statutes.

With the passage of H.B. 182, "Administrative RulesReview Committee Amendments," in the 1997 GeneralSession, committee membership increased from 6 to 10.Currently, the Committee reviews the large number ofproposed agency rules published twice monthly in theUtah State Bulletin and addresses specific concernsregarding proposed and existing rules, as raised by thepublic.

ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE RULES SUNSET LEGISLATION

BackgroundDuring the 1989 General Session, the Legislature enacteda law repealing all state agency rules annually. However,all state agency rules are reauthorized except those thatare specifically enumerated to be repealed in annuallegislation.

Committee ActionThe Committee met with various state agenciesthroughout the year regarding specific rules of concern toCommittee members and citizens. In most cases, agencyrepresentatives agreed to make changes requested by theCommittee and filed those changes with the Division of



Administrative Rules. With a rule agencies chose not tochange, or agreed to change but never filed with thedivision, the Committee members decided they would voteto reauthorize the rule or consider the rule fornonreauthorization when preparing its annual sunsetlegislation.

The Committee planned to discuss this issue at itsJanuary 14, 2002 meeting and recommend legislation"Reauthorization of Administrative Rules."

FOSTER PARENT REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING

CONCEALED FIREARM PERMIT HOLDERS

BackgroundThe Committee heard testimony from an individual whoclaimed that the DCFS (Division of Child and FamilyServices) was interpreting R501-12-8, a foster carelicensing rule, to deny his right to be both a concealedfirearm permit holder and a foster parent. Representativesof DCFS stated that the rule, which requires that a firearmin the home be locked and inaccessible when the fosterchild is in the home, was intended to ensure the safety offoster children and foster parents.

Committee ActionMembers of the Committee expressed concern that DCFSrule unduly restricted the rights of concealed firearmpermit holders and requested that the agency examine therule and report back to the Committee.

The agency's report included proposed changes to therule, but when asked for assurance that the concealedfirearm permit holder would receive a license to be a fosterparent, an agency representative stated that it was herunderstanding that the license had been formally deniedbased on factors unrelated to the concealed firearm permitissue. Committee members urged both parties to resolvethe issue before it entered litigation.

Committee staff was directed to research encroachmentson the rights of concealed firearm permit holders in stateadministrative rule. Staff presented research indicatingthat there were several instances in which agency rules

impacting concealed firearm permit holders were morerestrictive than state statute.

The Committee considered this issue at its May 8, May 29,July 16, and December 11, 2001 meetings. TheCommittee planned further discussion in its January 14,2002 meeting.

LIMIT ON NUMBER OF FOSTER AND NATURAL CHILDREN

BackgroundDivision of Child and Family Services rule R501-12-6(B)(2)(d) restricts the combined number of foster andnatural children in a home to six. Some Committeemembers stated that restrictions on the number of childrenin a foster home should be based on the capability of theparents in each individual case. Agency representativesreferred to the existing variance process designed toaddress individual circumstances, defended the setting ofthe six-child limit, and suggested that the Legislature hadthe authority to alter the limit by legislation.

Committee ActionThe Committee requested that agency representativesexamine the rule and report back to the Committee. Theagency report supported the current limit and the varianceprocess.

The Committee considered the issue at its August 28 andNovember 20, 2001 meetings and voted not to reauthorize

R501-12-6(B)(2)(d).

RULES OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION

BackgroundThe Committee was requested to examine possibleconflicts between the rules of the Judicial ConductCommission and state statutes as well as the UtahConstitution, because of rules that appeared to exceedstatutory or constitutional limits. A representative of theJudicial Conduct Commission agreed that theCommission's rules should be examined carefully to bringthem into compliance with the law.



Committee ActionStaff was directed to review the rules of the JudicialConduct Commission and prepare a list of those rules thatconflict with statute or the Constitution.

The Committee reviewed this issue at its November 20and December 11, 2001 meetings. The Committeeplanned further discussion in its January 14, 2002meeting.

OTHER STUDIES

Broad and Specific Grants of Statutory Authority toMake RulesThe Committee heard testimony from an attorney whostated that the courts give deference to statutes that grantspecific rulemaking authority in comparison to statutesthat contain broad, general grants. He recommended thatspecific rulemaking authority not be granted. Staff statedthat abuse of broad grants of authority in years past ledthe Legislature to use specific grants as a check on thepower of executive branch agencies.

The Committee directed staff to research the Legislature'sgranting of broad and specific grants of statutory authorityto make rules. Staff completed and presented its findings.

The Committee considered the issue in its April 24 andMay 29, 2001 meetings. The Committee planned furtherdiscussion in its January 14, 2002 meeting.




MembershipSen. Dan R. Eastman, Senate ChairRep. Katherine M. Bryson, House Chair Sen. Curtis S. BrambleSen. Gene DavisSen. Parley G. HellewellSen. Ed P. MayneSen. L. Steven PoultonRep. Gerry A. AdairRep. Roger E. BarrusRep. Cindy BeshearRep. Jackie BiskupskiRep. David ClarkRep. Greg J. CurtisRep. Carl W. DuckworthRep. Ben C. FerryRep. Thomas V. HatchRep. Brad KingRep. Karen W. MorganRep. Brent D. Parker

StaffMs. Mary Catherine Perry, Research AnalystMs. Patricia Owen, Associate General CounselMs. Jennifer Markham, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Business and Labor Interim Committee considersissues relating to the interests of business owners,employees, and consumers. Safeguarding these interestsinvolves balancing the need for appropriate regulation withthe need to foster a healthy economy by avoidingunnecessary governmental interference in free enterprise.

The Committee has legislative responsibility for sixdepartments and commissions: the Alcoholic BeverageControl Commission, the Department of AlcoholicBeverage Control, the Department of Commerce, theDepartment of Financial Institutions, the Department ofInsurance, and the Labor Commission. In 2001, theLegislative Management Committee voted to move issuesrelated to Community and Economic Development from

the Business and Labor Interim Committee to theWorkforce Services and Economic Development InterimCommittee.

Issues addressed by the Committee in recent yearsinclude motor fuel marketing, regulation of alcoholicbeverages, regulation of construction activities, businessassistance and recruitment programs, consumer creditreporting, economic and fiscal impacts of the 2002Olympic Winter Games, workers’ compensation,anti-discrimination, consumer protection, professionallicensing, and real estate activities.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE FUNDS

BackgroundThe Legislature, by statute, shall annually appropriatefrom the General Fund, to municipalities and counties, anamount up to $4,350,000 generated by liquor controlprofits and the beer excise tax. Municipalities and countiesmay use the funds for purposes including prevention,treatment, detection, and prosecution of violations in whichalcohol is a contributing factor.

Committee ActionThe Committee received information from the Governor'sCouncil on Driving Under the Influence, Utah SubstanceAbuse and Anti-Violence Coordinating Council, andrepresentatives from cities and counties. The Committeeconsidered legislation that modifies annual appropriationamounts, determines how funds are distributed, andprovides a mechanism to suspend payments if it is foundthat a municipality or county is not using the monies forthe specified purposes.

The Committee considered this issue at its May andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Funding Formula for Alcohol Related Activities of LocalGovernments."

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING

BackgroundFair Credit Reporting activities are regulated to a great



degree by federal law. However, several states haveenacted various laws in the area of credit reporting. InUtah, the subject of consumer credit reporting is arecurring topic of study for the Legislature, appearing inthe Master Study Resolution the last 3 years. Committee ActionThe Committee studied several issues related toconsumer credit reporting including notification of negativeentries in a consumer's credit history, procedures forcorrecting inaccurate information, costs of credit reports,and the use of credit scoring by insurance companies forconsumers' insurance eligibility. Representatives fromcredit reporting agencies, consumer credit counselingservices, the Insurance Department, and various sectorsof the insurance industry appeared before the Committeeto provide information to Committee members.

The Committee considered legislation that would enact theUtah Consumer Credit Reporting Act. The legislationrequires a notice be sent to a consumer when a negativeentry is made in their credit history, provides thatconsumers may obtain a free copy of their credit reportunder certain circumstances, and provides for aconsumer's right to file actions in court.

The Committee studied these issues at its June, July,October, and November 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

BackgroundIn 2001, the Committee studied several issues related toregulation of construction services including the creationof a new Division of Construction Services in theDepartment of Commerce and prompt payment ofsubcontractors in construction projects.

Currently, DOPL (Division of Occupational andProfessional Licensing) regulates licensees in theconstruction industry. However, some members of theconstruction industry argue that, although DOPL'sadministration is supportive and competent, its regulatory

power is insufficient to deal with the broad spectrum ofissues that arise in the area of construction services.Industry representatives argue that there needs to be amore focused and specialized division with a policymaking board.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered legislation that would create aDivision of Construction Services and a ConstructionServices Commission as its policy making board.

The Committee also considered legislation that wouldenact the Utah Construction Contracts Prompt PaymentAct. The legislation outlines several requirements relatedto construction projects including requiring progresspayments on certain construction contracts, requiringprompt payment by the owner upon completion of work,and requiring prompt payment by the contractor tosubcontractors and suppliers.

The Committee considered these issues at its July andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Utah Construction Contracts Prompt Payment Act."

OTHER STUDIES

Business RecruitingThe Committee studied issues related to national businessrecruiting in Utah including an update on the UtahTechnology Alliance (formerly the Utah Silicon ValleyAlliance) and industry-specific recruiting programs. TheDepartment of Community and Economic Developmentand the Economic Development Corporation of Utahprovided information to the Committee on their activities inthis area as well as how efforts are coordinated betweenthe two organizations. The Committee considered thisissue at its September meeting but did not recommendlegislation.

Mobile Home ParksIn response to several pieces of legislation introducedduring the 2001 General Session and three Master StudyResolution items, the Committee studied issues related tomobile home parks. The Committee's study included



receiving input from mobile home park owners andresidents regarding (1) procedures for mobile home parkrulemaking, (2) change of use of property in mobile homeparks by park owners, and (3) arbitration and mediationalternatives for addressing issues in mobile home parks.The Committee considered this issue at its May 2001meeting but did not recommend legislation.

OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONALLICENSURE REVIEW COMMITTEE

MembershipSen. David L. Gladwell, Senate ChairRep. Glenn L. Way, House ChairSen. Gene DavisSen. John L. ValentineRep. Carl W. DuckworthRep. Thomas V. HatchMr. Brian AllenMr. Phil HancockMr. Reed MackleyMr. Stan NielsonMr. Bert SmithMr. Noel Williams

StaffMs. Mary Catherine Perry, Research AnalystMr. Keith M. Woodwell, Associate General CounselMs. Cassandra Bauman, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundDuring the 1999 General Session, the legislature createdthe Occupational and Professional Licensure ReviewCommittee to review applications from occupationalgroups seeking statutory regulation through formallicensure. The Committee meets on an as-needed basisto review applications as they are submitted to theLegislature. After holding a public hearing and receivingpublic testimony, the Committee votes to recommend ornot recommend licensure for the occupation or professionunder consideration.

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed applications from two groupsseeking licensure: professional geologists andprofessional direct-entry midwives.

The Committee voted to recommend licensure of direct-entry midwives. A motion to not recommend licensure ofgeologists failed on a tie vote and the Committee took nofurther action.

The Committee discussed this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings.




MembershipSen. Howard A. Stephenson, Senate ChairRep. Marda Dillree, House ChairSen. D. Chris ButtarsSen. Karen HaleSen. David H. SteeleSen. Alicia L. Suazo (as of 9/12/01)Sen. Pete Suazo (passed away 8/20/01) Sen. Michael G. WaddoupsSen. Bill WrightRep. Jeff AlexanderRep. Duane E. BourdeauxRep. Afton B. BradshawRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. Margaret DaytonRep. James A. FerrinRep. James R. GowansRep. Bradley T. JohnsonRep. Merlynn T. NewboldRep. Loraine T. PaceRep. J. Morgan PhilpotRep. LaWanna ShurtliffRep. Matt ThrockmortonRep. A. Lamont Tyler

StaffMs. Constance C. Steffen, Research AnalystMr. Dee S Larsen, Associate General CounselMs. Wendy Bangerter, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Committee provides oversight of and recommendspolicy relating to the state systems of public and highereducation. In 2001, much of the Committee's time wasspent in preparation for the 2001 First Special Session,during which the Legislature considered and passed a billcreating the Utah College of Applied Technology within thestate system of higher education.

ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE

BackgroundAs provided by law, the Legislature annually receivesnearly three dozen education reports. Typically, when anew educational program is created, a reportingrequirement is inserted in the law to enable the Legislatureto monitor the effectiveness of the program. Many of thereports are required to be made annually, so, over time,the number of reporting requirements in the law multiplies.

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed the statutorily required annualeducation reports to the Legislature to determine whichreports should be eliminated.

The Committee considered this issue at its September andNovember, 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Annual Reports Given to the Legislature."

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

BackgroundIn the 2001 General Session, legislation was introducedto change the structure and governance of the appliedtechnology education system. The legislation did not pass.

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed and received testimony onproposed legislation to create within the state system ofhigher education the UCAT (Utah College of AppliedTechnology). Within UCAT are 10 regional appliedtechnology colleges whose function is to provide appliedtechnology education at no cost to secondary studentswithin a regional college's jurisdiction and at low cost toadult students. In addition to preparing students forspecific employment in business and industry, UCAT isauthorized to offer a competency-based associate ofapplied technology degree that may be transferred toother institutions of higher education.

The Committee considered this issue at its April, May, andJune 2001 meetings but did not recommend legislation.The Legislature passed H.B. 1003, "Applied TechnologyEducation Governance," in the 2001 First Special Session.



HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES

BackgroundIncreases in legislative appropriations for public educationoften do not result in proportionate increases in teachers'salaries. One reason is because rising health insurancecosts are consuming a greater portion of school districts'budgets.

Local school boards contract with PEHP (PublicEmployees Health Plan), a mutual insurance associationfor educators, or private companies to provide healthinsurance for their employees. Legislation was introducedin the 2001 General Session to modify PEHP by includingschool district employees in the state employee risk pool.The proposal was intended to lower health insurancecosts of school districts by allowing them to spread theirhealth cost risks over a much larger pool of participants.Committee staff presented background information ontrends in health insurance costs, the PEHP risk pools, andadvantages and disadvantages of mandatory risk pooling.Although some school district employees testified in favorof including all school employees in the PEHP stateemployee risk pool, most teachers and administratorssupported local control in selecting a health insuranceprovider.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its July 2001meeting but did not recommend legislation.

NEEDS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

BackgroundThe primary language of more than 40,000 Utah publicschool students is a language other than English. Manyschools are unable to provide adequate services tostudents who have limited proficiency in speaking,reading, or writing English. Legislation enacted in the 2001General Session directed the State Board of Education toform a committee to study the needs of English languagelearners. The State Office of Education summarized forthe Committee an evaluation of services for Englishlanguage learners in Utah school districts conducted bythe U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.

The Office identified deficiencies in nine school districts.The deficiencies cited include:• an inadequately trained staff• the over representation of English language learners

in special education programs• the under representation of English language learners

in gifted and talented programs• the inability to demonstrate that the program for

English language learners is based on soundteaching strategies

• the absence of a system for tracking the academicaccomplishments of current and former Englishlanguage learners

The State Board of Education's committee that wasorganized to study the needs of English language learnersrecommended the following: • develop an Alternative Language Services Master

Plan for the state• allocate $4 million to develop and implement the plan

and $2 million to train teachers on strategies foreducating English language learners

• move Alternative Language Services funding from theSpecial Populations Block Grant and reestablish it asa categorical line item

• evaluate the effectiveness of teacher preparationprograms in preparing teachers to meet theeducational needs of English language learners

• continue the work of the English language learnersstudy committee

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

OTHER STUDIES

Computers for Schools ProgramUtah Correctional Industries refurbishes computersdonated by state agencies and businesses and sells themto public schools. Although existing law requires theComputers for Schools program to be self-supporting, theprogram is operating at a loss. School districts generallyprefer to purchase new computers rather than paying the



full cost of a refurbished computer. Utah CorrectionalIndustries notified the Committee that unless it receives anappropriation to subsidize the cost of equipment andsupplies necessary to refurbish donated computers, theComputers for Schools program will be terminated. TheCommittee considered this issue at its September 2001meeting and directed staff to send a letter to the Office ofPlanning and Budget, Office of the Legislative FiscalAnalyst, and Public Education AppropriationsSubcommittee requesting that the program be continued.

Impact of School Closures on School ChoiceDue to declining enrollment, the Salt Lake City SchoolDistrict Board of Education decided to close threeelementary schools. Schools targeted for closure had ahigh number of school-choice students. These arestudents whose parents have elected to enroll them in aschool other than their neighborhood school. Many of theparents of school-choice students were fearful that closingthe three elementary schools would seriously limitopportunities for school choice in the Salt Lake CitySchool District. The Committee considered this issue at itsMay 2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

School UniformsUtah law allows local school boards or principals to requirepublic school students to wear uniforms if a majority ofparents and guardians of students voting in an electionvote in favor of students wearing uniforms. The law alsoprovides that a principal shall exempt a student fromwearing a uniform upon request of the student's parent orguardian.

A school principal urged the Committee to remove theexemption from wearing school uniforms. She explainedthat students were pressuring their parents to ask for theexemption, and the benefits of having a school uniformpolicy is diminished when many students are exempt fromwearing uniforms. The Committee considered this issue atits September 2001 meeting and recommended legislation"School Uniform Amendments."

Standardized AccountingIn 1996 and 2000, the Office of the Legislative Auditor

General audited textbook expenditures of school districts.In each audit, the auditors found that some school districtswere not able to determine how they spent supplementalappropriations for textbooks. The auditors recommendedthat accounting practices of school districts bestandardized so that each district can account forsupplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature.

In response to the auditors' recommendations, the StateOffice of Education and school districts developed newreporting and accounting procedures so that completeand comparable data on the expenditure of school fundsmay be obtained. The State Office of Education notedthat, if the Legislature so desires, schools can providemore detailed accounting and reporting of how schoolfunds are spent; however, more detailed accounting maybe more costly. The Committee considered this issue at itsNovember 2001 meeting but did not recommendlegislation.

Textbook NeedsLegislation enacted in the 2001 General Session requiresthe State Board of Education to design and implement astatewide plan to provide for an adequate supply oftextbooks for public school students. In accordance withthe legislation, the State Office of Education developed amodel to estimate the amount of money needed fortextbooks annually. The State Office of Educationestimates that school districts statewide will need $22 -$25 million annually for an adequate supply of textbooks.Historically, school districts' textbook spending hasaveraged less than $15 million annually, which means anadditional $7 - $10 million would be needed each year.The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TASKFORCE

MembershipSen. Howard A. Stephenson, Senate ChairRep. Matt Throckmorton, House ChairSen. David L. GladwellSen. Paula F. Julander



Sen. Millie M. PetersonSen. Carlene M. WalkerSen. Bill WrightRep. Margaret DaytonRep. Marda DillreeRep. Bradley T. JohnsonRep. Patricia W. JonesRep. Karen W. MorganRep. Gordon E. SnowMs. Janet A. CannonMs. Joyce W. Richards

StaffMs. Constance C. Steffen, Research AnalystMr. Dee S Larsen, Associate General CounselMs. Wendy Bangerter, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundLegislation was enacted in the 2001 General Sessioncreating the Enhancement of Public Education TaskForce, which over a 2-year period has the duty to reviewand make recommendations on:• the ability of schools and school districts to comply

with legislative and State Board of Educationmandates

• the purpose, function, roles, responsibilities, andoperational costs of the State Office of Education

• the ability of the State Office of Education to enforcestate laws and State Board of Education rules and toverify how school districts use state and federalmonies

• any other matter the Task Force identifies to beimportant to enhance the state's public educationsystem

The focus of the Task Force in its first year was toexamine the ability of school districts and schools tocomply with mandates in state law and State Board ofEducation rules. Local school board members, schooladministrators, teachers, and the State Board and Officeof Education were requested to identify mandates thatshould be modified or eliminated. During the eightmeetings held by the Task Force, members of theeducation community presented their suggestions to theTask Force.

Mandates that were targeted for elimination were thosewhich are inadequately funded, time-consuming toadminister, or otherwise not cost-effective.

Committee ActionThe Task Force was also asked to consider removingrequirements related to former categorical fundingprograms that are now consolidated into block grants.Among the mandates the Task Force decided to eliminateare:• requirements to submit plans or applications to the

State Board of Education to access money foreducational technology, school nurses, alternativemiddle schools, career ladders, extended yearprograms, and the Incentives for Excellence matchingfund program

• reporting of high school extracurricular activities thatoccur during the normal school day

• requirements to prepare SEPs (Student EducationPlans) and SEOPs (Student Education/OccupationPlans)

• requirements pertaining to the planning, design, andconstruction of school buildings

The Task Force determined the state core curriculumshould be modified so that it is aligned with testsadministered under U-PASS (Utah PerformanceAssessment System for Students).

The Task Force recommended the following legislation:• "State Board of Education Rules and Reports" • "Repeal of Education Mandates and Programs"• "Student Education Plans"• "Core Curriculum Amendments"

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ANDHIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE

MembershipSen. David H. Steele, Senate ChairRep. David L. Hogue, House ChairSen. Millie M. PetersonSen. Howard A. Stephenson



Rep. Patrice M. ArentRep. Marda DillreeMr. Kim BurninghamMs. Aileen ClydeMs. Maria FarringtonMr. Jan FerréMr. Val A. FinlaysonMs. Cecelia FoxleyDr. Joyce GrayDr. David M. GreeneMs. Sal JanssonMr. Richard KendallMs. Mary Kay KirklandMr. Steven O. LaingDr. Anthony MorganMs. Dolores RileyMr. Stephen RonnenkampMs. Phyllis SorensenMr. Paul Sybrowsky

StaffMs. Constance C. Steffen, Research AnalystMr. James L. Wilson, Associate General CounselMs. Wendy Bangerter, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundFor more than 10 years, the Strategic Planning for Publicand Higher Education Committee has continued todevelop or review strategic plans for the state systems ofpublic and higher education. The Committee alsoidentifies issues of critical concern not addressed in eachsystem's strategic plan.

In 2001, the Committee examined the adequacy of adulteducation programs in the state. Both public agencies andthe private sector provide education and training foradults. State agencies that have a role in adult educationinclude the State Office of Education, state colleges anduniversities, and the Department of Workforce Services. Committee ActionThe Committee addressed various concerns related toadult education, including a lack of coordination amongagencies responsible for adult education and inadequateservices for adults who do not speak English.

The Committee made suggestions for a resolution to beintroduced in the next General Session designating aweek in 2002 as "Adult Lifelong Learning and LiteracyWeek."

Following an explanation by the State Office of Educationon how U-PASS (Utah Performance Assessment Systemfor Students) may affect adult students, the Committeesupported a proposal to accept the GED (GeneralEducational Development) Test as an alternative to theBasic Skills Competency Test.

The Committee considered these issues at its June andSeptember 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.



GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. John W. Hickman, Senate ChairRep. Craig W. Buttars, House ChairSen. Ron AllenSen. Lyle W. HillyardPresident Al MansellSen. Millie M. PetersonRep. Eli H. AndersonRep. Ron BigelowRep. DeMar Bud BowmanRep. Don E. BushRep. Neil A. HansenRep. Neal B. HendricksonRep. Peggy WallaceRep. Bradley A. Winn

StaffMr. John Q. Cannon, Research AnalystMr. John L. Fellows, Associate General CounselMs. Alicia M. Laughlin, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Government Operations Interim Committee considersa broad range of issues, including elections, campaignfinance, ethics, personnel, boards and commissions, andadministrative services. The Committee considers policyquestions with statewide implications, receives testimonyfrom concerned groups and state agencies, and makesrecommendations to the Legislature. While not all of theissues mentioned above were directly studied during theInterim, many of these issues are still expected to bedebated, and legislation impacting these areas willprobably be introduced during the 2002 General Session.

The Committee has legislative responsibility for severaldepartments and agencies of state government, includingGovernor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, UtahState Auditor, Utah State Treasurer, Governor's Office ofPlanning and Budget, Department of AdministrativeServices, and the Department of Human Resource

Management. The Committee also has primaryresponsibility for the following titles of the Utah Code: Title20A, Election Code; Title 36, Legislature; Title 63, StateAffairs in General; Title 63A, Administrative Services; andTitle 67, State Officers and Employees.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

BackgroundThere are approximately 400 boards and commissions inUtah, including several types of boards with differingauthority. Included in this number are approximately 160policy boards, 160 advisory boards, 65 licensing boards,and 12 nominating committees. Policy boards set statepolicy while advisory boards make recommendations topolicy makers. Licensing boards have an advisory roleand manage occupational licensing in the state.Nominating committees nominate individuals for variousvolunteer and full-time positions in state government.

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed a number of boards andcommissions, examining the purposes, costs, andpossible elimination or consolidation of certain boards andcommissions, with a focus on advisory boards. TheCommittee also studied the issue of advise and consentas it relates to boards and commissions.

The Committee considered these issues at its May, July,September, October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended the following legislation: “Repeal ofInvestment Advisory Committee," "Repeal of NationalGuard Advisory Board," "Repeal of Health Benefit PlanCommittee," "Repeal of Environmental QualityCoordinating Committee," "Repeal of State AdvisoryPlanning Committee," "Repeal of Utah OccupationalSafety and Health Advisory Council," "Repeal of HumanResource Advisory Committee," "Repeal of MedicalExaminer Committee," "Repeal of Local GovernmentInformation Technology Review Committee," "UtahSubstance Abuse and Antiviolence Coordinating CouncilAmendments," and "Revisions to Senate Advise andConsent Powers."



ELECTION LAW

BackgroundThe Elections Office, county clerks, advocates for personswith disabilities, and other interested parties presentedtestimony to the Committee concerning possible changesto the election code. The discussion included the followingelection law issues: provisional ballots, certification andtesting of voting equipment, overseas and military voting,and voting for persons with disabilities.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered legislation that would allowvoters to vote a provisional ballot, change requirements foroverseas and military voters, and require voting equipmentin the state to be certified.

The Committee considered these issues at its May, July,and November 2001 meetings and recommended thefollowing legislation: "Provisional Ballot," "Certification andTesting of Voting Equipment," and "Overseas and MilitaryVoters Amendments."

OTHER STUDIES

Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Lobbyist DisclosureThe Committee reviewed and discussed current Utah lawand legislative rules governing campaign finance, ethics,and lobbyist disclosure. The Committee considered theseissues at its May 2001 meeting but did not recommendlegislation.

Campaign Fund Checkoff MoniesThe Committee discussed the issue of distributing moniesto political parties from the checkoff on Utah state incometax forms. The issue focused on the existing practices ofdistributing these monies and on the requirements of thestatute. The Committee considered this issue at its Julyand October 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Election Campaign Fund Checkoff Amendments."

Debt CollectionThe Committee discussed the statutory responsibilitiesand powers of the Office of State Debt Collection and

heard a proposal to modify its powers. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its November 2001 meeting butdid not recommend legislation.

One-Stop Shopping for Commercial VehicleRegistrationThe Committee heard reports and discussed efforts tomodify commercial vehicle registration in the state,particularly concerning efforts to create a "one-stopshopping" concept. The Committee received reports onthis issue from the Department of Transportation, StateTax Commission, Utah Trucking Association, and others.The Committee considered this issue at its June, July,September, and November 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

Performance Audit of the Utah Veterans' NursingHome TransferThe Committee heard a report concerning the transfer ofthe Utah Veterans' Nursing Home from the UtahDepartment of Health to the Utah National Guard and theneeds associated with this transfer. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its September 2001 meeting butdid not recommend legislation.

Seismic SafetyThe Committee heard a progress report from the UtahSeismic Safety Commission concerning its activities andother issues relating to earthquake safety in the state. TheCommittee considered this issue at its April 2001 meetingbut did not recommend legislation.



HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Terry R. Spencer, Senate ChairRep. Carl R. Saunders, House ChairSen. D. Edgar AllenSen. Peter C. KnudsonRep. Patrice M. ArentRep. Trisha S. BeckRep. Glenn A. DonnelsonRep. Wayne A. HarperRep. Bryan D. HolladayRep. Patricia W. JonesRep. David LitvackRep. Rebecca D. LockhartRep. Carol Spackman MossRep. Paul RayRep. Jack A. SeitzRep. Mike ThompsonRep. Glenn L. Way

StaffMr. Mark D. Andrews, Research AnalystMs. Catherine J. Dupont, Associate General CounselMr. Paul W. Hess, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Health and Human Services Interim Committeeconsiders a wide range of issues. In addition to dealingwith public health issues like smoking, immunizations, andAIDS testing, the Committee considers topics related tomental health, aging, child abuse, substance abuse,health insurance, health facility and occupationallicensing, adoption, abortion, sex offenses, and family law.The Committee provides oversight to many of theprograms carried out by the Department of Health and theDepartment of Human Services.

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES

BackgroundThe Division of Aging and Adult Services within theDepartment of Human Services has been working on anupdate of the adult protective services statutes. Thisproject has mirrored attempts in other states to ensureappropriate policies are in place to deal with the concernsof an aging population.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered draft legislation reflecting therecommendations of the Division.

The Committee considered this issue at its June,September, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Adult Protective ServicesAmendments."

GENETIC DISCRIMINATION

BackgroundNumerous states have adopted legislation regulating theacquisition or use of genetic information. The UtahLegislature has considered genetics legislation duringthree of the four most recent general sessions.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered a proposal to require informedconsent prior to obtaining a genetic test and to limit theuse of genetic information by health insurers.

The Committee considered this issue at its July, October,and November 2001 meetings and recommendedlegislation "Genetic Privacy and Discrimination."

OTHER STUDIES

DUI TreatmentThe Committee considered draft legislation that wouldexpand the duties of local substance abuse authorities toinclude services to people convicted of driving under theinfluence and authorize the use of proceeds from DUIpenalties to fund those services. The Committee



considered this issue at its November 2001 meeting andrecommended legislation "Local Substance AbuseAuthority Amendments."

Emergency Medical ServicesThe Committee considered a proposal to modify therecently recodified Emergency Medical Services SystemsAct. The proposal was designed to address concernsraised by municipalities wanting to provide ambulanceservice to newly annexed areas already covered by anexclusive provider license. The Committee considered thisissue at its May 2001 meeting but did not recommendlegislation.

Long-Term Professional Development Programs forDisability ServicesThe Committee considered draft legislation that wouldappropriate monies to the Center for Persons withDisabilities at Utah State University for long-term trainingof supported employment personnel, interpreters for thedeaf, and behavior support specialists. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its May 2001 meeting but did notrecommend legislation.

Reports to Interim CommitteeThe Committee considered whether to modify or eliminatereporting requirements associated with the more than 30reports submitted periodically or on a one-time basis to theCommittee. The Committee considered this issue at itsApril and July 2001 meetings and recommendedlegislation "Reports to Health and Human Services."

Sexual Violence Victim Assistance ProgramsThe Committee considered a proposal to increase fundingfor sexual violence victim assistance programs. TheCommittee considered this issue at its June 2001 meetingand recommended legislation "Appropriation for SexualViolence Victim Assistance Programs."

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE TASKFORCE

MembershipSen. Peter C. Knudson, Senate ChairRep. Rebecca D. Lockhart, House ChairSen. D. Chris ButtarsSen. Paula F. JulanderRep. Trisha S. BeckRep. James A. FerrinRep. David LitvackRep. J. Morgan Philpot Mr. Rod L. BetitMr. Merwin U. Stewart

StaffMs. Jami Momberger, Research AnalystMs. Catherine J. Dupont, Associate General CounselMs. Jennifer Markham, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundDuring the 2001 General Session, the Legislature createdthe Access to Health Care Coverage Task Force to makerecommendations for improving access to healthinsurance and basic medical services.

The Task Force recommended that the Legislature:(1) continue monitoring the use of a federal grant by the

Department of Health to extend coverage for healthcare to the uninsured

(2) monitor the status of a Department of Healthproposal to seek a Medicaid wavier allowing primarycare coverage of adults who do not currently qualifyfor Medicaid

(3) reauthorize the Task Force

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "Access toHealth Care and Coverage Task Force."



CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHTPANEL

MembershipSen. Dan R. Eastman, Senate ChairRep. Matt Throckmorton, House ChairSen. Gene DavisRep. Trisha BeckRep. Jack Seitz

StaffMr. Mark D. Andrews, Research AnalystMr. Paul W. Hess, Associate General CounselMs. Cassandra Bauman, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundThe Child Welfare Legislative Oversight Panel is apermanent oversight body created to study andrecommend improvements to the state's system forresponding to allegations of child abuse and neglect. ThePanel develops and reviews recommendations andreports annually to the Health and Human Services InterimCommittee.

During the 2001 General Session, the Legislature gavethe Panel a special charge to study parents' rights in childwelfare proceedings and child welfare workers' individualliability for job related decisions. The Panel reported on itswork and presented draft legislation to the Committeeaddressing the following issues:(1) exceptions to the requirement to obtain a warrant

prior to placing a child in the protective custody of thestate

(2) the role of the Attorney General in enforcing childwelfare laws

(3) the conditions for terminating a person's parentalrights

(4) immunity provisions for child welfare workers

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "Immunityfrom Liability in Child Welfare Investigations."

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND NUTRITION SUBCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Peter C. Knudson, Chair Rep. Patricia W. Jones, Vice ChairRep. Bryan D. HolladayRep. Carol Spackman Moss Rep. Mike Thompson

StaffMr. Mark D. Andrews, Research AnalystMr. Paul W. Hess, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundIn response to state and national concern about theincreasing prevalence of obesity, the Health and HumanServices Interim Committee created a Subcommittee toconsider the impact of poor nutrition and physicalinactivity on the health and academic performance ofschool-aged children.

The Subcommittee recommended the following draftlegislation to the Committee:(1) "Nutritional Foods in School," which regulates

vending machine offerings in secondary schools(2) "Physical Fitness in Public Schools," which requires

that schools provide a minimum of 90 minutes perweek of structured physical education

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its Septemberand November 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

TOBACCO SUBCOMMITTEE

MembershipRep. Carl R. Saunders, Chair Sen. D. Edgar Allen, Vice Chair Rep. Trisha S. Beck



Rep. Rebecca D. Lockhart Rep. Paul Ray

StaffMr. Mark D. Andrews, Research AnalystMs. Catherine J. Dupont, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundFollowing a legislative session during which severalsignificant pieces of tobacco legislation were considered,the Committee created the Tobacco Subcommittee todevelop recommendations for improving state laws thataddress tobacco use, prevention, and cessation.

The Subcommittee recommended the following legislation:(1) "Cigarette Tax Stamp and Contraband Amendments,"

which imposes additional tobacco reportingrequirements

(2) "Minor's Exposure to Second Hand Smoke," whichregulates smoking in motor vehicles

(3) "Technical Amendments to Tobacco Settlement TrustFund," which conforms statutory provisions to theUtah Constitution

(4) "Use of Tobacco Settlement Interest Proceeds,"which designates the use of unearmarked interestproceeds from the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund

(5) "Public School Survey Amendments," which modifiesthe provisions for obtaining parental permission priorto administering student surveys

Committee ActionThe Committee considered the recommendations of theSubcommittee and reviewed other proposed tobaccolegislation, including:(1) "Tobacco Amendments," which repeals the limit on

the amount of tobacco settlement monies that may beused to prevent sales of tobacco to underage persons

(2) "Underage Possession of Tobacco Amendments,"which modifies the minimum penalty for underagepossession of tobacco

The Committee considered these issues at its September,October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Cigarette Tax Stamp and

Contraband Amendments," "Technical Amendments toTobacco Settlement Trust Fund," "TobaccoAmendments," "Underage Possession of TobaccoAmendments," and "Use of Tobacco Settlement InterestProceeds."




MembershipSen. David H. Steele, ChairRep. Richard M. Siddoway, ChairSen. Karen HaleSen. Scott K. JenkinsRep. Brent H. GoodfellowRep. Paul RayMr. Daniel J. BeckerMr. Joel J. Campbell (as of 7/18/01)Mr. Ronald L. FoxMr. Cameron V. FrancisMr. Peter R. GenereauxMs. Nancy CW GibbsMr. Robert W. HoodMr. Garth HowardMr. Stephen F. MechamMr. Leon MillerDr. Bonnie MorganMr. Jerold G. OldroydMr. David A. PackerDr. Michael Petersen (through 6/30/01)Dr. Phillip WindleyDr. Gary S. Wixom (as of 7/01/01)

StaffMr. Richard C. North, Research AnalystMr. Robert H. Rees, Associate General CounselMs. Junie G. Anderson, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Information Technology Commission was establishedin 1994 by the Utah Legislature to develop and coordinateinformation technology policy and budgets. TheCommission has authority to study information technologyissues and practices in all areas of state governmentincluding the legislative, executive, and judicial branches,as well as the education community.

The Commission reviews and studies informationtechnology issues that affect the public and private sectorsin Utah. Because information technology is an area ofdynamic change without precedence or existing practices

to follow, the Commission has often been a pioneer inexploring the issues and, in the case of digital signatures,creating model legislation for other states and countries tofollow.

Commission membership provides representation fromstate and local government, the private sector, and thebusiness community. The private sector, public, and localgovernment members may serve two 4-year terms. Themembers represent the interests of information technologyproviders, suppliers, and users.

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

BackgroundThe CIO (Chief Information Officer) is statutorilydesignated as the coordinator for the development andimplementation of information technology in the State. Inaddition to the CIO, the Information Technology andStrategy Policy Committee and the InformationTechnology Executive Committee are statutorily requiredto review and approve information technology policyproposals. The CIO is proposing to eliminate those twobodies and vest all information technology acquisitionapproval in the CIO's office.

Committee ActionThe Information Technology Commission heard testimonyand received reports from the CIO.

The Commission considered this issue at its October 2001meeting but did not recommend legislation.

DIGITAL BARRIERS

BackgroundIn 1999, the Legislature began an ongoing project toreview each agency's statutes to determine whetherchanges in the law were necessary for the use of newcommunication technologies. Each year since then, theCommission has reviewed four to six agencies andrecommended statutory changes that would allow theagencies to use new communication technologies. In



2001, the Commission studied the Departments ofAgriculture and Transportation.

Committee ActionThe Information Technology Commission heard testimonyand received reports from relevant agency directors.

The Commission considered this issue at its Septemberand October 2001 meetings and approved legislation"Electronic Government Services Amendments -Agriculture," and Electronic Government Services -Transportation."

INFORMATION SHARING - PRIVACY

BackgroundThe State of Utah is proposing the development of a smartwebsite that would enable users to more quickly browseand find the information they are seeking. In order toaccomplish that goal, certain personal information isnecessary to expedite the process.

Under existing law, certain personal information may beconsidered public and would have to be shared with anyentity requesting access. Privacy surveys have indicatedthat the public is reluctant to give out personal informationthat will be openly shared. As a result, the State isproposing that personal information provided for thepurpose of smart browsing be classified as private and notopen to public inspection.

Committee ActionThe Commission considered this issue at its September2001 meeting and directed staff to prepare legislation"Private Records Amendments."

UTAH EDUCATION NETWORK

BackgroundThe UEN (Utah Education Network) is a statutorily-authorized entity that provides specializedtelecommunication services and programs to highereducation and public education communities. The issuebefore the Commission is about the relationship betweenUEN and its subscribers, and how that connection may be

improved. The Information Technology Commission heardtestimony and received reports from UEN and several ofits subscribers.

Committee ActionThe Commission considered this issue at its June andNovember 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

JUDICIAL RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE


JUDICIAL RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Terry R. Spencer, Senate ChairRep. Greg J. Curtis, House ChairSen. Gene Davis (as of 9/28/01)Sen. L. Steven PoultonSen. Pete Suazo (passed away 8/20/01)Rep. Scott DanielsRep. Stephen H. Urquhart

StaffMr. Jerry D. Howe, Research AnalystMs. Esther D. Chelsea-McCarty, Associate General CounselMs. Glenda S. Whitney, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

Article VIII, Section 4 of the Utah Constitution providesrulemaking authority to the Utah Supreme Court toadopt rules and manage the appellate process andrules of procedure and evidence. Article VIII, Section12 of the Utah Constitution provides rulemakingauthority to the Judicial Council for the administrationof the courts. By a two-thirds vote, the Legislature mayamend the rules of procedure and evidencepromulgated by the Supreme Court. However, theLegislature has no constitutional authority to amendJudicial Council rules in the Code of JudicialAdministration.

In the 1993 General Session, the Legislature enactedS.B. 11, "Judicial Rules Review Committee," whichcreated a legislative forum to resolve conflicts betweenstatutes developed by the Legislature and rulesdeveloped by the courts. Because it is often difficult toclearly distinguish between substantive and proceduralaspects of the law, this legislative committee fulfills animportant duty by fostering better communication andpreventing infringement on the respective powers ofthe judiciary and the Legislature.

The Supreme Court has created six advisorycommittees representing civil procedure, criminal

procedure, evidence, juvenile procedure, appellateprocedure, and professional conduct. Theseadvisory committees formulate proposed rules oramendments to rules in their respective areas. TheJudicial Rules Review Committee reviews andcomments on the proposed rules or amendments torules in these six areas as well as the Rules ofJudicial Administration, which are promulgated bythe Judicial Council. The Committee’s primary focusis to identify whether these rules are substantive orprocedural in nature and whether they conflict withstatute.

2001 ACTIVITIES

BackgroundThe Committee focused on the ongoing work of theSupreme Court’s civil, criminal, appellate, juvenileprocedure, and professional and judicial conductadvisory committees. Draft rules served as the sourcefor committee discussion and action.

Committee ActionThe Committee monitored potential changes and offeredrecommendations to the courts on certain rules.

The Committee considered these issues at its June2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.




MembershipSen. David L. Gladwell, Senate ChairRep. Glenn L. Way, House ChairSen. D. Edgar AllenSen. Millie M. PetersonSen. Terry R. SpencerSen. Michael G. WaddoupsRep. Patrice M. ArentRep. Chad E. BennionRep. Ron BigelowRep. Katherine M. BrysonRep. Greg J. CurtisRep. Scott DanielsRep. James A. FerrinRep. Ben C. FerryRep. Neal B. HendricksonRep. Eric K HutchingsRep. Mike ThompsonRep. A. Lamont TylerRep. David Ure

StaffMr. Jerry D. Howe, Research AnalystMs. Esther Chelsea-McCarty, Associate General CounselMs. Glenda S. Whitney, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Judiciary Interim Committee serves as an importantlink for the three branches of state government inconsidering issues pertaining to the substantive rights oflitigants and the administration of justice. The Committeeoversees policy aspects of Utah's justice system,including the structure and administration of the courts.

The Committee's scope of policy oversight includes thejurisdictional powers associated with Utah's Justice Court,Juvenile Court, District Court, Court of Appeals, andSupreme Court. The Committee also has statutoryoversight of certain programs delegated by the legislatureto the Judicial Council, including Mandatory EducationCourse for Divorcing Parents, Alternative DisputeResolution, and the Judicial Nominating Commissions.

PARENT TIME AMENDMENTS

BackgroundAmong the most difficult decisions a court makes includeinvolving custody and enforcement of court orderedvisitation. During the course of the Committee's review ofdivorce laws, it heard testimony that the parent timestatutes have facilitated adequate visitation schedulesbeing included in divorce decrees but that theenforcement of the court ordered visitation is stillproblematic. Indeed, many people testified before theCommittee that they had spent substantial amounts oftime and money obtaining a divorce decree that requiresa specific visitation schedule that is virtuallyunenforceable because no sanctions are imposed for thewrongful denial of visitation. The Committee acknowledgethe frustration people must feel when they are wrongfullydenied court ordered visitation, but it was more concernedabout the testimony it received regarding the difficultypeople are experiencing in getting a court to enforce courtordered visitation schedules.

Committee ActionThe Committee discussed this issue at its May,September, October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Parent-time Amendments."

RELEASE OF CUSTODIAL AND NONCUSTODIAL PARENT'SADDRESS, AND OFFICE OF RECOVERY SERVICES

AMENDMENTS

BackgroundIt has been the policy of the Office of Recovery Servicesnot to release the address of a divorced parent to theformer spouse. This policy is based on reasonableassumptions, the Committee acknowledged that thispolicy has contributed to the ability of one parent toeffectively deny the other court ordered visitation. Theconcern is that a parent moves, then intentionally fails toprovide a forwarding address to the noncustodial parent,and then relies on the Office of Recovery Services tocollect and forward any child support payments while thenew address is kept confidential. Also of concern is thesituation in which a person applies for services using false



information. The Committee thought that those who applyfor services should be required to attest to the truthfulnessof the information contained in the application. In anattempt to remain in compliance with federal law, protectthe custodial parent's rights, and yet prevent the policiesof the Office of Recovery Services from being used as ashield from following a court order, the Committeedecided to amend state law on two levels: the first was toallow the Office of Recovery Services to releaseinformation under certain conditions, and the second wasto require people applying for child support services toattest to the truthfulness of the information contained intheir application.

Committee ActionThe Committee discussed these issues at its May,September, October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Release of Custodial orNoncustodial Parent's Address," and "Office of RecoveryServices Amendments."

OTHER STUDIES

Hate CrimesA crime committed against persons because theperpetrator holds extreme bias or hate is often referred toas a "hate crime." Hate crime legislation has receivedsome discussion and debate in the Utah Legislature. Inresponse to a Court of Appeals ruling that the current hatecrime statute is unworkable, the Committee consideredlegislation to address the concerns of the court. TheCommittee considered alternatives to the statute,including several amendments and the statutes repeal.The issue was sufficiently divisive that neither a proposedamendment nor a repeal of the statute received a majorityvote. The Committee considered this issue at its July andOctober 2001 meetings.

Judgment Lien AmendmentsThe Legislature passed H.B. 305, "Judgment LienAmendments," 2001 General Session, with a delayedeffective date of July 1, 2002. The bill requires that ajudgment be recorded in the Office of the CountyRecorder before it can become a lien. Currently,judgments become liens when they are entered by the

court, but the issue is that there is no simple and effectiveway to search court records. The Office of the CourtAdministrator reported on its progress of creating asearchable computer program to overcome theseconcerns. The Committee considered this issue at itsJune 2001 meeting.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE


LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICEINTERIM COMMITTEE

MembershipSen. D. Chris Buttars, Senate ChairRep. DeMar "Bud" Bowman, House ChairSen. Gene DavisSen. John W. HickmanSen. Alicia L. Suazo (as of 9/12/01)Sen. Pete Suazo (passed away 8/20/01)Sen. John L. ValentineRep. Douglas C. AagardRep. Trisha S. BeckRep. Duane E. BourdeauxRep. Patricia W. JonesRep. David Litvack (as of 10/24/01)Rep. Rebecca D. LockhartRep. Ty McCartney (through 10/24/01) Rep. Loraine T. PaceRep. Brent D. ParkerRep. Paul RayRep. Jack A. SeitzRep. Matt Throckmorton

StaffMs. Chyleen A. Arbon, Research AnalystMs. Susan Creager Allred, Associate General CounselMs. Alicia Laughlin, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice InterimCommittee was established in 1997 to study issuesrelated to law enforcement, criminal law, illegal drugactivity, weapons, corrections, public safety, and thecriminal justice system. In studying these issues, theCommittee attempts to maintain a balance between publicsafety, victim rights, and offender accountability andrehabilitation.

The Committee’s statutory oversight in this area includeslaw enforcement agencies, the courts, the Department ofPublic Safety, the Department of Corrections, the Divisionof Youth Corrections, the Utah Board of Pardons andParole, the Youth Parole Authority, the Commission on

Criminal and Juvenile Justice, the Utah SentencingCommission, the Utah Substance Abuse andAnti-Violence Coordinating Council, and Crime VictimReparations.

The Committee’s focus has been on increasing theefficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement agencies,the use of correctional and judicial resources, and crimeprevention, as well as the reduction of drug-related crimeand gun-related violence.

DCFS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

BackgroundThe Committee received information from a number ofcitizens who have experienced difficulties with the processof having been substantiated for a claim of child abuse byDCFS (Division of Child and Family Services).Substantiation includes placing the person's name on anagency list and could potentially prevent a person fromworking around children if the offense is serious enough.The statute governing this process has been revised everyyear for the past several years. Because of these variousad hoc revisions, legislators and citizens are unable toeasily understand the current process.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered legislation that makes severaltechnical changes to make the statute easier to use andunderstand. The draft legislation also changes the processof substantiation of a claim of child abuse in order toprovide more protection for those accused. The enhancedprotection is provided by requiring that a finding ofsubstantiation be determined by a preponderance ofevidence by a committee of at least three divisionemployees and by requiring the division to provide agreater opportunity for an appellate hearing before anadministrative law judge before information about analleged perpetrator can be included in the LIS (LicensingInformation System ). The bill also clarifies procedures forremoving a person's name from the LIS if that person isvindicated by a court.

The Committee considered this issue at its June,September, October, and November 2001 meetings and



recommended legislation "DCFS Management InformationSystem Amendments."

METHAMPHETAMINE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT

BackgroundLegislative staff, law enforcement officers, Division ofChild and Family Services employees, and prevention andtreatment specialists from the executive branch testifiedto the Committee regarding the magnitude of themethamphetamine problem in Utah and potentialsolutions.

The information presented indicated that women withdependent children abuse methamphetamine at a higherrate than any other target population. The federalgovernment and other states have examined this issueand have determined that the solution requires a three-pronged approach: prevention, law enforcement, andtreatment.

The information presented also indicated that Utah hasdone well to facilitate the most effective law enforcementresponse; however, the State lacks sufficient treatmentresources. The Division of Substance Abuserecommended to: (1) develop four pilot projects statewideto provide treatment to women and their dependentchildren; (2) continue to develop treatment programs thatrequire close collaboration between law enforcement andtreatment such as drug courts, drug boards, andcommunity-based treatment; and (3) expand the privateprovider market for substance abuse treatment.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its May,September, and October 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

TRANSFER OF YOUTH SERVICES OVERSIGHT

BackgroundCurrently, the Youth Services Programs are implementedby the Division of Child and Family Services. Youth whoreceive services in these types of programs are runawaysor ungovernable. Legislation considered by the Committee

would transfer oversight of Youth Services Programs fromthe Division of Child and Family Services to DYC (Divisionof Youth Corrections); both divisions operate under theDepartment of Human Services. Both divisions and thedepartment agree that the Youth Services Programs willreceive more attention under DYC, and the transfer willcomplete the comprehensive continuum of servicesprovided by DYC.

Opposition to the draft legislation comes from theAdministrative Office of the Courts and legislators who areconcerned that when Youth Services Programs are forcedto compete for money with 24-hour secure care facilitywithin DYC, funding for Youth Services Programs, whichfocus on prevention and early intervention, will be affectedby the more urgent needs of housing serious youthoffenders in secure care.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its June,September, and October 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Transfer of Youth ServicesOversight."

OTHER STUDIES

Law Enforcement Database IntegrationThe Committee studied the feasibility of and efficienciesgained by enabling state and local law enforcementagencies to share criminal justice information. However,in light of the current budget shortfall and the anticipated$800,000 fiscal note attached to this project, the sponsorof the bill informed the Committee that he will hold thedraft legislation. However, he encouraged the Committeeto study the issue next year. The Committee consideredthis issue at its July and October 2001 meetings but didnot recommend legislation.

Prohibiting Intimacy with Youth Receiving StateServicesIn the 2001 General Session, S.B. 4, "Prohibiting ofIntimacy With Person in Custody," created criminalpenalties for a correctional officer, law enforcement officer,or a probation and parole officer who engages in sexualconduct with an inmate, a person under arrest, or a



probationer or parolee. This year, the Committeeconsidered legislation that would create similar penaltiesfor employees of the Department of Human Services oremployees of the juvenile court who engage in sexualconduct with a youth who is receiving state services. TheCommittee considered this issue at its September andOctober 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Prohibiting Intimacy with Youth Receiving StateServices."

Sex Offender TreatmentThe Committee received information from the Departmentof Corrections, the Board of Pardons and Parole, andcitizens regarding the inadequate amount of sex offendertreatment offered at the prison. Currently, there are 959sex offenders on the waiting list for treatment. However, ofthose offenders who have received treatment beforerelease, only one offender has been returned to prison fora new sex offense or other crime. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its October and November 2001meetings and recommended that a request for a $250,000appropriation be submitted for sex offender treatment.




MembershipSen. Leonard M. Blackham, Senate ChairRep. Ron Bigelow, House ChairSen. D. Edgar AllenSen. Terry R. SpencerRep. Patrice M. ArentRep. Ben C. FerryRep. Brent H. GoodfellowRep. Bradley T. Johnson

StaffMr. Stewart E. Smith, Managing Research AnalystMr. John L. Fellows, Associate General CounselMs. Glenda S. Whitney, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Legislative Process Committee was created in 1991and given responsibility for reviewing all legislativeprocedures, including (1) preparing the budget; (2)requesting, preparing, prefiling, and prioritizing legislation;(3) examining the role of standing and interim committees;(4) improving the rules governing floor actions; and (5)recommending alternative measures to meet theconstitutional requirements for Utah’s legislative process.The Committee recommends changes in theseprocedures to the Legislative Management Committee.

In previous years, the eight member Legislative ProcessCommittee was increased by four members from thecommunity at large as it conducted its annual in-depthbudget review of a state government agency. Resultingfrom the passage of legislation recommended by theLegislative Process Committee in the 2001 GeneralSession, the 2001 Interim was the first where this in-depthbudget review was not conducted by the LegislativeProcess Committee. The responsibility for conductingthese reviews now rests with the Joint ExecutiveAppropriations Committee. It assigns a review to anappropriate appropriations subcommittee that canrecommend reductions or deletions to the budget of theagency and report its recommendations back to the JointExecutive Appropriations Committee.

COMMITTEE NOTES ON BILLS

BackgroundLegislative Joint Rule 4.22 requires the Director of theOffice of Legislative Research and General Counsel tonote on any bill passed out of an interim committee,whether the bill is passed out with or without thecommittee’s recommendation. This committee note mustbe printed on the bill. In 1993, the Office of LegislativeResearch and General Counsel sought clarification fromthe Research and General Counsel Subcommittee onwhich committees should be considered “interimcommittees.” The subcommittee suggested that since taskforces often report to another interim committee, andsome other committees and commissions may have non-legislative members, that only “traditional interimcommittees” with third-Wednesday meetings should havecommittee notes on their bills.

Of the 33 committees meeting during the 2001 Interim withmembership appointed by legislative leadership, only 13are authorized to have a committee note placed on a bill.Of the remaining 20 committees not currently authorizedto have a committee note on their bills, 9 have some non-legislative members, and 11 have all legislative members.The Committee discussed the following issues: (1) clarityof which committees may place a note on a bill, (2)fairness in the criteria used to select the committees, and(3) committee advocacy shown by some committees forthe programs and agencies they review.

As the Committee discussed which committees appointedby legislative leadership should be authorized to placecommittee notes on bills, the following options werediscussed: (1) all committees or all joint committees onwhich legislators serve, whether or not non-legislativemembers also serve; (2) only joint committees on whichthere are only legislative members; (3) only those“traditional” third-Wednesday interim committees; or (4) aspecified list of committees, commissions, and task forces.The Legislative Process Committee favored notes on thebills of all interim committees with legislative membersappointed by legislative leadership. Committees withmixed legislative and non-legislative membership would



show the vote of the legislative members of thatcommittee.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its June, August,and October 2001 meetings and recommended legislation“Rules Resolution - Committee Notes on Bills.”

INITIATING LEGISLATIVE SPECIAL SESSIONS

BackgroundThirty-one states have granted their legislatures the powerto call themselves into special session without the consentof the governor. Utah is 1 of 19 states where only thegovernor may call a legislative special session. Of the 19state legislatures without this power, 4 have year-round orno-limit annual general sessions, and 7 others may additems to a governor’s call for a special session.Constitutional language authorizing legislative powers tocall special sessions varies but is often similar to thefollowing:

“. . . the legislature may be convened. . . by thepresiding officers of both houses upon written petitionof a majority of the elected members of each house.The form of the petition shall be provided by law.”(Louisiana Constitution Art III, Sec. 2. B.Extraordinary Session)

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its October 2001meeting, and by motion supported the concept of aconstitutional amendment permitting the Legislature to callitself into special session.

LEGISLATIVE COMPENSATION

BackgroundThe Utah Legislative Compensation Commission isrequired by law to submit a report on legislative salary byJanuary 2 of each even year. Utah Constitution, Article VI,Section 9, limits the Commission to issues concerning thesalaries of members of the Legislature and directs theLegislature to provide by law for the expenses of itsmembers. Retirement and insurance are another part ofthe total compensation package provided for by the

Legislature. The recommendations of the Commissiontake effect automatically beginning with the 2003 GeneralSession, unless the amounts recommended to theLegislature during the 2002 General Session are reducedor rejected. The Commission is recommending that thesalary be increased from $120 to $130 per day for eachcalendar day while in legislative session or otherauthorized meetings. The Commission also proposed thatthe Legislature amend statute and constitution to providethe Commission with authority to make recommendationson the entire legislative compensation package, includingexpense reimbursements and benefits. The Commissionrecommended that the laws be amended to provide thatthe Commission may recommend an annual salary, dailysalary, or a combination of the two. The Commissionrequested to meet informally with the Legislative ProcessCommittee to discuss issues related to compensation.

Committee ActionThe Legislative Process Committee studied issues relatingto changing the daily salary to an annual salary with anadditional daily amount for authorized meetings. TheCommittee also looked at alternatives and formulas forcompensating a legislator for legislative related expensesnot covered in the current compensation package,particularly those whose constituents are located in multi-county areas or a great distance from where they live.

The Committee considered this issue at its June, August,and October 2001 meetings and requested legislation toauthorize the Legislative Compensation Commission tomake recommendations on the entire legislativecompensation package including expensereimbursements and benefits.

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

BackgroundUtah’s legislative budgetary process is very similar to theprocess that most states use. During the session,appropriations subcommittees review each agency’sbudgetary request and the recommendations of the FiscalAnalyst and give their recommendations to the JointExecutive Appropriations Committee. The Joint ExecutiveAppropriations Committee makes the final budget



decisions that lead to the drafting of appropriations bills.Six states have single budget committees that carry outthe work that the Joint Executive AppropriationsCommittee and the appropriation subcommittees performin Utah.

Each process has its advantages. The appropriationsubcommittees allow all legislators to participate in thebudgetary hearing process. Subcommittees allow theLegislature to examine different areas of the budget inmore depth than might otherwise be possible duringUtah’s 45 calender-day session. The single budgetarycommittee also has strengths. Unlike the smallsubcommittee format, where a senator’s absence canpose a problem, a single committee has enough senatorsthat a single absence is not a problem. In addition, asingle budgetary committee allows a group of legislatorsto consider the budget in breadth, comparing andanalyzing simultaneously the concerns of all stateagencies and other interested groups.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its May and June2001 meetings but did not recommend legislation.

OTHER STUDIES

Indexing Appropriations ActsThe Legislative Process Committee asked for tools tomake the contents of the appropriations acts moreaccessible. Sometimes, for instance, it is difficult to findthe appropriation items that were prioritized in caucus orto find other projects and programs of interest. TheLegislative Fiscal Analyst reported to the Committee awillingness to provide a table of contents and to cross-reference material as needed. He also demonstrated thetools of Adobe Acrobat for searching appropriations billsas soon as they are available through the legislative billbrowser or the Internet. The Committee took no action onthis item.

Legislative Review NotesLegislative review notes are commonly called“constitutional notes.” The Legislative ManagementCommittee referred a study to the Legislative Process

Committee regarding the process of revising legislativereview notes when the note might change after anamendment or substitution of a bill. The Committeerecommended that the bill drafter use judgement on whento replace a note after an amendment or substitution. TheCommittee considered this issue at its June 2001 meeting.

Staff Role in Compiling Appropriations ActsIn response to a question regarding appropriation amountsor intent language being inserted in an appropriation billwithout appropriate legislative leadership direction, theLegislative Process Committee invited the Office of theLegislative Fiscal Analyst to review the process with theCommittee. In Utah and most other states, staff may makerecommendations, but adding language or funding isstrictly the prerogative of the committee or bodyresponsible for the budget. Legislative Joint Rule 3.02clearly requires “all proposed items of expenditure” to besubmitted to one of the subcommittees for considerationand recommendation. The Joint Executive AppropriationsCommittee “. . .may make any further adjustmentsnecessary to balance the budget; and complete alldecisions necessary to draft the final appropriations bill.”All these decisions require a majority vote. Professionalstaff ethics also require that the role of an elected policymaker never be encroached upon by their staff. TheCommittee considered this issue at its August 2001meeting.

NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE


NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, ANDENVIRONMENT INTERIM COMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Parley G. Hellewell, Senate ChairRep. Bradley T. Johnson, House ChairSen. Leonard M. BlackhamSen. Mike DmitrichSen. Bill WrightRep. Eli H. AndersonRep. Roger E. BarrusRep. Jackie BiskupskiRep. Craig W. ButtarsRep. David N. CoxRep. Margaret DaytonRep. Glenn A. DonnelsonRep. Fred J. Fife IIIRep. James R. GowansRep. Thomas V. HatchRep. Darin G. PetersonRep. Michael R. StylerRep. Stephen H. Urquhart

StaffMr. J Brian Allred, Research AnalystMs. Jeanenne B. Larsen, Associate General CounselMs. Joy Miller, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The work of the Committee extends over a wide variety oftopics. Under the broad subject of natural resources, theCommittee deals with water rights, water development,wildlife, mining, forestry, parks, and recreation. Within thefield of agriculture, the Committee is concerned withpromoting agricultural production, preventing diseaseamong domesticated animals, and insuring a wholesomefood supply. Environmental issues include air quality,water quality, solid and hazardous waste disposal, andradioactive waste.

Much of the Committee's efforts involve coping with rapidgrowth and urbanization of the state's population. A toppriority has been to assure that the state has ample watersupplies. Maintaining and improving the quality of the

state’s water is as critical as developing adequate watersupplies.

Wildlife is another natural resource affected by growth.Land development has diminished wildlife habitat andincreased competition for the use of the remaining habitat.Wildlife interests and agricultural interests are frequentlyvying for use of the same land. Accommodating thesecompeting interests and addressing the growingpopulation's increased demand for recreationalopportunities present significant challenges to theCommittee.

The Committee oversees three state departments: theDepartment of Natural Resources, the Department ofAgriculture and Food, and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality.

MUTUAL WATER COMPANY CHANGE APPLICATIONS

BackgroundUntil the early 1990s, the state engineer routinelyconsidered applications filed by water share owners tochange the purpose of use, place of use, or point ofdiversion of the water represented by their water shares.The East Jordan Canal Company filed suit against thestate engineer, arguing that the state engineer may notconsider a change application filed by one of thecompany’s shareholders, because it is the company, notthe shareholder, that owns the water rights. The UtahSupreme Court agreed with the East Jordan CanalCompany; and since the court’s decision, the stateengineer has refused to consider a shareholder'sapplication without the consent of the water corporation.

Mutual Water Company shareholders have been thwartedin selling their water shares to developers or cities formunicipal and industrial use, which has much greatervalue than agricultural use–the water’s existing use. Watercorporations are concerned that if too much water istransferred out of the area, the viability of the corporationcould be threatened.



The Executive Committee on Water Rights, representing theDepartment of Natural Resources, water conservancydistricts, and other water interests, studied this issue andpresented draft legislation to the Committee in its November2001 meeting.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November 2001meeting and recommended legislation “Mutual WaterCompany Change Applications.”

PARTIAL FORFEITURE OF WATER RIGHTS

BackgroundUnder Utah law if a water right holder fails to use the waterfor a period of 5 years and within that period does not applyfor an extension of time to use the water, the water right isforfeited and reverts back to the public. If the water rightholder uses part of the right, there is some question as towhether the partial use preserves the entire water right orjust the portion used.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November 2001meeting and recommended legislation “Forfeited WaterRight Allocation” and “Water Forfeiture Amendments.”

UTAH STATE FAIRPARK STUDY

BackgroundS.B. 253, “Utah State Fairpark Study,” 2001 GeneralSession created a committee to study the use of land andfacilities at the Utah State Fairpark. The committee issuedrequests for proposals regarding: (1) utilization of the currentfairpark location for further development, year-round use,and production of an enhanced historic annual fair; and (2)the development of an enhanced annual state fair onproperty owned by a developer or on another site to beidentified by the proposal.

The study committee is repealed on January 1, 2002. Thestudy committee would have to be extended in order toevaluate the one proposal that had been received.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

OTHER STUDIES

Cricket and Grasshopper InfestationThe Utah Department of Agriculture reported that in2001 1.5 million acres of range and farm land in Utahwere infested with crickets and grasshoppers, withestimated crop damage set at more than $25 million.The Department indicated that Bureau of LandManagement lands were sprayed but that Forest Servicelands were not. The crickets and grasshoppers invadedfarms, yards, gardens, homes, and water systemsraising human health and safety concerns.

The Commissioner of Agriculture appointed a decisionand action committee under authority of the Utah InsectInfestation Emergency Act. This committee, representing15 agencies and groups, helped to coordinate federal,state, local, and private resources and encouraged allowners or managers of infested lands to controlgrasshoppers and crickets on their own land.

The Committee considered this issue at its June andJuly 2001 meetings, sent a letter to federal officialsrequesting help in addressing the problem, andrequested federal funds to prepare for early action ofcontrol infestation in 2002.

Department of Natural Resources/School andInstitutional Trust Lands Memorandum ofUnderstandingThe 2001 Appropriations Act required that theDepartment of Natural Resources and the School andInstitutional Trust Lands Administration join together inreaching a Memorandum of Understanding detailing: (1)areas of mutual benefit arising from resolution ofconflicts in respective mission statements and statutoryrequirements, and (2) conflict of mission statement andstatutory requirements that cannot be resolved bymutual agreement.



The Committee considered the report of the Department ofNatural Resources and the School and Institutional TrustLands Administration in its October 2001 meeting but didnot recommend legislation.

Sunset Review - Radiation Control Act Title 19, Chapter 13, Radiation Control Act, Utah CodeAnnotated 1953, is repealed on July 1, 2002. TheDepartment of Environmental Quality requested that theCommittee recommend reauthorization of the act.

The Committee considered this issue in its November 2001meeting and recommended reauthorization of the act.

IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER FLUORIDATIONTASK FORCE

MembershipSen. L. Steven Poulton, Chair Rep. A. Lamont Tyler, Chair Sen. D. Edgar Allen Sen. Parley G. Hellewell Rep. David L. Hogue Rep. Ty McCartney Mr. Scott Anderson Mr. Richard Bay Mr. Brent Bradford Mr. Kevin Brown Mr. Tage Flint Mr. Dick Melton Ms. Patti Pavey (as of 8/29/01)Dr. Anthony TidwellDr. Kathryn N. Vedder (resigned 7/20/01)Mr. Philip Wright

StaffMr. Arthur L. Hunsaker, Research AnalystMs. Cherylann S. Felt, Associate General CounselMs. Alicia M. Laughlin, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundSection 19-4-111(1), Utah Code Annotated 1953, states inpart: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, public

water supplies, whether state, county, municipal, ordistrict, shall not have fluorine or any of its derivatives orcompounds added to them without the approval of amajority of voters in an election in the area affected."

Guided by the statutory framework emphasizing localchoice, the 2001 Legislature passed S.B. 206, "TaskForce on Implementation of Water Fluoridation."Subsection 2(1) of the bill charged the Task Force withreviewing and making recommendations regarding:(a) statewide standards for the fluoridation of publicwater supplies, including standards for treated water andwell water and safety standards for the public and theoperators of the water system(b) the cost of fluoridating public water supplies(c) funding sources for the fluoridation of public watersupplies(d) liability issues associated with the fluoridation ofpublic water supplies, including governmental immunity(e) possible exemptions from a countywide fluoridationmandate, including functionally separate systems andsystems which cross county lines(f) variances for standards, if any, for different types ofsources and seasonal variations(g) monitoring, compliance, and enforcement issues(h) the regulatory process for the review and approvalof fluoridation construction or equipment installation(i) definition of chemical standards, including the NSFapproval process(j) clarifying the relationships between the stateDepartment of Environmental Quality, the stateDepartment of Health, the county Boards of Health, andthe operators of the public water systems(k) regulatory authorization for the Drinking WaterBoard to regulate fluoridation of public water systems

Staff research indicated that 11 states regulatefluoridation in statute, administrative rule, or both. Themost common element among these regulations is astate-mandated concentration level, most commonly setfrom 0.8 to 1.2 milligrams per liter, for dental purposes.Fluoride is also one of many chemicals whoseconcentration in public water supplies must not exceeda federally mandated maximum contaminant level,



currently set at 4.0 milligrams per liter, to protect the publichealth.

Four additional states, including Utah, permit fluoridationonly after a vote of the affected citizens, while two otherspermit a local government or local board of health tofluoridate unless voters petition for a referendum and rejectfluoridation. The remaining 33 states have no specificfluoride regulations.

Committee ActionThe Task Force reviewed the statutory charge in its enablinglegislation and passed the following motions:• local health departments representing counties,

municipalities, or districts that have adopted fluoridationshould determine implementation rules in consultationwith the Department of Health and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality

• the Task Force shall not address issues related tostatewide fluoridation standards in its final report to theNatural Resources, Agriculture, and EnvironmentInterim Committee

• chemicals used in fluoridation should meet the NationalSanitation Foundation's standards for safe drinkingwater

• legislation shall be prepared to allow a public watersystem whose entire water inventory is fluoridated tosupply water (under certain circumstances) to aresidence or business in an adjacent municipality orcounty that has not approved fluoridation

• legislation shall be prepared to grant a waiver to apublic water system that supplies water from itsfluoridated inventory to a municipality or county that hasnot approved fluoridation if it is due to a short-termemergency and the public water system ceases toprovide fluoridated water in a time consistent with repairtimes following best industrial practice

The Task Force considered these issues at its July, August,September, and November 2001 meetings, and its finalreport was presented to the Natural Resources, Agriculture,and Environment Interim Committee November 14, 2001 bythe task force chairs. Draft bills, "Fluoridation of PublicWater Systems in an Emergency," and "Access toFluoridated Water," were approved by the Natural

Resources, Agriculture, and Environment InterimCommittee.

STATE WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

MembershipSen. Leonard M. Blackham, Chair Rep. David Ure, Chair Sen. Mike Dmitrich Sen. Peter C. Knudson Sen. Millie M. PetersonRep. Craig W. ButtarsRep. James R. Gowans Rep. Wayne A. Harper Rep. Bradley T. Johnson Rep. Brad King Mr. Larry Anhder Mr. Tom Christensen Mr. Don ChristiansenMs. Kathleen Clarke Mr. Ivan Flint Mr. Chris Fullmer Ms. Natalie GochnourMr. Irvin Haws Mr. Dallin W. Jensen Mr. Darrell H. MenselMs. Dianne Nielson Mr. Cary PetersonMr. Dale Pierson Mr. Paul Riley Mr. Ron Thompson Mr. Thorpe Waddingham

StaffMr. J Brian Allred, Research AnalystMs. Jeanenne B. Larsen, Associate General CounselMs. Joy Miller, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The State Water Development Commission was createdto determine the state's role in the protection,conservation, and development of the state's waterresources. It is to consider and make recommendations



to the Legislature and Governor regarding: (1) how thewater needs of the state's growing municipal and industrialsectors will be met, (2) what the impact of federalregulations and legislation will be on the ability of the stateto manage and develop its compacted water rights, (3) howthe state will fund water projects, (4) whether the stateshould become an owner and operator of water projects, (5)how the state will encourage the implementation of waterconservation programs, and (6) other water issues ofstatewide importance.

Background(See background discussion under Natural Resources,Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee studies onPartial Forfeiture of Water Rights and Mutual WaterCompany Change Applications.)

The Executive Committee on Water Rights representing theDepartment of Natural Resources, water conservancydistricts, and other water interests, was formed to study twomain issues: (1) partial forfeiture of water rights when aportion of that water right is not put to beneficial use, and (2)the ability of stockholders in irrigation companies to filechange applications on shares of stock without thepermission of the company. The Committee reported to theCommission and presented three draft bills addressingthese issues.

Committee ActionThe Commission considered this issue at its October 2001meeting but did not recommend legislation.

OLYMPIC COORDINATION COMMITTEE



MembershipSen. Beverly Ann Evans, Senate ChairRep. David Ure, House ChairSen. Ron AllenSen. Karen HalePresident Al MansellSen. John L. ValentineRep. Duane E. BourdeauxRep. David N. CoxRep. Neil A. HansenRep. Neal B. HendricksonRep. Joseph G. MurrayRep. A. Lamont Tyler

StaffMr. J Brian Allred, Research AnalystMr. Keith M. Woodwell, Associate General CounselMs. Joy Miller, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Olympic Coordination Committee has broad authorityto review and make recommendations to the LegislativeManagement Committee on any issue that relates to theOlympics, including the state's involvement in hosting theOlympics, the coordination of state and local governmentsin hosting the Olympics, the interests of athletes served byOlympic-related state programs or facilities, the state'srole as a creditor and a secured party in relationship to theOlympics and the Organizing Committee, and the impactof the Olympics on the state after the Olympic gameshave concluded.

SALT LAKE OLYMPIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE BUDGET

AND RISK ANALYSIS

BackgroundSLOC (Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee)presented information on its preparations for the OlympicWinter Games of 2002. SLOC members reviewed budgetprojections and explained its assessment of operationaland revenue risks. They also reported that estimatedreserve funds are adequate to address anticipated risks,

and that SLOC has also allocated some reserve funds toaddress unforseen risks.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue in its May andOctober 2001 meetings but did not recommend legislation.

SALT LAKE OLYMPIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

TRANSITION AND DISSOLUTION

BackgroundSLOC revenues and obligations extend into 2005.Previous Olympic committees have experienced lawsuitsthat extended well beyond games' end. SLOC presentedinformation on post-Olympic transition and dissolution ofthe Committee, focusing on the critical period immediatelyfollowing the Olympics.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue in its October 2001meeting and requested that SLOC prepare a report on itsplans to structure and fund dissolution through 2004.

OTHER STUDIES

Annual Report of the State Olympic Officer The State Olympic Officer is required to annually reporton: (1) Olympic related services or property to be providedby state agencies, (2) estimated budgetary impact on stateagencies providing services or property, (3) estimatedeconomic costs and benefits of the Olympics, and (4)recommendations regarding payment for state servicesand potential ways to mitigate impact on state and localagency budgets. The Committee heard this report in itsNovember 2001 meeting.

Department of Community and EconomicDevelopment Use of Appropriations for Olympic-Related Promotion and DevelopmentDCED (Department of Community and EconomicDevelopment) has received appropriations from bothGeneral Fund and sales and use tax diversion revenuesthat are to be used for Olympic-related promotion anddevelopment. DCED reported on the use of appropriated



funds by the Division of Travel Development and theDivision of Business Development. The Committeestudied this issue in its October 2001 meeting.

Funding of Soldier Hollow in Wasatch Mountain StateParkSoldier Hollow in Wasatch Mountain State Park is the siteof the 2002 Olympic biathlon and cross-countrycompetition. It is the only venue owned by the State ofUtah. The Division of Parks and Recreation and theSoldier Hollow Legacy Foundation discussed ways toprovide post-Olympic funding for Soldier Hollow. TheCommittee considered this issue in its November 2001meeting. Utah Olympic Public Safety CommandThe Utah Olympic Public Safety Command updated theCommittee on its efforts to provide security for the 2002Olympic Winter Games. The Committee considered thisissue in its May, October, and November 2001 meetings.



POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Carlene M. Walker, Senate ChairRep. David L. Hogue, House ChairSen. Beverly Ann EvansSen. David L. GladwellSen. Paula F. JulanderRep. Stephen D. ClarkRep. David N. CoxRep. Scott DanielsRep. Fred J. Fife IIIRep. Kory M. HoldawayRep. Joseph G. MurrayRep. Darin G. PetersonRep. Richard M. SiddowayRep. Max W. Young

StaffMr. Joseph T. Wade, Research AnalystMr. Keith M. Woodwell, Associate General CounselMs. Joy Miller, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

Prior to 1997, the State and Local Affairs InterimCommittee considered issues relating to both state andlocal government affairs. In 1997, the Legislature split thecommittee into two committees: the GovernmentOperations Interim Committee and the PoliticalSubdivisions Interim Committee. The GovernmentOperations Interim Committee deals with state-relatedissues, while the Political Subdivisions Interim Committeedeals with local government-related issues.

The Political Subdivisions Interim Committee has primaryjurisdiction over political subdivisions of the state whichinclude: cities, counties, dependent and independentspecial districts, and entities created by interlocalagreements. Although school districts are technicallypolitical subdivisions of the state, the Education InterimCommittee has primary jurisdiction over school districts.The Political Subdivisions Interim Committee has statutoryresponsibility for: Title 10, Cities and Towns; Title 11,

Cities, Counties, and Local Taxing Units; Title 17,Counties; Title 17A, Special Districts; and Title 17B,Limited Purpose Local Government Entities.

RESIDENTIAL LOTS DIVIDED BY COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE

BackgroundCurrent state statute allows municipalities to cross countyboundaries. Currently three municipalities in Utah cross acounty boundary: Draper (Salt Lake and Utah counties),Green River (Emery and Grand counties), and Park City(Summit and Wasatch counties). State statute gives amunicipality the responsibility and authority to approvesubdivision plats within its boundaries in order to governland use development.

In the 2001 Interim, the Political Subdivisions InterimCommittee became aware of a municipality approvingplats in which individual residential lots are divided by thecounty boundary. About 40 lots are divided in alreadyapproved plats. About 34 additional lots will be divided byplats not yet approved. The Committee also becameaware that this situation creates problems which affectmost county services, authority, responsibilities, andjurisdiction.

Some of the problems, such as determining which countyprovides services or has jurisdiction, could be resolved byinterlocal agreements between the affected counties,cities, or districts. However, some other problems,particularly real and personal property tax assessment,cannot be remedied without a constitutional amendment.

It appears that the cleanest solution would be to changethe county boundary. However, the Utah Constitution andthe Utah Code make changing the county boundary aburdensome alternative. Utah Constitution, Article XI,Section 3 states:

"No territory shall be stricken from any countyunless a majority of the voters living in suchterritory, as well as of the county to which it is tobe annexed, shall vote therefor, and then onlyunder such conditions as may be prescribed bygeneral law."



Under current state statute, county boundaries can bechanged by either of two methods: a vote of all theelectors in both counties or a three-step process involving:(1) a concurrent resolution of the state legislature and thegovernor, (2) a feasibility study, and (3) a popular electionin which all the voters in the annexing county arepermitted to vote, but in the other county only theresidents within the territory to be annexed are permittedto vote.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its July, August,September, and October 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Prohibiting Residential Lotsfrom Crossing County Lines" and "Voter Residence WhereLot is Divided by County Boundary Line."

OTHER STUDIES

Associations of GovernmentsThe Committee reviewed a legislative audit on Utah'sseven AOG (associations of governments). The AOGcame about in Utah as a result of a federal emphasis onregionalization in the 1960s and 1970s. Operating budgetsfor the seven AOG totaled over $28 million in fiscal year2000. The AOG fill an important service delivery functionat the local and regional level within Utah. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its October 2001 meeting, passeda motion requesting the AOG to report annually to theCommittee, but did not recommend legislation.

Municipal and County Land Use RequirementsUtah statute charges municipalities and counties withdeveloping ordinances and managing land use within theirjurisdictions. However, certain entities are exempt fromlocal subdivision and zoning requirements. The Committeereceived information and testimony on the question ofwhether a type of entity, particularly school districts andthe School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration,should remain exempt from municipal and county land userequirements. The Committee considered this issue at itsApril, May, and June 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

Municipalities' Plans for Moderate Income HousingIn 1996, the Legislature passed H.B. 295, "ProvidingAffordable Housing," which required all municipalities andcounties to create plans for affordable housing. In 1998,amendments to the statute required an annual report onprogress in obtaining moderate income housing. TheCommittee received testimony evaluating how the currentlaw is functioning and proposed ways to make it moreeffective. The Committee considered this issue at itsNovember 2001 meeting and recommended legislation"Municipal Plan for Moderate Income Housing."

Quality GrowthH.B. 119, "Quality Growth Act of 1999," which passed inthe 1999 General Session, created the Quality GrowthCommission. The Commission is charged with grapplingwith quality growth issues. The Commission discussedquality growth issues including: a review of its mission andaccomplishments, its working draft "Utah's GuidingPrinciples for Quality Growth," how to achieve a net gainof private land, administration of the LeRay McAllisterLand Conservation Fund, allocation of planning grantsamong local governments, and draft legislation regardingquality growth areas. The Committee considered this topicat its April, May, June, September, and October 2001meetings but did not recommend legislation.

Redevelopment AgenciesIn the 2001 General Session, the Legislature passedH.B. 7, "Recodification and Amendments ofRedevelopment Agencies Statutes." The Committeereceived testimony that additional amendments areneeded to make minor changes and technical correctionsthroughout the act. The Committee considered this issueat its November 2001 meeting and recommendedlegislation "Revisions to Redevelopment Agency Laws."

School Impact FeesIn the 1995 General Session, the Legislature passedH.B. 32, "School Impact Fees," which prohibited thecollection of school impact fees. In the 1995 First SpecialSession, the Legislature passed S.B. 4, "Impact Fees,"which clarified local government imposition of impact feesby establishing procedures and requirements for theanalysis, imposition, and challenging of impact fees(but



did not change H.B. 32). The Committee reviewed thehistory of school impact fees and the rationale behindpassage of H.B. 32. The Committee considered this issueat its July and August 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

Technical Draft LegislationThe Committee was presented with draft legislationmaking minor technical corrections. The Committeeconsidered this issue at its November 2001 meeting andrecommended legislation "Technical Corrections toCounty Code" and "Technical Corrections to MunicipalCode."

SPECIAL DISTRICTS SUBCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. David L. Gladwell, Chair Rep. David N. Cox Rep. Scott Daniels Rep. David L. Hogue Rep. Joseph G. Murray

StaffMr. Joseph T. Wade, Research AnalystMr. Keith M. Woodwell, Associate General CounselMs. Joy Miller, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundIn 1990, at the recommendation of a 2-year legislativestudy committee on special districts, relevant statutoryprovisions which were scattered throughout the Utah Codewere moved into a new Title 17A, Special Districts;however, the provisions were not modified. Currently,there are 26 different types of special districts (14independent, 11 dependent, and 1 other) in approximately769 sections of the Utah Code. Independent specialdistricts receive about 11 percent of total property taxrevenues in the state, while cities receive about 15 percentand counties receive about 21 percent.

In 1997, a Special Districts Subcommittee of the PoliticalSubdivisions Interim Committee developed uniform specialdistrict creation procedures as the first step in recodifying

the code. The Legislature passed this uniform creationprocess. In 1999, the Special Districts Subcommitteecontinued its recodification by updating and standardizingstatutes relating to the special districts' governing bodies,which resulted in the Legislature passing S.B. 173,"Special District and Local District Governing BodyIssues," in the 2000 General Session. In 2000, the SpecialDistricts Subcommittee developed uniform provisionsrelating to annexation and dissolution for certainindependent special districts.

During the 2001 Interim, the Special DistrictsSubcommittee focused its efforts on both standardizingprovisions relating to withdrawal and reviewing bonding forirrigation districts. The Subcommittee discussed theseissues at its August 22, September 18, October 16, andNovember 6, 2001 meetings.

Committee ActionThe Political Subdivisions Interim Committee recreated theSpecial Districts Subcommittee and considered specialdistrict issues at its April, May, June, and November 2001meetings and recommended legislation "UniformWithdrawal Procedures for Special Districts" and "BondingAuthority for Irrigation Districts."

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY INTERIM COMMITTEE


PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Leonard M. Blackham, Senate ChairRep. John E. Swallow, House ChairSen. Mike DmitrichSen. Scott K. JenkinsSen. John L. ValentineRep. Douglas C. AagardRep. Sheryl L. AllenRep. Ralph BeckerRep. Chad E. BennionRep. Gary F. Cox (through 7/31/01)Rep. Kevin S. GarnRep. Brent H. GoodfellowRep. Eric K. Hutchings (as of 8/1/01)Rep. Ty McCartneyRep. Gordon E. SnowRep. Martin R. StephensRep. Michael R. StylerRep. David UreRep. Stephen H. Urquhart

StaffMr. Richard C. North, Research AnalystMr. Robert H. Rees, Associate General CounselMs. Junie G. Anderson, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

Since the early 1990s, the deregulation of public utilitieshas been studied across the United States to determinewhether lower costs, more choices, and greaterefficiencies would result. After extensive reviews of theregulatory environment, policy makers on federal andstate levels have established standing committees toprovide ongoing review and monitoring.

In January 1997, the Utah House of Representativescreated the Public Utilities and Technology StandingCommittee to review legislation on regulated public utilitiessuch as telecommunications and energy. The Legislature

created the Public Utilities and Technology InterimCommittee to continue the review of utility deregulationduring the 1997 Interim.

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

BackgroundCoal is the primary fuel source for the generation ofelectricity in Utah and the United States. Given theabundance of Utah coal and the need for additional powergeneration, the development of clean coal technologywould provide Utah its power.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that there is great needfor the development of clean coal technology.

The Committee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Resolution Encouraging Research and DevelopmentGrants for Clean Coal Alternatives."

ELECTRIC POWER FACILITIES

BackgroundAt issue is who may own an electric power facility. Certaintypes of power facilities may be jointly owned by publicentities such as cities and towns.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that Utah's power needsto justify the modification of ownership to include otherpublic entities.

The Committee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Electric Power Facilities Amendments."



ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENTS -AGRICULTURE

BackgroundThe Utah Legislature has an ongoing informationtechnology project focused on reviewing all state agencystatutes for the purpose of broadening its authority to useelectronic communications in addition to paper-basedprocesses.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and concluded theDepartment of Agriculture needed certain statutorychanges in order to use electronic communicationprocesses.

The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "ElectronicGovernment Services Amendments - Agriculture."

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENTS -TRANSPORTATION

BackgroundThe Utah Legislature has an ongoing informationtechnology project focused on reviewing all state agencystatutes for the purpose of broadening its authority to useelectronic communications in addition to paper-basedprocesses.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and concluded theDepartment of Transportation needed certain statutorychanges in order to use electronic communicationprocesses.

The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "ElectronicGovernment Services Amendments - Transportation."

INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT

BackgroundCertain interlocal cooperation agencies, such as the

Interstate Power Agency, enter into agreements withpublic entities in other states to own and operategeneration facilities. Because of the need to expandUtah's power generation facilities, the InterlocalCooperation Act required changes to allow for the creationof energy service agencies which will provide for additionalproject capacity.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and concluded theinterlocal cooperation agency statutes needed certainchanges in order to allow for additional electric powerproject capacity.

The Committee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Interlocal Cooperation Act Amendments."

NET METERING OF ELECTRICITY

BackgroundNet metering is a process where residential and smallbusiness owners sell excess electricity they generate backto the local regulated power provider. Nationwide, 33states have authorized net metering and Utah is the onlywestern state that has not adopted this process.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded Utah's power needsjustify the creation of a state-authorized net meteringprogram.

The Committee considered this issue at its April, May,June, July, and September 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Net Metering of Electricity."

PROTECTION OF COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE ENERGY

INFORMATION

BackgroundCertain types of public entities, such as interlocalcooperation agencies that sell power, are requesting thatsensitive information used in negotiating contracts be



protected. Otherwise, their competitors would always beable to under-bid the public power entity.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that certain commerciallysensitive information should be classified as private.

The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "Protection OfCommercially Sensitive Energy Information Amendments."

RECORD CLASSIFICATION

BackgroundIn order to promote smart web use, the state would like toallow state website users to provide certain personal datawithout that information being made public. Changing therecord status of certain information requires amending theexisting records classification law.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that certain personalinformation should be classified as private.

The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "PrivateRecords Amendments."

TAX CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEMS

BackgroundThis issue involved review of an existing individual taxcredit for energy efficient systems that unintentionallylapsed on January 1, 2001.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that the tax credit shouldbe extended for another 5 years.

The Committee considered this issue at its June 2001meeting and recommended legislation for the July Special

Session, "Individual Income Tax and Corporate Franchiseand Income Tax - Renewable Energy Systems TaxCredits, H. B. 1005." The legislation passed and wassigned by the Governor.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND ACCESS

BackgroundAt issue is whether municipally owned telephone systemsmay access the Universal Service Fund for telephones.The fund is designed to provide monies for rural telephonecompanies to lower the costs of providing service.Because the Public Service Commission is prohibited fromregulating municipally provided services, it is necessaryfor the Legislature to approve the change.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony and reports frominterested parties and concluded that under certainconditions and for a limited time period access to theUniversal Service Fund was justified.

The Committee considered this issue at its September,October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Municipal Telephone UtilityAmendments."

ENERGY POLICY TASK FORCE

MembershipSen. Leonard M. Blackham, Senate ChairRep. Thomas Hatch, House ChairSen. Mike DmitrichSen. Dan R. EastmanSen. Ed P. MayneSen. David H. SteeleRep. Sheryl L. AllenRep. Ralph BeckerRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. Kevin S. GarnRep. Jack A. SeitzRep. David Ure



StaffMs. Chyleen A. Arbon, Research AnalystMs. Patricia Owen, Associate General CounselMs. Jennifer Markham, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundIn the 2001 General Session, H.B. 244, "Modifying theElectric Deregulation and Customer Choice Task Force,"changed the name and focus of the Electric Deregulationand Customer Choice Task Force, which was created in1997. The newly created Energy Policy Task Force wascharged with studying: (1) the energy needs of the State;(2) federal and other states' efforts to address energyneeds; (3) potential Utah, federal, and other states'conservation or demand-side management activities; and(4) potential ways the State could develop, facilitate, orpromote the generation, exploration, or transportation ofnew energy to serve the needs of the State. The TaskForce was also charged with recommending legislation toensure that the energy needs of the State are met.

The Task force considered the following study items: (1)transmission issues in the Western Grid, (2) transmission-related activities of the Governor and the WesternGovernors' Association, (3) the Governor's state energypolicy, (4) interstate allocation of PacifiCorp's costs in thepast, present, and future, (5) the effects of federal effortsto address the electricity crisis in California and the West,(6) PacifiCorp's proposal to reorganize its corporatestructure, and (7) the issues raised by the currentconfiguration of service territories. The Task Force isauthorized through November 30, 2002.

Committee ActionThe Task Force sent a letter to the chairs of theCommerce and Revenue Appropriations Subcommitteeasking them to review the adequacy of funding for stateelectricity-related regulatory activities in light of thenumber and significance of recent filings, especiallyPacifiCorp's application to reorganize its corporatestructure. The Task Force also recommended that thechairs of the Energy Policy Task Force monitor theappropriations process regarding this issue. The TaskForce sent a letter to FERC (Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission) outlining the problems UAMPS (Utah

Association of Municipal Power Suppliers) raisedregarding the effect of FERC's actions on Utah.

The Task Force considered these issues at its May, July,September, October, and November 2001 meetings butdid not recommend legislation.

QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES COMMITTEE



MembershipSen. Beverly Evans, Senate ChairRep. Ron Bigelow, House ChairSen. Ron AllenSen. Paula F. JulanderPresident Al MansellSen. John L. ValentineRep. Eli H. AndersonRep. Trisha BeckRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. Don E. BushRep. Kevin S. GarnRep. A. Lamont TylerRep. David UreRep. Glenn L. Way

StaffMr. Benjamin N. Christensen, Research AnalystMr. Dee S Larsen, Associate General CounselMs. Junie G. Anderson, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Quasi-governmental EntitiesCommittee is a statutorily-createdinterim committee of the Legislatureand is considered an interimcommittee of the Legislature. It wascreated by H.B. 118, "Quasi-governmental Entities Amendments,"which passed during the 2000General Session. The bill expandedthe scope of the former RetirementCommittee to include oversight ofother quasi-governmental entities.The Committee is composed of fivesenators and nine representatives(see Section 63-95-201 Utah CodeAnnotated 1953). By legislative rule,the Senate members constitute theQuasi-governmental Entities SenateStanding Committee and the House members constitute theQuasi-governmental Entities House Standing Committee(see Rules of the Fifty-Fourth Legislature, SR-24.05 andHR-24.05). The members of the Committee are also themembers of the Quasi-governmental Entities Subcommitteeof the Joint Appropriations Committee (see Rules of theFifty-Fourth Legislature, JR.3.02). The Committee is

required to comply with the rules of legislative interimcommittees.

The Committee has responsibility to: (1) determinewhich entities should be treated as quasi-governmentalentities; (2) determine the extent to which consistency inthe statutes for each quasi-governmental entity shouldbe provided; (3) determine from which provisions of thecode, if any, each quasi-governmental entity should beexempt; (4) determine whether or not the State shouldreceive services from or provide services to each quasi-governmental entity; (5) request and hear reports fromeach quasi-governmental entity; (6) review the annualaudits of each quasi-governmental entity; (7) followstatutory guidelines in reviewing a proposal to create anew quasi-governmental entity; (8) recommend theappropriate method of changing the organizationalstatus of any entity; (9) study entities created byinterlocal agreement to determine if they should besubject to the Quasi-governmental Entities Act; (10)meet at least twice during the interim; and (11) reportannually to the Legislative Management Committee.

The Quasi-governmental Entities chart shows theclassification of the statutorily-created quasi-governmental entities by types of entity.

During the 2001 General Session, the Legislaturepassed H.B. 28, "Independent Entities Act," which



provides additional regulations for independent entities andcorporations. The bill outlines a process for the Committeeto review independent entities and determine whether theyshould be repealed, made a state agency, privatized, madean independent state agency, or made an independentcorporation. This process is illustrated in the IndependentEntities chart. H.B. 28 takes effect July 1, 2002 and createsthe Legislative Independent Entities Committee, whichreplaces the Quasi-governmental Entities Committee andwill perform its duties and additional responsibilities asindicated in the bill.

RETIREMENT ACT RECODIFICATION

BackgroundDuring the 1987 General Session, the Legislature passedS.B. 50, "Retirement Recodification," which updatedlanguage, consolidated provisions scattered through thecode, and reorganized the section numbering scheme sosimilar provisions are in parallel sections in each chapter.After 14 years, the Utah State Retirement Office requestedthat the Committee consider another recodification to makeadditional improvements.

Committee ActionThe Committee heard testimony from representatives ofthe Utah State Retirement Office and directed staff towork with that office to create a proposed recodificationof the Retirement Code.

The Committee considered this issue at its May, June,and August 2001 meetings. And is scheduled toconsider this issue in its December 2001 meeting.

OTHER STUDIES

Privatization Transition Report ofUTFC (Utah Technology FinanceCorporation)In October 1999, House leadershipasked UTFC to investigate thepossibility of privatizing. TheLegislative Management Committeereceived a report of UTFC'sprivatization initiative and in March2000, voted to support the concept. Inthe May 2000 meeting of the Quasi-governmental Entities Committee,UTFC indicated it was hopeful thatthe process could be completed priorto the 2001 General Session. TheCommittee heard a progress reportfrom representatives of UTFC andvoted to commend it for the progressit had made toward dissolution ofUTFC.

Since UTFC is scheduled to sunset July 1, 2002, theCommittee determined not to recommend legislation.The Committee considered this issue at it May 2001meeting.

Retirement Systems WorkshopAfter hearing background on the Utah State RetirementSystems as part of the Independent Entities ReviewProcess, the Committee decided to hold a 2-dayworkshop to better understand the Retirement Systems.The Committee held the workshop and received an



orientation from the Committee staff and representatives ofthe Retirement Office on: (1) Utah State RetirementSystems–History, Overview, and Defined BenefitComparison, (2) Retirement System Administration, (3)Retirement Fund Investment Philosophy, Asset Allocation,and Performance, (4) Actuarial Overview and Function, (5)Defined Contribution Plans, (6) Public Employees InsurancePlan Overview, (7) Health Insurance Funding Issues, and(8) Recurring Retirement Issues including:

• Retirement Plan Windows• Early and Supplemental Retirement• COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments)• Plan Consolidation• Reemployment After Retirement• Death Benefits• Two Percenter’s• Contributions Rates

The Committee considered these issues at its June, August27, and August 28, 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

Utah Housing Corporation–Independent Entities ReviewDuring the 2001 General Session, the Legislature passedH.B. 386, "Utah Housing Finance Agency Amendments,"authorizing public corporation status for the UHFA (UtahHousing Finance Agency) and renaming it the Utah HousingCorporation. Several other issues related to the review ofindependent entities were also addressed in the bill, whichtook effect on July 1, 2001. The Committee heard testimonyfrom a representative of the UHFA who reported that publiccorporation status was an appropriate designation and thatthey were making progress toward becoming a publiccorporation.

The Committee considered this issue at its June 2001meeting and asked staff to work with the UHFA to establisha model to help evaluate other entities. The Committee didnot recommend legislation.



REVENUE AND TAXATION INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Curtis S. Bramble, Senate ChairRep. Wayne A. Harper, House ChairSen. Ron AllenSen. Lyle W. HillyardSen. Howard A. StephensonRep. Ralph BeckerRep. Afton B. BradshawRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. David ClarkRep. Kevin S. GarnRep. Bryan D. HolladayRep. Carol Spackman MossRep. LaWanna ShurtliffRep. Gordon E. SnowRep. John E. SwallowRep. Ty McCartney

StaffMr. Bryant R. Howe, Research AnalystMs. Rebecca L. Rockwell, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee studies awide range of policy questions and reviews potentiallegislation affecting the structure and administration ofUtah's state and local tax systems. These studies rangefrom establishing new policy to implementing existingpolicy.

In addition to its regular policymaking emphasis, theCommittee makes a special effort to focus on its revenueresponsibility. The Committee regularly receives detailedupdates from the Utah State Tax Commission on thecollection of taxes and other revenues.

Since 1984, the Committee has received significant inputfrom the Utah Tax Review Commission which is anindependent study group. This body consists oflegislators, tax practitioners, academics, and citizen

representatives and has made periodic reports to theCommittee, usually at the direction of the Legislature orthe Governor.

HIGHER EDUCATION SAVINGS ACT

BackgroundIn 1996, the Utah Legislature created the UtahEducational Savings Plans Trust. The purpose of thisprogram is to encourage savings for higher educationexpenses. Contributions up to a certain amount ($1,365for 2001 tax year) made to an account can be deductedwhen computing state taxable income. There are currentlyabout 10,500 accounts with total assets exceeding $60million.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "HigherEducation Savings Incentive Program Amendments."

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FARMLAND ASSESSMENT ACT

BackgroundUtah's constitution requires that the "Legislature shallprovide . . . a uniform and equal rate of assessment on alltangible personal property in the state according to itsvalue in money . . . ." This means that for purposes of theproperty tax, all property must be valued based on fairmarket value. However, the constitution does make someexceptions to this general rule. One exception is that "landused for agricultural purposes . . . may be assessedaccording to its value for agricultural use without regard tothe value it may have for other purposes." Under theFarmland Assessment Act, certain farm and ranchproperty is valued for its use for agricultural purposes.However, if the land is ever taken out of agricultural use,a "rollback" tax must be paid. The rollback tax is thedifference between the property taxes owed on theproperty if it had been valued at fair market value and itsvalue for agricultural purposes for the previous 5 years.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony from county assessors



and citizens regarding the administration of the FarmlandAssessment Act. These witnesses told the Committee thatseveral aspects of the Farmland Assessment Act,particularly related to its "rollback" provisions, need to bemodified. These provisions included clarifying when therollback tax is applied, notification regarding sale of landassessed under the act, and who is responsible for payingthe rollback assessment.

The Committee also received testimony that the timeshould be increased during which taxpayers may appealthe fair market value given to property valued foragricultural purposes.

The Committee considered this issue at its May andNovember 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

INDIVIDUAL INCOME AND CORPORATE FRANCHISE AND

INCOME TAX CREDITS

BackgroundUtah's individual income and corporate franchise andincome tax systems both allow for credits for a widevariety of purposes. For example, persons who restore anhistorically significant residence may be eligible for a taxcredit equal to a certain amount of the restoration costs.Other tax credits are available for activities such as hiringpersons who are disabled, conducting research anddevelopment activities, and for purchasing motor vehiclespowered by alternative fuels.

While some credits are popular with taxpayers, othercredits are rarely or never claimed. This is especially truewith some corporate franchise and income tax credits.

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed the credits that are availableunder Utah's individual income tax and corporatefranchise and income taxes. It received informationregarding the number and dollar amounts of credits thathave been claimed for the last several years.

The Committee considered this issue at its November2001 meeting and recommended legislation "IndividualIncome and Corporate Franchise and Income TaxCredits."

INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX - BRACKET ADJUSTMENTS

BackgroundUtah’s individual income tax imposes graduated tax rateson state taxable income ranging from 2.3 percent to7 percent. For example, married taxpayers filing a jointreturn pay a tax of 2.3 percent on their first $1,726 of statetaxable income and a 3.3 percent tax on their next $1,724of state taxable income. This rate increases to 7 percenton state taxable income greater than $8,626.

The state individual income tax brackets were originallyadopted by the Legislature in 1973 and were adjustedduring the 2001 General Session.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered legislation to index individualincome tax brackets to compensate for the effects ofinflation or deflation.

The Committee considered this issue at its September andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Individual Income Tax - Bracket Adjustments."

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTIES

BackgroundUnder the individual income tax system, a "marriagepenalty" occurs when married taxpayers pay more in taxesthat two similarly situated single taxpayers.

The "marriage tax" penalty has traditionally beenassociated with the federal individual income tax system.However, one aspect of the Utah individual income taxalso results in what some view as a "marriage penalty."

Utah's individual income tax system provides for apersonal retirement exemption of $7,500 for taxpayers age65 or over and a limited deduction of retirement income for



taxpayers under age 65. This exemption and deductionare phased out for taxpayers with incomes over a certainamount. It is in this phase out provision where themarriage penalty occurs. Under current law, the exemptionand deduction begin to phase out at $25,000 for singletaxpayers, $16,000 for married taxpayers filing separately,and $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly, heads ofhouseholds, and surviving spouses.

Committee Action The Committee considered this issue at its September andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Individual Income Tax Personal Retirement Exemptionand Deduction for Retirement Income - EliminatingMarriage Tax Penalties."

SALES AND USE TAX - TAXABILITY OF PARTS AND LABOR

BackgroundUtah's sales and use tax system provides that thepurchase or lease of certain items of tangible personalproperty are exempt from the sales and use tax. There areover 50 exemptions to the sales and use tax. While thepurchase of these items is exempt, current state law is notclear whether repair parts and labor used to repair theseitems are subject to the tax. Generally, the cost to repairand install tangible personal property is subject to thesales tax. However, different practices have evolved overtime regarding the taxability of the repair of tangiblepersonal property that is exempt from the sales tax.

Committee ActionThe Committee received testimony from the Utah StateTax Commission regarding its policies and practices inadministering these exemptions. The Committee was toldthat over time certain inconsistent practices by differenttax commissions had been adopted and that legislation toclarify this issue was needed.

The Committee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Sales and Use Tax - Taxability of Parts and Labor. "

STATE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

BackgroundUnder the federal income tax system, certain taxpayersmay receive a refundable EITC (earned income tax credit).This credit benefits low and moderate income families withchildren. For the 2000 tax year, the maximum credit is$3,888 for families with two or more children, $2,353 forfamilies with one child, and $353 for certain very lowincome families with no children.

Proponents of the federal EITC argue that the credit actsas a strong incentive to work and to partially compensatefor the regressive effects of federal payroll taxes used topay for Social Security and Medicare.

Some critics of the federal EITC allege that the programsuffers from high levels of taxpayer non-compliance. Muchof this non-compliance is attributed to non-custodialparents inappropriately claiming a child to receive thecredit. Critics also claim that because a high percentageof returns where the EITC is claimed are prepared by paidpreparers whose fee is based on the amount of refund thata taxpayer receives, there is an increased likelihood ofabuse.

Some states also have a state EITC. Most state creditsare tied to a certain percentage of the federal credit andmay or may not be refundable.

Committee ActionThe Committee studied whether Utah should adopt a stateearned income credit.

The Committee considered this issue at its September andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Individual Income Tax - State Earned Income Tax Credit."

OTHER STUDIES

Removal of Certain Individual Income TaxContribution "Checkoff" Items from the Tax ReturnUnder the Utah individual income tax, a taxpayer maymake contributions to programs such as non-game



wildlife, public education, and programs to help thehomeless. In order to ensure that these checkoff programsare being used by taxpayers, state law provides that if acheckoff program receives less than $30,000 in donationsfor 3 consecutive years, it is to be removed from theindividual income tax form, and the Utah State TaxCommission must cease accepting contributions.

The Committee received a report from the Utah State TaxCommission accounting for the contributions made toeach checkoff program during the 1998, 1999, and 2000taxable years. The commission reported that the checkoffprogram for higher education libraries and libraryequipment had failed to collect the required minimum indonations and would be discontinued from the individualincome tax form beginning with the 2002 tax year.

Tax Relief for Members of the Utah National Guard andReserve Members of the Armed Forces Mobilized forActive DutyMany Utahns serve their country as part-time members ofa reserve unit in one of the branches of the armed forcesor as a member of the Utah National Guard. Whenmobilized for active duty, these Utahns leave their regularfull-time employment. This often results in a significantreduction in income. Operation Enduring Freedom, thenation's war against terrorism, may require the full-timemobilization of many reserve and national guardpersonnel. For example, some members of the UtahNational Guard have already been mobilized to provideenhanced security at the Salt Lake International Airport.

The Committee considered ways to provide state tax relieffor certain reserve military and national guard personnelwho are mobilized for active duty. One option would be toexempt the income from full-time military service from thestate individual income tax. Another option would be toexempt any combat pay received by a taxpayer.

GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND TAX SYSTEMTASK FORCE

MembershipSen. John L. Valentine, Senate ChairRep. Greg J. Curtis, House ChairSen. Ron AllenSen. Curtis S. BrambleSen. Gene DavisSen. Scott K. JenkinsRep. Eli H. AndersonRep. Chad E. BennionRep. Cindy BeshearRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. Craig W. ButtarsRep. Kevin S. Garn

StaffMr. O. William Asplund, Assistant DirectorMr. Bryant R. Howe, Research AnalystMs. Rebecca L. Rockwell, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundThe Government Revenue and Tax System Tax Forcewas created in the 2001 General Session by H.B. 86 for a2-year period. This 12 member Committee was formed tostudy the tax system of the state and its politicalsubdivisions and to identify the short- and long-termimpacts of any proposed changes to taxes or fees thatfuture tax policy might dictate.

Committee ActionThe Task Force took a broad look at the funding of localgovernment. Presentations were made by the UtahAssociation of Counties, the Utah League of Cities andTowns, the Society of School Superintendents and theAssociation of Special Districts. The Task Force alsodevoted its October meeting, at the request of EnvisionUtah, to examining development issues that are driven bycurrent tax policy. Many local officials and representativesof development organizations were invited to participate atits October meeting.



The purpose of the 2001 Interim's study effort was toidentify the most important funding issues facing localgovernments. Issues dealing with the property tax, thesales and use tax and the role of local government in theprovision of services were compiled and will serve as thebasis for next year's efforts to propose legislation toimprove or modify the current local funding system. TheCommittee studied this issue at its May, June, July,August, September, October, and November 2001meetings, but did not recommend legislation.

TAX REVIEW COMMISSION

MembershipMr. Gary Cornia, Chair Mr. M. Keith Prescott, Co-chair Sen. Lyle W. Hillyard Sen. Millie M. PetersonRep. Judy Ann BuffmireRep. Greg J. CurtisMr. Lawrence R. Barusch (as of 8/01/01)Mr. Mark K. Buchi (as of 9/01/01)Ms. Anne ClarkMr. David J. Crapo Ms. Kathleen Howell (as of 9/01/01)Commissioner Bruce JohnsonMr. Bruce Jones (as of 8/01/01)Ms. Dorothy P. Owen

StaffMr. Bryant Howe, Research AnalystMr. O. William Asplund, Assistant DirectorMs. Rebecca L. Rockwell, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundThe TRC (Utah Tax Review Commission) is a committeeestablished by law to provide an ongoing review of the taxlaws of Utah and to recommend changes on specific taxissues and tax policy. Members include legislators andprivate citizens. A member of the Utah State TaxCommission serves as an ex-officio member.

This year the TRC focused its attention on the followingissues: (1) recent changes to the federal individual incometax system, (2) state earned income tax credits, (3) Utah'scooperation with multi-state efforts to simplify theadministration of the sales and use tax, (4) reviewingselected sales and use tax exemptions, (5) whether thestate individual income tax brackets should be indexed forinflation, (6) whether a process should be established toreview and recommend proposed new sales and use taxexemptions before they are considered by the Legislature,and (7) reviewing proposed changes to the tax article ofthe Utah Constitution.

The TRC is required by law to review each sales and usetax exemption every 8 years. The TRC reviewed thefollowing two sales and use tax exemptions: (1) exclusionsto the exemption for sales made to or by religious orcharitable organizations found in Subsection 59-12-104(8)(b) Utah Code Annotated 1953, and (2) amounts paidfor admission relating to the Olympic Winter Games of2002 found in Subsection 56-10-104 (51) Utah CodeAnnotated 1953. With regard to the exemption for Olympicticket sales found in Subsection (51), the TRC found thatthe exemption is only effective until June 20, 2002.Therefore, no further action regarding this exemption wasrequired. Also, the TRC took no action regarding theexclusion to the exemption found in Subsection (8)(b)because it is also exclusively related to the WinterOlympic Games. Upon advice from the Utah State TaxCommission, the TRC noted that the language of thesetwo exemptions should remain in the Utah Code for thenext several years for administration and auditingpurposes.

Related to its review of current sales and use taxexemptions, the TRC also considered whether formalreviews should be conducted of proposed new sales anduse tax exemptions before they are adopted by theLegislature. For example, the state of New Jersey has acitizen and legislative commission that reviews allproposed sales and use tax exemptions.



Committee ActionThe TRC adopted a policy that it will convey to theGovernor, Legislature, and media an estimate of therevenue effects of all current sales and use taxexemptions. This estimate is currently developed by theUtah State Tax Commission. The TRC also requested thatthe Utah State Tax Commission advise them regardingany changes to State law that are needed to improve theTax Commission's ability to make them estimates.

The TRC also spent considerable time consideringwhether Utah should establish a state EITC (earnedincome tax credit). The TRC reviewed state EITCs offeredby other states, administration issues, and what thepossible revenue effects would be if Utah were to enact astate EITC. The TRC also reviewed the Individual IncomeTax Policy recommendation by the Utah TaxRecodification Commission and adopted by theLegislature in 1990.

Committee ActionThe TRC adopted a motion supporting the concept of astate EITC and to index for inflation the state individualincome tax brackets but did not recommend legislation.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX POLICYSUBCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Curtis S. Bramble, Chair Rep. Wayne A. Harper, Chair Sen. Ron Allen Rep. Judy Ann Buffmire Rep. David Clark

StaffMr. Bryant Howe, Research AnalystMs. Rebecca L. Rockwell, Associate General CounselMs. Sandra Wissa, Legislative Secretary

BackgroundUtah municipalities impose franchise fees and taxes ontelecommunications companies and other utilities thatoperate within their municipal boundaries. Utah law limitsthese taxes and fees to 6 percent of a certain portion ofthe company's revenues. Some municipalities also imposea $1 per month per line tax on wireless telecommunicationservices. Local governments also impose fees to operateemergency 9-1-1 communications systems. Taxes andfees are also imposed by state government. For example,in addition to the taxes paid by all firms,telecommunications companies must also pay fees forpoison control, communication systems for the deaf,universal service, and lifeline service. The imposition ofthese various taxes and fees have resulted in a systemthat some argue is overly burdensome and complex.

Committee ActionThe Subcommittee received extensive testimony fromstate and local government officials and from severaltelecommunications companies. Local governmentsstressed that the public has the right to receivecompensation for use of public right-of-ways. Also, localgovernments must have reliable revenue sources toprovide essential public services, such as police and fireprotection. Municipal officials reported on efforts to createa database of every address in the state. This databasewould be used to determine the tax entity where theaddress is located and what taxes the company shouldcollect from that customer.

Among other things, industry officials encouraged theSubcommittee to find ways to simplify the administrationof the tax system and to consider granting a sales and usetax exemption for purchase of equipment bytelecommunications companies. They also expressedconcern that the unitary method of assessment forproperty tax purposes employed by the Utah State TaxCommission results in higher unit values for companiesthan are appropriate, often resulting in lengthy and costlyappeal proceedings.

The Subcommittee also reviewed the requirements thatstates must follow to comply with the federal Mobile



Telecommunications Sourcing Act enacted by Congressin 2000.

The Subcommittee considered, but did not recommend,legislation "State Compliance with Federal MobileTelecommunications Sourcing Act."




MembershipSen. David H. Steele, Senate ChairRep. Joseph G. Murray, House ChairSen. Dan R. EastmanSen. Karen HaleSen. Peter C. KnudsonSen. Ed P. MayneSen. Carlene M. WalkerRep. Gerry A. AdairRep. Don E. BushRep. Stephen D. ClarkRep. Marda DillreeRep. Neil A. HansenRep. David L. HogueRep. Kory M. HoldawayRep. Brad KingRep. Karen W. MorganRep. Max W. Young

StaffMr. Benjamin N. Christensen, Research AnalystMs. Cherylann S. Felt, Associate General CounselMs. Junie G. Anderson, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Transportation InterimCommittee has responsibility forissues relating to the safe andefficient movement of peopleand property within the State.The Committee has oversightresponsibility for UDOT (UtahDepartment of Transportation),the Driver License Division ofthe Department of Public Safety,and the Motor Vehicle andMotor Vehicle EnforcementDivisions of the Utah State TaxCommission. In addition, theCommittee hears periodic

reports by UTA (Utah Transit Authority) relating to masstransit issues.

UDOT provides transportation-related services in theform of construction and maintenance of state highways.UDOT also regulates motor carriers for safety, size, andweight compliance. The Utah Constitution requires thatthe proceeds of any tax or fee related to the operation ofa motor vehicle on a highway, excluding collection costsand driver education administration, be used for highwaypurposes (see Article XIII, Section 13, UtahConstitution). Highway user-related taxes and fees aredeposited in the Transportation Fund. Motor fuel andspecial fuel taxes make up approximately 85 percent ofthe revenue of the Transportation Fund. A maximum of$10.6 million may be appropriated from the fund to otheragencies for tax collection costs and law enforcement(see Section 72-2-103, Utah Code Annotated 1953). Ofthe amount remaining in the Transportation Fund, 25percent is appropriated to counties and municipalities forlocal roads using a formula based on weighted roadmileage and population (see Sections 72-2-107 and 72-2-108, Utah Code Annotated 1953). The remaining 75percent is appropriated to UDOT for state highwayconstruction and maintenance.



The Centennial Highway Fund, created in 1996, consists ofappropriations made by the Legislature, a portion of themotor vehicle registration fees, voluntary contributions, andrevenues generated by a 1/64 percent sales and use taxrate. This fund must be used for construction, majorreconstruction, or major renovation to state and federalhighways (see Section 72-2-118, Utah Code Annotated1953). The fund was used for the I-15 reconstruction in SaltLake County and is being used for other previouslyunfunded state highway projects throughout the State.

Driver licensing is provided by the Driver License Division ofthe Department of Public Safety (see Title 53, Chapter 3,Uniform Driver License Act, Utah Code Annotated 1953).Registration and licensing of motor vehicles are provided bythe Motor Vehicle Division of the Tax Commission (see Title41, Chapter 1a, Motor Vehicle Act, Utah Code Annotated1953). The Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division of the TaxCommission regulates motor vehicle dealers and enforcesvehicle theft statutes (see Title 41, Chapter 3, Motor VehicleBusiness Regulation Act, Utah Code Annotated 1953).

UTA provides public mass transit services within localpolitical subdivisions that include 70 to 80 percent of theState's population. UTA is a special district formed bymunicipalities and counties by a vote of the peopleauthorizing a 1/4 percent sales tax dedicated to the district(see Section 59-12-501, Utah Code Annotated 1953). OnNovember 7, 2000, voters in Salt Lake, Davis, and WeberCounties approved an additional 1/4 percent sales taxincrease to fund light rail extensions, expanded bus service,and commuter rail. Beginning April 1, 2001, the total salestax rate for transit is 1/2 percent in those counties. In SaltLake County, 25 percent of the additional 1/4 percent salestax must be used for improvements to I-15 (see Section 59-12-502, Utah Code Annotated 1953).

ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC PROCEEDINGS

BackgroundS.B. 240, "Decriminalization of Traffic Offenses," whichpassed during the 2000 General Session, allows Salt LakeCity and West Valley City to continue to use civil penaltiesand administrative traffic proceedings for 2 years. These

proceedings are allowed only for class C misdemeanorand infraction traffic offenses. Traffic offenses that areclass B misdemeanors, including DUI, reckless driving,and traffic offenses that occur in conjunction with othercriminal violations, remain under normal criminalproceedings in district courts. The bill required Salt LakeCity and West Valley City to pay the State the estimatedfine revenue that would be due to the State if the trafficoffenses were heard in a district court. All other localgovernments were prohibited from using this type ofsystem. Court filing fees, surcharges, and driver pointswere not changed with an administrative trafficproceeding. The bill also established theDecriminalization of Traffic Offenses Task Force, whichmet during the 2000 Interim to study and makerecommendations on the decriminalization of trafficoffenses.

The Task Force recommended that:• No additional action should be taken as of October

2000 on the decriminalization of traffic offenses.However, before a decision is made, Salt Lake Cityand West Valley City should be allowed to continuetheir administrative traffic proceedings, as providedin current law, in order to more fully test andevaluate their systems.

• The Legislative Management Committee assign agroup of legislators during the 2001 Interim toaddress the issues associated with thedecriminalization of traffic offenses, and to reviewthe draft legislation that was prepared, but notadopted by the Task Force.

The Legislative Management Committee assigned theTransportation Interim Committee to study these issues.

Committee ActionThe Committee heard testimony from representatives ofWest Valley City and Salt Lake City indicating thatadministrative traffic proceedings have workedextremely well. They recommended that the system beallowed to continue in their respective municipalities andbe expanded to other municipalities and counties. Both



municipalities have applied for justice courts of their own.When a justice court is granted, fine revenues previouslysplit 50/50 with the State for cases considered in a districtcourt will be paid exclusively to the local government. TheCommittee requested that legislation be drafted to allowmunicipalities and counties served by justice courts to useadministrative traffic proceedings. A representative from theUtah Justice Court Judges Association and from theAdministrative Office of the Courts expressed opposition toallowing administrative traffic proceedings.

The Committee considered this issue at its July, September,and November 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"Traffic Offense Adjudication."

I-15 RECONSTRUCTION AND

HIGHWAY FUNDING

BackgroundOn July 15, 2001, 51 monthsafter UDOT issued the noticeto proceed with the I-15reconstruction design/buildproject (April 15, 1997), thelast orange cones wereremoved and the project wasdeclared substantiallycomplete 3 months ahead ofschedule.

On March 26, 1997, WasatchConstructors was awarded abid for the project todemolish, design, andreconstruct I-15 in Salt LakeCounty from 600 North to10800 South. The total project cost was $1.27 billion, whichis $32 million under budget. The mainline traffic and allinterchanges were opened May 14, 2001, 5 months aheadof the contract schedule.

During the 1997 General Session, the Legislature began a10-year finance plan for the I-15 reconstruction project andother Centennial Highway Fund projects. General Fund

appropriations, Transportation Fund contributions,bonding, and federal funding are the primary revenuesources for the Centennial Highway Fund. I-15reconstruction, other statewide construction projects,and bonding interest and costs have been the primaryexpenditures from the fund. As shown in the CentennialHighway Fund chart of the $1.033 billion borrowed forthe fund, as of July 1, 2001, $33.8 million in principal hasbeen paid back.

Adjustments to the Centennial Highway Funding Plan inboth funding and projects will be needed as new projectsare added, revenues come in less than expected, andproject costs escalate. Additional funds will also be

needed to maintain new facilities that add capacity to theState’s transportation system.

Transportation Fund revenues have been flat and lessthan expected in recent months. This affects the StatePavement Preservation Program and requires fundingshifts and delays to the projects on the STIP (StatewideTransportation Improvement Program). Several other



major highway projects are needed and are not funded bythe Centennial Highway Fund or the Transportation Fundincluding:• I-15 reconstruction from 10600 South in Sandy to the

Orem University Parkway–approximate cost $900million

• I-80 reconstruction from State Street to Parley’sCanyon–approximate cost $900 million

• SR-201 (2100 South Freeway) from the Jordan River tothe Bangerter Highway–approximate cost $100 million

• I-15 reconstruction from 600 North in Salt Lake City toCenterville–approximate cost $838 million

• U.S. 89 in Davis and Weber County (MountainRoad)–approximately cost $210 million

In addition, major funding is needed for projects including(1) a beltway in Washington County, (2) SR-10 in EmeryCounty, (3) U.S. 6 between Spanish Fork and Green River,(4) East/West routes and routes parallel to I-15 in UtahCounty, (5) SR-36 in Tooele County, and (6) 5600 West inSalt Lake County.

Committee ActionThe Committee heard reports on (1) the reconstruction ofI-15, (2) the Legacy Parkway, (3) other needed majorhighway reconstruction projects, (4) the StatewideTransportation Improvement Program, and (5) highwayfunding. UDOT expressed a need for additional Departmentflexibility through line item consolidation.

The Committee considered these issues at its April, May,June, July, and October 2001 meetings but did notrecommend legislation.

MOTORBOAT DRIVER LICENSING AND BOATING UNDER THE

INFLUENCE

BackgroundDuring the 2001 General Session, H.B. 141, "MotorboatDriver Licensing Requirements," was debated but failed topass. The bill addressed two key issues:• How should a motorboat be defined, and who should be

authorized to drive one?• To what extent should motorboat and motor vehicle

driver sanctions (including DUI penalties) bemerged?

Under current law, boating under the influence isprohibited in any vessel, and driving under the influenceis a completely separate offense. Anyone can drive amotorboat, sailboat, or watercraft without a licenseexcept for:• a motorboat or sailboat–a person under 16 must be

accompanied by a person at least 18 years of age• a personal watercraft–a person under 12 is

prohibited from driving a personal watercraft, aperson 12 to 17 must complete a boating safetycourse, and a person 12 to 15 must be under directsupervision of a person at least 18 years of age

Committee ActionThe Committee reviewed the legislation that passed theHouse of Representatives during the 2001 GeneralSession and received a written analysis of 11 policyissues within the bill, showing how the bill addresseseach policy issue, and what the current law is, related toeach issue. Testimony was also heard from the Divisionof State Parks and Recreation and the public.

The Committee considered this issue at its April and July2001 meetings and recommended legislation “MotorboatDriver Licensing and Boating Under the InfluenceProvisions.”

OTHER STUDIES

"511" Traveler Information ServiceDuring the 2001 General Session, the Legislaturepassed H.B. 202, "511 Communications System," whichrequires the Department to implement the "511" travelerinformation service in the State. The Department isdesignated the State's lead agency and is required tocoordinate with other entities. When fully implemented,by dialing "511" travelers nationwide will be able toobtain real-time, voice-activated information on road,weather, and traffic conditions, as well as transit servicedisruptions information that is tailored to the needs of the



traveler. A basic level of service is expected to be availableDecember 18, 2001.

The Committee heard a report on this system at itsSeptember 2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

Annual State Highway System ChangesUnder Section 72-4-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953, UDOTannually submits to the Transportation Interim Committee alist of highways that the Transportation Commissionrecommends be added or deleted from the state highwaysystem. All recommendations must be based on minimumqualifying standards established by the Commission. Thislist, along with any fiscal recommendations is reviewed bythe Committee before being submitted to the Legislature.

The 2001 recommendations include:• realigning SR-68 by connecting 500 South with U.S. 89

in Bountiful and transferring a nine-block section on 2ndWest between 400 North and 500 South to BountifulCity, which provides a net loss of .66 miles;

• redesignating SR-131 between 2nd West and I-15 inBountiful to part of SR-106

• adding SR-223, the old Utah Winter Sports Park Roadin Summit County, which adds 3.726 miles (this roadwill be returned to the county following the Olympics)

• realigning SR-226 by transferring the old Snow BasinSki Resort access road from SR-39 to Weber County,and adding the newly built Snow Basin access road,which provides a net loss of 4.08 miles

• deleting SR-272 and transferring it to Farmington City,which provides a net loss of .98 miles; and

• deleting SR-283, a loop around the College of EasternUtah, and transferring it to Price City, which provides anet loss of 1.33 miles

The net decrease to the state highway system is 3.35 miles.

The Committee considered this issue at its November 2001meeting and recommended legislation “Master StateHighway Amendments.”

Commuter Rail and Light Rail UpdateS.B. 1, “Appropriations Act,” which passed during the2000 General Session, included intent languagedirecting UTA to develop a proposal for a commuter railproject, pursue federal funding, and begin negotiationsfor right-of-way acquisition. Negotiations with UnionPacific Railroad have resulted in a general agreementthat a new dedicated track within the existing UnionPacific rights-of-way is needed so that commuter railoperations do not interfere with freight operations in themainline corridors. Negotiations between Union PacificRailroad and UTA are nearing completion with adocument signing expected by the end of 2001. The costof constructing and equipping a commuter rail system isestimated to be between $200 and $300 million andannual operating cost is expected to be between $10and $15 million. The environmental process andpreliminary engineering are expected to take place overthe next 2 to 3 years. Construction could begin in 2005with completion in 2007.

On June 26, 2000, UTA began construction on a 2.5mile light rail extension from downtown Main Street along 400 South to the Rice-Eccles football stadium atthe University of Utah. The cost of this project is $118.5million. UTA has a full funding agreement with thefederal government for 80 percent federal funding of theproject by the Federal Transit Administration.Construction is scheduled to be completed within budgetby early December 2001 and operation is planned tobegin December 15, 2001, 10 months ahead ofschedule. Ten new light rail vehicles will be added aspart of the additional service. Federal approval andfunding to continue the project 1.5 miles to the Universityof Utah Medical Center is expected in the spring of2002.

The Committee heard an update on this issue at its June2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

Digital Driver LicensesDuring the 1999 General Session, the Legislaturepassed H.B. 278, "Driver License Fees," whichincreased driver license fees by $5 and increased driver



license extension fees and the fee for an identification cardby $3 beginning July 1, 1999. Approximately $2.5 million inannual additional revenues have been generated from theincrease. In the same year, $100,000 was appropriated tothe Driver License Division for digitized driver licenses (seeS.B. 1 "Supplemental Appropriations Act" Item 12). Theprimary purpose for this funding was to upgrade driverlicenses to a digital driver license. The Division originallyissued a request for proposal for a digitized photo systemfor driver licenses and identification cards in the fall of 1997and awarded a contract to Polaroid in the fall of 1998. Anumber of factors delayed implementation untilSeptember 19, 2001, when the first digital driver licensesbegan to be issued in one of the Driver License Divisionoffices. By December 4, 2001, all offices will be exclusivelyissuing digital driver licenses and identification cards. Withthis system, a color digital photo is taken and kept on file. Abar code on the license will contain the same information asis recorded on the front of the license. Upon issuance, anapplicant will take home a temporary paper license, and thedigital license will be mailed within 7 to 10 days. The digitalphotos will be available as a tool for law enforcement toprevent identity fraud.

The Committee heard a report on this system at its June2001 meeting but did not recommend legislation.

Governor’s Council on Driving Under the InfluenceReportThe Committee heard a report on legislation recommendedby the Governor’s Council on Driving Under the Influence atits October meeting and recommended the followinglegislation:• "Blood and Breath Alcohol Testing"• "Court Records of Driving Under the Influence Cases"• "Multiple Driving Under the Influence Offenses"• "Amendments to Driving Under the Influence"• "Alcoholic Beverage Service - Warning Required "

Legacy Parkway UpdateIn March 1991, a study of the North I-15 Corridorrecommended construction of the West Davis Highway (nowLegacy Parkway) from I-215 to Farmington. The Final EISfor this 14-mile project was completed in July 2000, and

approval was received from the Federal HighwayAdministration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inOctober 2000 and February 2001, respectively. UDOTgave the design/build contractor (Fluor-Daniel) a noticeto proceed in February 2001 and a second notice toproceed in June 2001 after a federal judge ruled in favorof the Department in a case related to environmentalissues. The case is under appeal. The project willprovide two lanes in each direction, including apedestrian/equestrian/bike path the entire length of theparkway, and a 2,098 acre nature preserve designed topreserve wetlands, buffer development, and ensure ahabitat for wildlife. The cost of the project is $451 millionand is expected to be completed in the fall of 2004.

Olympic Transportation Utah will host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games February8 through 24. During that time, an estimated 3,500athletes and officials, 12,000 media representatives, and1 million spectators and other visitors will come to Utah.In preparation for this event, several federal, state, andlocal transportation agencies have been workingtogether to ensure that people can get to the events andthat the public has the information needed to make goodtransportation choices during Olympic events.Approximately $35.5 million in additional federal fundshas been spent on highway projects and $92.5 millionon Transit projects, which includes $31.5 million on parkand ride facilities to be readied for the games.Approximately 900 buses and 29 light rail vehicles willbe borrowed for the games. Venue access plans andmaps have been developed to guide spectators to eachvenue and a "Know Before You Go" media campaignhas been developed to provide detailed Olympictransportation information to spectators, commuters,businesses, and commercial motor carriers.

The Committee heard a report on the transportationpreparations that have been made for the Olympics at itsSeptember 2001 meeting but did not recommendlegislation.

Other LegislationThe Committee held hearings on other transportation



legislation at its November meeting and recommended thefollowing legislation:• "Organ Donation Checkoff"• "Driver License Reporting"• "Child Restraint Violations"

Unregistered Passenger Vehicles in Utah–APerformance AuditThe Committee heard a report on the legislative audit of"Unregistered Passenger Vehicles in Utah." The audit foundthat the State may lose $4.5 million each year because ofimproperly registered vehicles. Three options to increaseregistration compliance were evaluated including replating,enlarging decals, and increasing penalties and enforcement.The audit found that replating was an expensive andineffective option and recommended that:• the Legislature:

N eliminate vehicle-to-vehicle plate transfersN eliminate the county designation requirementN review fines and penalties of late renewalsN require proof of registration in order to pay the fineN clarify and simplify registration laws to make it

easier for law enforcement offices to enforce theexisting laws

• the Motor Vehicles Division issue larger decals• the Utah Highway Patrol:

N issue citations for expired registrationsN train officers to detect illegally registered vehicles

• the Courts review data systems and train staff to enterall of the information for each offense, including theUtah Code reference.

The Committee heard this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings and recommended legislation"License Plate Requirements" and "Motor VehicleRegistration Amendments."

UTAH TOMORROW STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE


UTAH TOMORROW STRATEGIC PLANNINGCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Beverly Evans, ChairRep. Afton B. Bradshaw, ChairSen. Paula F. JulanderSen. Bill WrightRep. Patricia W. JonesRep. A. Lamont TylerMr. Daniel J. BeckerCommissioner Kenneth A. BischoffMayor Christopher C. BlakeMr. Kim R. BurninghamMs. Kathleen ClarkeMr. Gene MoserDr. Dianne NielsonMr. Con Rowley

StaffMs. Chyleen A. Arbon, Research AnalystMr. Paul W. Hess, Associate General CounselMs. Cassandra Bauman, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Utah Tomorrow Strategic Planning Committee,established by the Legislature in 1990, directs an ongoingand comprehensive strategic planning process to enableUtahns to focus on and achieve a single set of goals for thefuture. During the 1990 Interim, the Committee developed avision statement describing where Utahns would like theState to be in 20 years and focused the broad goals of thevision statement into specific, measurable objectives. Thefirst draft of these goals was created by ten task forceswhose total participation included more than 350 citizens.

In subsequent years, the Committee continued to refine thevision statement, goals, and performance measures in acooperative effort with state agencies and departments. TheCommittee has also strengthened ties with differentbranches and levels of government in implementing thegoals of Utah Tomorrow. The Legislature, Governor’s Office,executive branch agencies, judicial branch, and local

governments combined their efforts to refine the goalsand measures.

The Committee continues to emphasize performancemeasurement and data collection in cooperation with theGovernor’s Office of Planning and Budget. Executivedepartments and local governments play a key role inthe implementation of statewide strategic goals–theirinvolvement is critical to its success.

WHAT WILL TOMORROW BRING FOR UTAH TOMORROW

BackgroundAdvice on how to improve the Utah Tomorrow Reportand increase its impact was sought during the 2001Interim. The following recommendations were made tothe Committee: (1) include productivity numbers in thereport, (2) create a synthesized grading system withinthe report, (3) raise the political risk for people who donot support Utah Tomorrow, and (4) coordinate withother agencies and organizations that have beeninvolved in strategic planning.

Committee ActionThe Committee discussed the importance of involvingthe public, the Legislature, and other agencies in thestrategic planning process. The Committee alsodiscussed the important role the media could play indistributing information and heightening awareness ofthe report and suggested having the Office of theLegislative Fiscal Analyst take a more active role in theplanning process.

The Committee discussed this issue at its July 2001meeting and recommended publishing the UtahTomorrow Report every other year, instead of everyyear.

WORKFORCE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

INTERIM COMMITTEE


WORKFORCE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY ANDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERIMCOMMITTEE

MembershipSen. Beverly Ann Evans, Senate ChairRep. Richard M. Siddoway, House ChairSen. Scott K. JenkinsSen. Paula F. JulanderPresident Al MansellSen. L. Steven PoultonRep. Jeff AlexanderRep. Sheryl L. AllenRep. Cindy BeshearRep. Carl W. DuckworthRep. Brent H. GoodfellowRep. David LitvakRep. Merlynn T. NewboldRep. J. Morgan PhilpotRep. Carl R. SaundersSpeaker Martin R. StephensRep. Peggy WallaceRep. Bradley A. Winn

StaffMs. Jami Momberger, Research AnalystMr. James L. Wilson, Associate General CounselMs. Jennifer Markham, Legislative Secretary

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

The Utah State Legislature created the Department ofWorkforce Services in 1997 in order to make the welfareand job training programs of the state more efficient. Thefollowing programs were consolidated into the newdepartment: Quality Control and the Office of FamilySupport from the Department of Human Services, theDepartment of Employment Security, Job Training and theOffice of Child Care from the Department of Community andEconomic Development, and the Turning Point Programfrom the State Office of Education.

During the 2001 Interim, the Committee purview expandedto include the Department of Community and Economic

Development. The change allows the Committee tocomprehensively address business developmentprograms and opportunities, as well as other issuesfacing Utah’s workforce.

CHILD CARE AUDIT

BackgroundThe OCC (Office of Child Care) was created in 1990 tocarry out long-term planning and coordinate statewidechild care issues. In response to a legislative auditconducted by the Office of the Legislative AuditorGeneral, the Committee studied issues raised by theaudit and community stakeholders related to the OCC,including clarifying (1) the role and membership of theChild Care Advisory Committee, (2) the child care targetage, (3) the trust fund responsibility, and (4) providing anaccountability mechanism for the OCC.

Committee ActionThe Committee studied these issues at its September,October, and November 2001 meetings andrecommended legislation "Child Care Amendments."

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES–SUBPOENA

POWER

BackgroundIn 2001, the federal Food and Nutrition Service imposeda $2.2 million sanction against the DWS (Department ofWorkforce Services) for a low food stamp paymentaccuracy rate. By reinvesting the $2.2 million sanctionthe DWS avoids paying the money to the federalgovernment and has an opportunity to improve itscurrent program. However, the reinvestment must showan improvement in the accuracy rate and an increase inthe investigation of food stamp fraud. In order toadequately investigate fraud, the DWS requested theability to increase the subpoena power beyond thatgranted to its unemployment insurance division to coverother supportive service programs.

WORKFORCE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

INTERIM COMMITTEE


Committee ActionThe Committee studied this issue at its October 2001meeting and recommended legislation "Workforce ServicesAmendments."

TOURISM PROMOTION FUNDING IN UTAH

BackgroundTourism is a multibillion dollar enterprise in Utah, and thepromotion of tourism is necessary to maintain tourism taxrevenues. Funding available for promoting tourism in Utahfor fiscal year 2000 was $51.2 million. The sources for thisfunding were as follows (1) $17.5 million from the TRT(Transient Room Tax), (2) $20 million from restaurant tax(part of the TRCC–Tourism, Recreation, Cultural andConvention tax), (3) $8.9 million from car rental (also part ofthe TRCC), and (4) $4.8 million from the General Fund. The$4.8 million from the General Fund is allocated to UTC(Utah Travel Council) for its operation and to promote Utahas a travel destination. The other monies are returned to thecounty that imposed the tax for tourism promotion on a morelocalized level.

Counties are allowed to spend one-third of the TRTrevenues on county infrastructure and capital improvementswhile the remaining two-thirds must be spent on directtourism promotion. The TRCC does not have the sameproportional restrictions on revenue spending.

In response to a legislative audit conducted by the Office ofthe Legislative Auditor General, the Committee studiedissues including (1) county expenditures of tourismpromotion dollars; (2) whether to impose proportionalspending restrictions on TRCC revenues, similar to the TRTrestrictions; (3) information that impacts tourism dollars inUtah; (4) funding the performance marketing fund; and (5)coordinated efforts of tourism promotion between the State,local government entities, and the private sector.

Committee ActionThe Committee considered these issues at its June, July,October, and November 2001 meetings and recommendedlegislation "Tourism Amendments."

OTHER STUDIES

Access to Financial Information The Committee studied the possibility of allowing DWSincreased access to private financial records forindividuals receiving services from DWS. TheCommittee considered this issue at its October andNovember 2001 meetings but did not recommendlegislation.

2002 general session preview - utah...

Documents