H.B. 212 County Formation Amendments: transcript

Okay. Can you hear me? Great. Well, good morning everyone, uh, appreciate the chance to be able to present this bill. Uh, this is a bill that, uh, we've been working on for a couple of years to, to get right and, and, um, I'll just say it, you know, it, it, uh, actually a couple years, it might be a, a, a little understating that this is a bill I know that my, uh, predecessor had worked on before. And, um, you know, there's been a lot of input that, that has come into this bill. But, um, before I get started, I've got a flyer for the committee. Do you mind if my intern hands that out? Yes, that's Great. Awesome. Um, so as, as many people know right now, uh, we have a process in code that would allow for a county split. And the, the way that process works is petitioners would, um, get together a petition that would outline the new boundaries of the county, and then they'd have to go and gather signatures of one fourth of the county, uh, in order to then place it on the ballot and the entire county would vote whether or not to split. Um, that's, it's a pretty straightforward process, but when you talk about counties the size of, uh, Salt Lake County, for example, with, um, over 1.2 million people, that is a pretty daunting task to get, uh, a fourth of the voters to sign onto a petition. Um, also if, if they were to meet that level of, of voters that require it, there's no additional information the voters get on what the impacts of that county split might be. And so what HB two 12 does is it provides an alternative path that, uh, would allow for a county to split. For counties that are over 1 million people. Um, it would require that a, uh, the cities within that county, uh, at least a third of them would have to pass a resolution all within the same calendar year. Uh, that indicated that they wanted to split the county that would then trigger this, this process, uh, as an alternative to gathering any signatures. But it would then, uh, it sets up a very robust process of, uh, putting together a feasibility study of what that really would cost, um, in order to split that. So, uh, the voters have that information before them, before deciding whether or not to split. And then again, just like, uh, with the current method, all of the voters within the county would have to then vote on whether or not the, the county should be split. And, uh, if they receive a majority of the vote, then that they would move forward with the, the county split, just like is set up in the, in the current code. And so, uh, with that, it's, it's, uh, pretty straightforward bill. Um, this is not an attempt to, uh, try to split any particular county, um, but really just provide another path for those cities if they feel like the county isn't providing the services to their residents, um, to, to, to streamline that process and get the voters the information they would need to be able to make an informed decision. Um, I will say that, uh, I've worked closely with Salt Lake County on this. They had, uh, a number of great suggestions as we worked through that feasibility study. And you'll see that in the second substitute of the bill that, or the first substitute of the bill that I would, um, urge the committee to adopt. Um, those changes include, uh, requiring the cities that, uh, have passed that resolution to fund the feasibility study. And so it wouldn't be a cost to the county. Um, and then, uh, also ensuring that, um, um, the, the size, so before, I think it was set at like 333,000 people, it clarified that it's a third of the county of the cities making up a third of the county that would have to pass that. So as the county grows, you know, let's say it was 1.2 million now, but let's say another county was 2 million people, then it would be a third of 2 million rather than the 333,000. And then just a couple of other small clarifications within that feasibility study to make sure that the voters have all the right information. So I appreciate, uh, their working together. My understanding is that, um, uh, Salt Lake County is, uh, uh, is, is neutral on the bill. They don't, they don't have any opinion, um, on this. And, um, I'll say as, as many of you're aware, and we study this in the interim, as we look at counties getting bigger and bigger and having much larger budgets, I think it, it begs the question of what is the right size of a county. Again, this just puts that in the hands of the voters and the cities to be able to figure that out, and that's what the bill is. Happy to answer. Any questions?

Uh, thank you. Vice chair. Just outta curiosity, how many counties do

you have? Over a million people. Currently. It's only Salt Lake County.

Only Salt Lake County right now. Mm-hmm. Okay. So I believe Utah County is about 800,000 people or so. So they'd be the one that's the next closest. Okay. Thank you.

Thank. Thank you. So, um, are there any rules, could they split into four counties? Could they propose to split into more than two? Um, the, the way it, it's set up, it, uh, it is, it's set to just be one county split, and that's similar to the way the current code is set up. So there isn't the, it doesn't contemplate the idea that you could split into a third. So you, what you'd probably have to do is split, and then the remaining county would split again. Okay. And is there, uh, do the cities that bring the petition, so to speak, um, all have to be together in the split? Or could cities bring a petition and then you split up, let's say you had a one that was right at a million, and could you bring in a petition to split it off for a county of 50,900 50,000? So, I mean, what if the complaint is that the, I really hate these restrictions on counties of the first class, and I would like to be a county of the fourth class, so I didn't have to follow those rules. Could I bring in a request like that?

You could, but you'd have to get a third of the whole county cities to agree that that's the size of the split that you wanted.

Okay. And then it would go to the entire county that would have to vote and say, yes, we're, we're comfortable with just, you know, a a 10th of the county splitting into their own county. Okay. And then, and the, the cities, if two cities, each of a third signed onto the petition, they could be in different counties when they were done?

They could, They could. And

when you bring the petition, you have to have like a map, or are you bringing a question of just, shall we split? Or are you, or is the question that you're bringing, shall we split it along? The map drawn here?

Yeah. The, the language says that, uh, they have to, uh, clarify exactly what, what the new boundaries of the county are. Okay. And so that's what they'd have to, to identify and then pass that similar resolution.

Uh, thank you. So Representative Teuscher, thanks for your work on this. I think the sub is better than the prior version and appreciate your listening to people. And the original version, it seemed like there was a requirement of, uh, contiguous. Is that same in this? Yes. Okay. And I want to just follow up on representative ward's question. So let's say that third of the people petition is approved by the county. They form a new county of a third, then subsequent to that, uh, the remaining two thirds, another county could form out of that. Is that correct? Hmm, that's correct. Okay. And, and I like that it goes through the voters of the entire county. One of the things I do like about the petition under the current process is voters get to have a say, it even goes on the ballot. So I like that. I do agree that the threshold may be a bit challenging on the current one. I, I guess my, my concerns are we're creating another layer of bureaucracy because in Salt Lake County, we have all the elected offices and we have, you know, the planning commission, you have the entire bureaucracy, and now we're gonna create another bureaucracy that's gonna cost more. You're having two instead of one. And we don't know if this had happened, but potentially you could have three and you've got these multiple duplicative layers of bureaucracy with right now, we only have one. Would you like to comment to that?

Yeah, um, I think, I think that's a interesting question. I mean, I, I think if you follow that, then you would say, well, the, the most streamlined that you could be would have no counties in the state, right? You just have, or maybe one county across the entire state. And that would be the most streamlined, the most effective in economies of scale. We have 29 counties currently in the state, and I think most people are pretty happy, uh, with the size and and scope of the, the county government that they have. So if, if, in this case you were to split, let's say it was Salt Lake County into two different counties, it doesn't doesn't create a layered approach. But you're, you have two independent groups that, that each have the same function, just like Utah County has the same functions that Davis County has, or Salt Lake County is the same functions that Piute County has, but the size of that layer of government is commensurate with the size of the county and also responsible and accountable to, to the people that are within that county. So you could imagine a scenario, let's say, where, um, uh, let's say it's Salt Lake County and the the East side says, you know, we, we would like a much more robust county that provides a lot more services than what we're getting from our current county. And so we wanna split and then have this county that is providing, you know, more, more rec centers and more parks and more costs, and we're happy to, to pay for that. Whereas the west side of the county says we want a much smaller size of county and more streamlined county, uh, that that costs a lot. So even though they're providing the same services, what they're providing needs to be accountable to the people. And the best way to be accountable to the people is to get them closer to the people. And I think that's what we see here, is you get a county that keeps growing and growing and growing. At some point it becomes, it's very, you get economies of scale, but it becomes less accountable to the people because it just is such a big layer of government. Does that make sense?

Okay, thank you. I have one more.

So I wasn't suggesting that we have one county statewide. I, I said duplicative. Not layered. Okay.

You're gonna have two recorders, two auditors, two treasurers, two assessors. So you'll have that duplicative layer of government. Now, I guess the people can decide if they want to pay for it. Uh, but the people that are remaining in the existing county, their costs will go up somewhat because they have fewer people to pay for their, they're not gonna lose their recorder, their assessor, all their, who knows if the county layer of bureaucracy will even shrink, could diminish, couldn't know. But another question I have is, what about the jail? How does that work?

Yeah, good, good question. And lemme just say really quick, maybe Mayor, I wasn't very clear on my answer before, but right now we have 29 counter recorders, right? So this would mean we'd have 30 counter recorders. So it, I, I feel like in the way you frame that question, it's like you're going from one to two, but our entire state is divided into counties and, and it would be most efficient to just have one person doing everything. Like you get a great economies of scale, but there's a reason why we have la those layers of government that are closer to the people. Um, in, in terms of the jail, it would, it would work just like any other county sets up. So the, the county would have responsibility for the jail, but they could also contract for those services, uh, in a separate county. They could build their own jail. They, they'd have to provide the same services. So all of the responsibilities that counties have, if you created a new county, they would have those same responsibilities. And we, we have created a new county within, within our state. So, um, Daggett County, um, was created, um, split from, I dunno if anyone can tell me the history of that, but, but anyway, it, it was something that was, that was split and, uh, that county had to come up again with all of its same officers of, you know, county, county commissioners and recorders and auditors and treasurers and county jail and everything else. Those, those responsibilities remain with the new county.

Oh, thank you. So in Salt Lake County, the jail costs county $120 million a year. That's a lot of money. And so that's, that's my concern. You know, it's, jails are very expensive and we need more capacity in our county, but that's just a concern.

Thanks for bringing this through. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the thoroughness here. Um, the proposal law creates an, um, uh, additional, or, sorry, alternate, uh, path for a county bifurcation. Can you just talk through a little bit about the existing, uh, process, uh, if any, what that looks like, and then why, um, it necessitates, I guess, the proposal of an additional path?

Yeah, yeah. I talked about it at the beginning of my, um, presentation, but currently the way it would work is, uh, any petitioner, any, any resident of the county could decide that they wanted, uh, to split the county. And so they would put together a petition and that they'd go and have to gather signatures, and they have to gather signatures from a fourth of the registered voters within the county. At that point, it immediately goes on the ballot and the, the entire county gets to decide whether or not to split. And so in terms of, of why we need this alternative path, as you get to bigger and bigger counties, the, the idea of gathering that number of signatures becomes quite prohibitive. Um, but it also is, um, it doesn't give the voters the information that they really need to decide what the impact's like Chuck Dunnigan is talking about, you know, how much is the jail going to cost? How much tax money is this new county going to bring in? How are they gonna be able to afford that? And so that's exactly what this bill does, is it says, okay, if you get a third of the cities, these are elected officials, um, throughout the county that have decided that their, their communities would like a county split, then it triggers this feasibility study that goes in and pulls all that data together, gives it to the voters, and then the entire county gets to decide whether or not that makes sense.

Um, I guess a follow up question, does that, the one third threshold, um, how does that, I guess, protect the voice of the remaining two thirds of residents who, who might be strongly opposed? Maybe?

Well, if two thirds of the county is strongly opposed, then when it goes on the ballot, it will fail.

Thank you. A couple of questions. First one is, um, what happens to general obligation bonds? Do we know, or just like, we're just gonna try and figure it out because right now the bond holders have a very, very, I mean, it's a, those covenants are a big, big deal. Like how do you divide those covenants between two counties? Yeah.

Um, there, as far as I understand, within the code, it doesn't specify exactly how you deal with, with that. Um, I don't see anything in the code that, that talks through that, I'll just say that, uh, in the, in the current code, this, this could happen. You know, if, if they gathered the signatures, they split, they'd have to figure it out. In the same way. This, this doesn't change that possibility at all. If anything, it just adds more information that would go through what those general obligation bonds are. And as part of the feasibility study, they would give that information to the voters so that they had that when they decide to, uh, when, when they have to make the decision of whether the split makes sense. It does make it more likely though, I think.

Um, I want to, um, on the second substitute, um, I, I presume that's you're wanting the second substitute adopted, right?

I thought it was the First substitute. Sorry.

First substitute. Thank you.

Um, on the substitute, there is, uh, uh, provision that talks about, you know, petition municipality may initiate an election for the creation of a new county as described in this section, if the petitioning municipality's legislative body adopts a triggering resolution, and the petitioning municipality has a population of at least one third of the county population, does that mean only Salt Lake City could trigger this?

No, I think b is that one or more petitioning municipalities adopt it and they have a population of at least one third of the county.

But it's not municipalities, plural, it's possessive. Uh, no, I think it is plural. Petitioning municipalities in on line 76 Says municipality has a population at least one third.

Oh, okay. I see what you're saying.

On, on, yeah. On line 76. Okay. Yeah. All right. So I, I think that, thank you for that clarification. That concludes my questions. Thank you.

Representative Walters, so could, a city could do it by themselves, right? If that city had a population of population, a third of the county, So to his point of Salt Lake City grew to where they had a third of the population, they could split and create their own county, potentially.

Potentially. Okay. Thank you Again. The entire county would have to vote and agree to that. I Understand. Okay.

Yes, go ahead. Um, So could a subset of the county that just didn't like one other part, they thought that that part over there has got really high taxes and really high obligations and, but the other 80% of us don't want them anymore because they, they've got a lot of debt or high taxes or problems there. Could they then initiate a position, uh, a petition to keep the 80% of the county and basically kick out the 20%? They probably have enough votes 'cause they had 80% of the people in it. Uh, when, when you say that part of the county has really high taxes, There was some part of the county that they said that part just doesn't represent us and we don't want them with the rest of us, even if the part that they were splitting off from was a small portion. So they kind of, they, they might have enough votes 'cause they represented maybe 80% of the county to start with. Yeah. But they had some 20% that they would like to not be connected to.

Yeah, they, they could, um, in lines 1 0 6, and I think this is maybe getting at what you're talking about with the, the tax issue. Is it, it does say you cannot leave the Seceding County with an area within the Seceding county's boundaries for which the cost requirements or other burdens of providing fundamental county services will material increase over previous years. O Okay. And then, okay. Uh, thank you.

And there's, um, a part in here about, uh, there that rural areas get some say over which county they're in. So what it does say is in the unincorporated areas of the county, that they would be incorporated into the county that has the highest population in which they are contiguous. And does that process of deciding which one they get incorporated in, because we talked before about when this petition is created, it has to have a map drawn. 'cause you're presenting the map about the split. And does that have to already consider how you include the rural county so that, that description of how those rural areas is, How the initial map needs to, has to be drawn? I'd see. Thank you. So thank you.

I'll try this. I don't know exactly where we're at on this, but I, I'd like to make a motion to, to adopt the first substitute of house bill two 12.

Would you like to speak to that? No.

I'll waive. Okay.

Thank you. So I have, uh, to, to representative Balder's point. I'm concerned about the existing indebtedness and I understand that under the petition process currently, that's not really resolved, but I think this path forward makes it more likely that it could happen. And I would like to see that resolved. And, and I, I think you need to address that. I don't think it's fair for a new county to create themselves and say to the old one, good luck with all that indebtedness that you took for us. So I'm personally, I'm not comfortable using the existing statutory language because I think the path that you're coming up with, and you've done some good work here, you really have, I think it's gonna make it more likely to occur. So I think that indebtedness and who owns that needs to be resolved because I'm not sure that the voters are gonna understand that when they vote on it. And maybe they will, but maybe not. That's a concern I have.

Uh, thank you Madam Chair. Um, may I reserve the right to make a motion? Yes. Um, uh, just a quick question. Um, have you spoken to any of the, um, like the county treasurer, the, uh, the financial advisors to the county about municipal bonds, about how OL might play out or how it might work?

I mean, I've, I've talked to county officials about this in multiple counties, and that is not a concern that has been raised. Okay.

Uh, I think, uh, the, so the motion I'd like to make is to move to the next agenda item

Thank, thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion that we move on to the next agenda item.

I, I agree that this, this bill is, has really impressive, but there's some work left to do and I'd like to give the bill sponsor an opportunity to do it.

I, well, I'd like to make a substitute motion In order 'cause you're a member of the committee. I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend, uh, first substitute house bill two 12.

I would. So, um, I know there's been a couple comments that, that feel like this path is going to make it easier for a county to split. I, I actually disagree. I, I think in today's world, i, i, it is a very high burden to get a fourth of the count, the signatures in the county, but that's about the number of signatures that a, um, a governor would need in order to get on the ballot. It's something that can be done. And in the current code, you can imagine a viral event where, you know, someone's ticked off because the county has raised taxes or something, and they, they go through with a petition to split the county that goes on the ballot with no information of how that is going to affect the cost of the county. Nothing that's there at all. I think in this scenario, even if you can go and get cities and I, each of us have worked with cities, we know how difficult it is to, to corral cities together to do something. So the idea that you would get a, that it's easier to get a third of population of cities together to say that they want to, they all agree to split the county in a certain way is, is, uh, easier than going out and getting, you know, random signatures from people that are just walking into Walmart and saying, oh yeah, taxes are high sign here. I, I just don't believe that's true. Especially then saying that the next step is that if it goes on the ballot, how is it going to affect the counties? That's what we've detailed out here. And those questions around bonds and how they're affected, that would be a part of the feasibility study that would have to be worked out. I think it would be very difficult to have statutory language in here that details exactly how you would split out those bonds, because it's gonna be different for every county. It's gonna be different for the types of bonds that are there. And that's something that would just have to be worked out between the two counties. But there is language that makes it very clear in here that they cannot leave the Seceding County with significant cost burdens, um, in providing those services over previous years, which is not a protection that we have currently in the code right now. Currently, they can split the county and add significant increased burdens to a seceding county. So that is the catchall here that makes sure that we're not gonna put a county, uh, in either the new or the old county in a situation where they're going to have to be stuck with a bunch of bonds that are left over or other costs or increase the costs or whatever's there. I think we've spent a lot of time doing this. I think it's very telling that you don't have any counties here that are, uh, opposing this legislation, because I think what they see in this bill is something that's very fair. And so with that, I would urge the committee's support.

Would it be appropriate to ask a question? Sure. Just, just with this, where this bill to pass the underlying previous available to people. So whether or not this is easier or more likely to lead to the process of a county splitting, um, that viral moment that you're speaking of could still take place. This is not taking away the, the possibility of that this is opening another doorway for folks to enter to, to go towards Spring County. Is that correct?

Well, it's correct, but the language around the feasibility study is now triggered for either path. So before there is no feasibility study at all, this bill now creates the feasibility study. So if you had that viral moment, you would have to gather all that cost and put it before the voters. Um, I will waive.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, I acknowledge it that you're improving the process. I believe you're improving the process for a county split. Um, but I also do think that it makes it more likely. And so I think before, um, voting in favor of that, I, I'd just like to be able to talk to some of the municipal advisors and find out how this actually would work. And if this, if, um, if this is something that is reasonably, uh, you're reasonably able to navigate, or if it's gonna create, uh, a bunch of unintended consequences with, uh, bond holders that we don't, we don't actually understand today. To my knowledge, it doesn't seem like that question's been addressed. I recognize it's an underlying problem with the existing statute. Um, I don't think that, um, again, I I acknowledge it in my view. I think that you're making an improvement to the process. It's more, it's, uh, um, you're, you're providing a little bit of flexibility. But I also do, as I mentioned, I think that it does increase the probability. And so I'd like to just be able to get that question answered, and I'll take responsibility for not having addressed that question before coming today that, you know, I, I, I hadn't thought all the way through it. And so I'll, I'll take that responsibility, but I, but I feel like I need to know that answer before I can support the, uh, support the favorable recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sum. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I appreciate the discussion. Um, like I said, I'm, I'm happy to continue to work on this, uh, between now and the floor. If, if the committee feels like there needs to be some more specific language or there's plenty of time to talk to, uh, different county administrators to, to find out what they feel like the impact of, of having a bond on here is. But let me just be clear. This is a bill that I, you know, is, is largely intact from what I put out, uh, last year, not moving the bill forward to get notice to everyone in the entire state to come forward with any concerns that they've had to, um, you know, answer the types of questions that, uh, Representative Walter is talking about. And the only county that's come forward, and we've had robust discussions about it, is Salt Lake County. And I've incorporated every single request that Salt Lake County has in this bill, enough that their county council voted on it to, to let the bill move forward without any opposition at all. So I think that's very telling. Um, I think we have a very good solution here that that, um, uh, makes the status quo, uh, better than we have. And we certainly shouldn't make, uh, perfect the enemy of good. And so I would urge this committee support of this bill.

Thank you Mr. Chair. My, uh, intern has a flyer for the committee. Do you mind if she hands that out? Nope. That's great. Awesome. So you already passed it around. Great. Oh, they're already passed it around. She's on top of things. She's ahead of everybody. Yeah, That is, uh, no surprise, but, uh, house Bill two 12. Um, this is a bill that has been many years, uh, in the making. Uh, as we look at our county sizes and, um, the, the size of government and it continues to grow and grow, you start asking the question is, is there a point where it makes sense to split a county under our current code? In order to split a county, um, you have to gather at least a quarter of the registered voters signatures within the county. Um, and then it would go onto the ballot. And anyone, it would go for the entire county to vote on whether or not to split. Um, that would be in, in a large county of over a million people. A very onerous task, uh, to go and gather all of those signatures likely, uh, impossible without, you know, extreme funding, uh, coming forward. And, um, as, as we've talked about, what, what would make sense in moving forward, uh, over the last couple years. Um, the, the consensus has been what you see here in house Bill two 12, it creates an alternative path for a county to split that has over a million people. It doesn't call for any sort of split of a county, but the way that it does that is says, uh, rather than going out and collecting those signatures, if you get a city or cities within the population of the county that equal at least a third of the population that all pass a resolution, uh, that they want to put that on the ballot, then it would go to the voters. Now, prior to going to the voters, and this, this requirement would be added, whether they collected signatures or whether they went through this alternative path, a very robust feasibility study would be conducted, uh, to determine whether or not the split is, uh, functionally or financially feasible. Uh, that information would go to the voters and, um, and they would make the decision whether or not to split a county. Now, um, we have split counties in the, in the history of our state. It isn't unprecedented. Um, but again, I think, uh, as we're getting large counties, in this case, Salt Lake County would be the only county that that fits into this category today. Um, but, uh, a county that, um, is as big as ours, one of the largest counties actually in the, in the country, it makes sense to ask that question of is that county getting so big that it isn't close enough to the people? And, uh, this would provide our city representatives to be able to listen to their constituents and, and if they got to that point, to be able to trigger the split. And that's what the bill is. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay, great. Um, so we have 29 Senator Vickers and we have 29 counties. Traditionally that was because we had one senator per county, but then it, we had to switch, um, to a populace based. Would it be your intention to remain at 29 Senator Vickers? Regardless of whether or not we have more than 29 counties?

Yeah. This bill doesn't address in any way how many Senator Vickers we have. And I, I think 29 is a fine number. I think it could be 28, it could be 30. It doesn't really matter. I do believe in the history of our state, we've had a lot less Senator Vickers and more counties. Yeah. Um, and so it just happens, I think more of a coincidence now of 29.

Have to be an odd number though. Otherwise you end up with a lot of, uh, you don't wanna have a board with even numbers, you know,

So. Yeah. Well, you presiding an officer can split, but there are a number of states that have 30 Senator Vickers. Yeah. And then they do, you know, either double or three time the number of house members. Yeah.

That we recommend favorably HB two 12 for substitute.

Yeah, the only thing I neglected to add is, um, Salt Lake County did, uh, take or did vote on this and, and, uh, we're neutral on this bill. We've worked closely with them to make sure that, um, what's in here is, is fair. And again, it just gives voters another opportunity to be able to exercise their, their rights under the constitution.

Sorry. Yes, I, okay. That motion passes four to zero.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adopt House Amendment one in my name.

I would. Uh, this is a, uh, a recommendation that came from the good representative from Santa Clara. Um, my seatmate tells me that that is, um, across the street from Dixie Downs. Um, but, uh, he had a great suggestion here to ensure that, um, in the case that, uh, a county were to split that, uh, the original county would still be obligated to pay any, any bonds that were levied during the time they were part of the county. And that's what this just clarifies.

This addresses the concern, uh, that I had raised and I appreciate the sponsors. I'll be spo supporting the bill and the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, colleagues, this is an issue that, um, we've been working on for quite some time. In fact, my predecessor before I came into office, uh, had started to work through this issue because there were, um, some people in, in the county that wanted to see if this, if as a county gets bigger and bigger and bigger, if there's a time where it makes sense to take a county and split it into a smaller county. And that's what you see here. Uh, as we've worked through this issue over really the past, uh, six, seven years in house Bill two 12 currently, uh, there is a process and statute that allows for a county to split. Uh, the process is that you'd have to go and gather a, a quarter, so 25% of the, uh, voters in the county signatures, and then that would go immediately on the ballot. And if a majority of the county, uh, decided to split, then the county splits. That's, that's how the process works. Um, there's a couple problems with the, the current process. One is if you have a county with 1.2 million people trying to gather a quarter of the signatures of that county is, is near impossible. It would be extremely, extremely difficult. Secondly, even if you were able to do that, you'd have a very hard time knowing, well, what impact would this cause? Uh, is the county, the, the proposed new county sustainable? Um, is it feasible to have that, that county and and there aren't any, any mechanisms within the statute to, to answer those types of questions and give the information to the voters when they're trying to make that informed decision. So that's what we tried to do here in house. Uh, bill two 12. It essentially creates an alternative path for a county with over a million people to split into two counties. It doesn't call for any kind of split of any county, but rather gives the, the, the members of that county and an opportunity to do that. And the way that it does that is that it says that if a city or multiple cities that equal at least a third of the population of the county pass a resolution that says that they would like to see the county split, that that would go to the ballot. Now, prior to it being on the ballot, there's a very robust feasibility study that would have to go forward that would give all that information to the voters to decide whether or not there would be a county split. And then if it would go to all of the voters within the county to decide whether or not it would vote, both those that would be in the new county and those, uh, in the existing county. Um, this, uh, this, uh, bill a with adding the feasibility study, adding the alternative path, I think it struck the right balance of giving voters the opportunity to figure out what the best level of governance is, um, while ensuring that we're not making rash decisions, um, or, you know, the heat of the moment is causing, uh, any issues in the future. And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to answer any questions about this, but I will say that the, that the way that this bill is drafted, uh, Salt Lake County, uh, is, is not opposed to this bill. I don't know of any groups that are opposed to this bill and, uh, we've been able to get a consensus bill that everyone is on board with.

You, Mr. Speaker, uh, will the sponsor yield

Yes. Representative Cutler, I

Appreciate the sponsor and his willingness to always take on these really, uh, challenging issues that have long-term implications. Uh, my my question relates to whether we would have to have any changes in the Constitution if an additional county were to be added. It's, it's clear that we can change boundaries, but it, um, I'm not, it's not entirely clear to me if a new county is added, if, if that, uh, could be argued that would change the counties now existing and, and some of the language in the state constitution. Wondered if your work group looked into that?

Yeah, that's, that's a really great question. Um, and the answer is no. So there already is that path that's set in the Constitution and then according to statute of how it would be raised to the voters. But the, the, um, constitution contemplates the idea of splitting a county. And the constitution requirement again goes that the, the county, the current county all would have to vote in a majority for that split. And then it's subject to whatever other restrictions that we put within statute. Thank you very much. Thank you Representative Cutler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I rise in support of this bill, and this is not the first time it's happened in Utah. In 1892, Wayne County was created out of Piute County because it was too far over the mountain to get to Junction the county seat. So this is, uh, this is not unfounded. This is, uh, not something new. It's been done before and I think it's, uh, I think it's good. And the amendment's great because Dixie Downs is pretty important down there in Dixie. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor, uh, yield to a series of questions? Representative Tesser, will you yield to a series of questions?

Yes. Yes. Representative Chew.

So, uh, Mr. Speaker, in the, in the conversations that, uh, have lead up have led up to this, uh, to where we're at today, has there been any discussion about, uh, a way for, uh, for counties to, to, uh, combine back to be a county that they were once before where two counties, uh, um, might be interested in becoming the original county again? Yeah, that's, that's a great question, Mr. Speaker. Um, that was not the scope of the working groups that I've been on, and so we, we, we didn't really discuss that. So the reason I ask that there's been a little bit of interest in, uh, the possibility of, uh, of unifying a, a few counties just for the, uh, leverage that might be created within the, uh, discussion of the Colorado River situation. And so I was just curious if, uh, this is an interesting thing. I know, uh, you know, like Daggett, uh, in 1911 was, uh, carved off the top ofa. So, uh, yeah, like, like the good, uh, representative from Richfield said it's not a new thing, but, uh, we do have a good highway now going back up to Daggett, so I just wondered, uh, if that might help. But anyway, thanks for, uh, your, uh, your work on this bill.

You, Mr. Speaker. Like I said before, this is a consensus bill, uh, that just provides an alternative path. Um, doesn't necessarily call for any sort of splits, but I I do think it's fair to, to ask the question, especially as a county gets over 1 million people, um, to say what is the right size of that government. And when we look at Salt Lake County, uh, it is one of the largest counties in the United States. Um, it has, uh, a, a large budget over $2 billion, maybe that is the right level. I think that's up for the, the voters of Salt Lake County to decide. Um, but having a path that allows for that conversation to take place, I think just makes sense. And so I'd urge the support of this body.

that, uh, creates a legislative process or creates a process for particip petitioning a municipality to initiate the process to create a new county. Um, it establishes threshold for petitioners and certain viability requirements in the formation of a new county. It allows certain rural property to remain in a seceding in a seating county in, in certain circumstances and it provides a continuation of property taxation between seating counties and a new county to satisfy general obligation or revenue bond indebtedness. It also requires the new county to level levy local option sales and use tax for transportation at the same rate in similar manner of the seating county for transactions within the new county. Otherwise, it clarifies other provisions related to, um, related to the creation of a new county. With that, Mr. President, happy to yield the questions.

Thank you Mr. President. It's really, really late at night. I just wondered if we had an extra county, would we have to have an extra senator? Okay. Present? Uh, I'm not sure if that's a question of the sponsor or rhetorical Oh, sorry. Will the sponsor yield?

Will Senator McKay? Will you yield? Yes.

Senator Sandall? Yeah. Yeah. Would we have to have an another Senator, Senator McKay?

Only if there is benevolent as the other 28 of you. Okay. Uh, to be honest, all since we don't really establish, since Senator Ipson aren't really assigned counties and that's, you know, uh, believe it or not, in history we didn't actually ever assign to counties. It's just we ended up with 29 counties and we have 29 Senator Vickers. Um, but yeah, it would not require the addition of a new senator.

Thank you. I'll waive summation and move The first first house, first substitute house bill two 12 County formation amendments passer suspension of the rules.

Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin b Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Aye. Mikel Milner. Musman. Milner Aye. Musselman Owens.

Thank you President. I just want to rise and explain my vote. Um, we have, uh, split a rural, another rural county if that's what is seems to be intended here. I, uh, 85% of our legislature reside in four counties and I, uh, and many of my rural colleagues cover many counties. I I have 10 counties now and don't need another one. Um, so I'll be a no thank you.

Thank you. Senator's, pitcher, plum, Rebe, sandal, Stevenson, Stevenson, Senator Stevenson Stratton, Some changes. Stratton Bickers. Weiler Wilson Winterton. Weiler Aye.

petitioning municipality means municipality located within the county with a population of more than a million. This is not applied to any rural counties. There was a concern about that and we've got that straightened out on the bill. All the language down below that talks about rural is actually related to a rural owner that lives within a county of a million people. With that, Mr. President yield the questions.

Senator Vickers Bouldery blew in Ramer bus Comore. Escamia Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kinins. Ipson Aye. Johnson Wan McKay Mikel. What She needs To know. Mc Grover. Mikel Milner Aye. Musman Owens pitcher. Plum Rebe Rebi.

Sandal. Aye. Stevenson Re, Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. First substitute house Bill two 12. Having received 17 yay votes. 12 na votes zero being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for the further it was After night. Oh, wasn't, it was Returned to the house for their consideration.

Mr. President, I move to strike the enacting clause on all house Bills, senate bills and resolutions remaining on the Senate calendar and with the Senate Rules Committee and that they be returned to the house or filed.