Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board Report

Submitted to the Utah County Commission

June 20, 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 5
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................ 5
OBJECTIVE....................................................................................................................................... 6
SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 6
ADVISORY BOARD COMPOSITION......................................................................................................... 6
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 7
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS...................................................................................................... 8
PUBLIC FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................................. 8
RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................................... 9
FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14
FOUR OPTIONS FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT ........................................................................................ 14
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES ..................................................................................................... 14
MOTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 16
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 18
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 18
OTHER ISSUES AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 20
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 21

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We, the members of the Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board, are grateful to all the
citizens of Utah County who cared enough to share their insights regarding the future of Utah
County’s form of government. Public engagement and the principle that every voice matters is not
only critical to the continued strength of our communities but has shaped this report, which is in
harmony with the vast majority of opinions expressed to the Advisory Board.

Thank you to the students at Brigham Young University’s Romney Institute of Public Service and
Ethics for their summary of relevant research articles, assessment of county structures correlated
with economic development endeavors, and a summary of services provided by Utah County.

Thank you to the students at Utah Valley University’s Office of New Urban Mechanics (ONUM) for
their national benchmark study of county governments, which also identified a peer group of
counties for Utah County, and for analyzing their similarities in scope and nature.

A specific thank you to Kimberly Bojorquez and Kadee Jones, both presidential interns at Utah
Valley University, for their efforts in streaming Advisory Board meetings, conducting a content
analysis of all feedback received, and for assisting in the compilation of the final report.

Thank you to the county staff members who supported the Advisory Board through their expertise,
the sharing of data and information, and by being present at every meeting to ensure the Advisory
Board functioned properly and in accordance with state law and county ordinances.

Finally, thank you to Commissioner Bill Lee, Commissioner Nathan Ivie, and Commissioner Tanner
Ainge for their leadership to formalize a volunteer citizen-led Advisory Board to study the need (if
any) to change the county’s form of government, to empower the Advisory Board in its stewardship
without meddling in its affairs and processes, and for graciously accepting the Advisory Board’s
findings and recommendations. It is the opinion of the Advisory Board that its findings and
recommendations reflect the voices we heard from across Utah County.

3
Summary of Recommendations

The Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board proposes six recommendations to implement
the decisions made by the Advisory Board. Fundamental to these recommendations is the broad
agreement that changing the form of government from a three-member commission to a mayor-
council form would benefit the county in a range of ways. The following are the board’s
recommendations:

Recommendation #1: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should support a
change of Utah County’s form of government from its current three-member county
commission form to the county executive council (mayor-council) form of government with
a full-time elected at-large mayor, an elected seven-member part-time county council that
has five seats elected by districts, and two seats elected at large.

Recommendation #2: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should pass a
county ordinance to hire a professionally trained and skilled chief administrative officer
(CAO) to aid in the day-to-day management of the county.

Recommendation #3: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should move
expeditiously to hold a special election in November 2019 to seek voter approval for a
change in Utah County’s form of government to the mayor-council form.

Recommendation #4: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should establish a
nonpartisan committee to follow established federal and state judicial criteria and
recommend the geographic boundaries for the five district seats of the county council.
Public engagement in this process guards against perceptions of self-serving decisions
made by county officials.

Recommendation #5: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should establish a
compensation committee comprised of volunteers with expertise in cost analysis and
compensation. Public engagement in this process guards against perceptions of self-serving
decisions made by county officials.

Recommendation #6: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should educate
Utah County voters on the mayor-council form of government and how it holds elected
officials accountable, improves representation of all areas and communities within the
county, and how the transition will be funded.

4
 INTRODUCTION

The Utah County Board of County Commissioners authorized the creation of the Utah County Good
Government Advisory Board (hereafter referred to as “Advisory Board”) in February 2019.
Advisory Board members were formally appointed on March 28 (see Utah County Ordinance
2019:11 and 2019:50 in Appendix A of this report). All of the Advisory Board meetings were
publicly notified and open to the public. The first meeting was held on March 29, with seven
additional meetings convened in various locations across the county. These additional locations
included the Utah County Historic Courthouse, Silicon Slopes’ office, Utah Valley University,
Brigham Young University, Nebo School District, Alpine School District, and Eagle Mountain City
Hall. At each of the public meetings, there were opportunities for public comment from private
individuals as well as invited presenters to share their perspectives and research around the
various issues that should shape Utah County’s future form of government. Specific invitations were
given to local elected officials, state legislators from Utah County, members of Utah’s federal
delegation, Utah County employees, and researchers from Brigham Young University and Utah
Valley University. These public comments informed the deliberations and recommendations of the
Advisory Board.

Background

Aware of a citizen’s petition to change Utah County’s form of government, Utah County’s current
three-member commission, comprising of Commissioner Bill Lee, Commissioner Nathan Ivie, and
Commissioner Tanner Ainge, unanimously organized an advisory board comprised of Utah County
residents not directly associated with the citizen petition movement to study Utah County’s current
and alternative forms of government allowed under state code. The Board of Commissioners
requested a formal report summarizing the findings and recommendations that the Advisory Board
developed based upon research and constituency input. This is the Advisory Board’s report per that
request.

Pursuant to and consistent with the direction given to the Advisory Board by the Utah County
Board of Commissioners and County Ordinance 2019:11 and 2019:50 (see Appendix A), the
Advisory Board approved a charter that outlined its operations and functions, listed board
members and key Utah County employees who were tasked with supporting the Advisory Board,
and identified the meeting dates, times, locations, and targeted constituency groups that the
Advisory Board should engage (see Appendix B).

Purpose

The purpose of the Advisory Board was to facilitate research, analysis, public outreach, and provide
recommendations to the Utah County Board of Commissioners related to a potential modification of
Utah County’s form of government.

5
Objective

The primary objective of the Advisory Board was to provide a report of findings and
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners addressing proposed changes, if any, to Utah
County’s form of government. The findings and recommendations of this report have been
approved by the Advisory Board.

Additional objectives of the Advisory Board included:

A. Increase public awareness of the value and role of county government.
B. Ensure public awareness of the Advisory Board and its purpose — thereby, manage
expectations of what the Advisory Board’s purpose was and was not.
C. Inform the public of opportunities to provide the Advisory Board with feedback and insights
into the current and future states of Utah County’s government structure.
D. Inform the Board of Commissioners and voting population of Utah County of the Advisory
Board’s findings and recommendations.

Scope

The commission charged the Advisory Board to examine:

A. Optimal composition of the legislative and executive functions.
B. Analysis of compensation structure and full-time versus part-time responsibilities for the
elected officials and staff.
C. Geographic districting.
D. The best option among the government forms currently allowed under Utah State Code and
the attractiveness and feasibility of considering a form of government that would first
require a modification of state code, if applicable.
E. The ideas presented in the Optional Plan for Utah County Government that is the subject of
the petition currently being circulated in Utah County.
F. Budgetary impact of any modifications to the form of government.
G. Optimal timing, deadlines, and legal considerations for placing a recommended change on
the ballot.
H. Optimal implementation timeline and management of legal issues for voters, candidates,
elected officials, etc. and whether to consider phasing of any proposed changes, as well as
the process and limitations for future modifications and evolutions of county government.
I. Any other recommendations for improved governance.

Advisory Board Composition

The Advisory Board was comprised of Utah County residents who represented different
perspectives of Utah County’s urban and rural populations, unincorporated areas, smaller and
larger municipalities, educational systems and institutions, elected officials, and the general public.
The Advisory Board was nonpartisan, and members were not directly involved with the citizens’

6
petition (Optional Plan for Utah County Government, see Appendix I). Members of the Advisory
Board included Cameron Martin (chair), Rex Facer (vice chair), Heidi Balderree, Clint Betts, Curt
Bramble, Clark Caras, Craig Conover, Deidre Henderson, Kirk Hunsaker, Michelle Kaufusi, Quinn
Mecham, Mike Mendenhall, Jefferson Moss, Ifo Pili, and Rob Smith.

Public Engagement

A critical aspect of the Advisory Board’s charge was to engage key constituents and the general
public in the process of assessing the current government and possible changes to Utah County’s
form of government. To facilitate the critical need for public engagement through easy and
accessible means, the Utah County Board of Commissioners authorized the Advisory Board to
create a website — UtahCountyFuture.com — through a third-party vendor because the internal
capabilities of the county could not accommodate this need at the time the Advisory Board needed
website support. The website publicly shared materials the Advisory Board used to inform itself of
its commission, announced meetings with access to a Facebook Live stream to watch and review
Advisory Board meetings, and, most importantly, solicited feedback from the general public.

A copy of each Advisory Board meeting agenda and minutes are included in the appendices of this
report (see Appendix C). A list of the meetings and constituency groups engaged are listed below.
All meetings were publicly noticed and open to the public. All persons who attended any Advisory
Board meeting were given the opportunity to address the Advisory Board.

Date Meeting / Function Time Location

Riverside Country Club
March 7:30 – 9:30
Inaugural GGAB meeting (2701 N. University Ave,
29 am
Provo)
Research report — the context of
April county government in Utah; 4:00 – 6:00 Historic County Courthouse
11 Utah County organizational pm (51 S. University Ave., Provo)
structure
Silicon Slopes
April Salt Lake County Panel 4:00 – 6:00
(2600 Executive Pkwy. Suite
18 Community Members pm
140, Lehi)
Petitioners UVU: 213c Sorensen Center
April 7:30 – 9:30
Utah Association of Counties (Utah Valley University,
25 am
Public comment Orem)
City mayors, city councilors, BYU: 710 Tanner Building
May 7:30 – 9:30
other local officials (Brigham Young University,
2 am
Public comment Provo)
May Former Utah County 4:00 – 6:00
Nebo School District*
9 commissioners pm

7
 Utah County employees (350 South Main, Spanish
Public comment Fork)
Legislators (state and federal) Alpine School District*
May 4:00 – 6:00
Public comment Boardroom (575 N 100 E,
16 pm
ONUM report American Fork)
Eagle Mountain City
May 3:00 – 6:00 Building*
GGAB deliberation
23 pm (1650 Stagecoach Run, Eagle
Mountain)
UVU: SC, Center Stage
June 3:00 – 5:00
GGAB final deliberation (Utah Valley University,
13 pm
Orem)
Report findings and
June Commission Chambers
recommendations to the Utah 1:00 pm
20 (100 E Center St, Provo)
County Commission
* Meetings that were streamed through Facebook Live; accessed from the website:
UtahCountyFuture.com

RESEARCH AND FINDINGS

Public Feedback

A core strategy to collect public input was presented through the UtahCountyFuture.com website.
41 people (16 Utah County employees and 25 general public respondents) submitted feedback
through the Advisory Board’s website. A domain analysis was conducted to identify common
themes, which are listed below.

1. The vast majority of commenters (78 percent) indicated a preference to change from the
current three-member commission form of government.1

2. A slight majority (51 percent) of the comments were in favor of a change to a larger
commission that includes a five- or seven-member county council. The primary benefits
articulated included enhancing the elected body’s representativeness and increased
capacity meet the needs of a growing Utah County.

3. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents indicated a preference for a mayor-council form of
government.

1 Note that the percentages are for the portion of comments in each domain compared to the total number of
comments. So, for the first domain, change from current form, 78% of comments (or 32 of 41 comments) discussed
the change in government from its current form.

8
 4. Another strong theme among the submitted comments was a concern around
accountability. 39 percent of comments indicated a concern that there is little accountability
and insufficient oversight within the current county commission form of government. To
remedy this issue, commenters frequently indicated a need for separation of powers and a
more comprehensive system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative
branches of government.

5. Nearly one-third of respondents (30 percent) indicated that they believe change to a mayor-
council form of government will create a better balance of power and more accurately
represent all areas.

6. Slightly fewer than one-quarter of respondents (23 percent) suggested Utah County needs
more commissioners to improve representation of a growing county.

7. More than one-fifth of respondents (22 percent) were concerned that under the current
commission form, county commissioners have too much power.

8. Again, more than one-fifth of respondents (22 percent) indicated that they did feel
adequately represented in the areas they live in, especially in rural areas of the county.

9. Finally, one-fifth (20 percent) noted that the responsibility of governing is too much for only
three commissioners and this limits their ability to adequately manage the growth of the
county.

All submitted feedback, including that which is summarized above, is included verbatim in
Appendix D.

Research

The Advisory Board enlisted the assistance of students at Brigham Young University and Utah
Valley University to conduct different aspects of research relevant to the Advisory Board’s charge.
The BYU students were all graduate students in the Master of Public Administration program in the
Romney Institute of Public Service and Ethics. They provided the Advisory Board a summary of
relevant research articles regarding counties from across the United States exploring or dealing
with changing their forms of government (see Appendix E), an assessment of county structures
correlated with economic development endeavors (see Appendix F), and a summary of services
provided by Utah County (see Appendix G).

The Office of New Urban Mechanics (ONUM) at Utah Valley University conducted a statewide,
regional, and national benchmarking study of county governments, which identified counties
comparable to Utah County across such characteristics as population, area, density, and growth
rate, in order to assess ways in which Utah County governance may differ from that national sample

9
of counties most similar to it (see Appendix H). This study looked at all counties in Utah, and all
counties across the nation.

The current governance systems within the state of Utah vary from county to county, with the vast
majority (23 out of 29 counties) using a three-commissioner form of government. However, of
these 23 counties (including Utah County), only four have a population greater than 100,000
people, with all others having a population fewer than 50,000 people. Three of the four larger
counties with a three-commission structure are either experiencing challenges to their form of
government or are taking direct steps to explore or change their form of government. Two counties,
Grand and Wasatch, utilize a council-manager system, with seven council members each. Summit
County also uses a council-manager system, with a five-member council. Salt Lake and Cache
counties currently use an executive-council (mayor-council) form of government. Lastly, Morgan
County uses a seven-member council system with no manager.

After conducting initial research, most counties in the state of Utah confirmed that they are satisfied
with their current form of government. However, Grand County is experiencing a division over the
council-manager form of government. Washington, Garfield, Emery, and Daggett counties are also
experiencing issues related to their current commissioner form of government, and Weber County
will be placing the question to change forms of government on the November 2019 ballot. Utah
County is unique in the context of Utah because of its nature, scope, current size, and projected
growth; therefore, there is no real peer county in Utah.

On a national level, government structure varies widely across the nation; however, most states
have some form of a three-commissioner system. Several states have a government system similar
or equivalent to the council-manager form of government. In the broad spectrum of governance
systems within the nation, it is rare to find a form of government that contains an elected executive
on the county level.

To find similar counties to Utah County for comparison and research purposes, some benchmark
criteria were established based on population, density, growth rate, if the state is politically a red or
blue state, the percentage of urban and rural areas, overall area, and the region of the country. Fifty
counties across the nation were identified as reasonably similar to Utah County using the
aforementioned criteria, and it was concluded that eight counties are most similar to Utah County
in nature and scope. Those counties are:
 Ada, Idaho
 Pinal, Arizona
 Clackamas, Oregon
 Williamson, Texas
 El Paso, Colorado
 Will, Illinois
 Polk, Florida
 Johnson, Kansas

10
The vast majority of cohort counties have a separate chief administrative officer (CAO). There were
a few exceptions, usually when state code prohibited such structure, but even those government
systems have de facto, unofficial administrators.

In total, 64 percent of the cohort counties have a CAO, while nine percent have an unofficial CAO,
and six percent have no CAO. Six percent of the cohort counties utilize a judge-elective format,
whereas 15 percent have an elected official instead of a CAO.

The advantages of a separate CAO structure include professionalism, scale of growth, cost-
efficiency, and reduction of corruption and mismanagement. A potential disadvantage of the
separate CAO structure is an increase in conflict.

Of the cohort counties, 94 percent have some or all district-based seats, whereas six percent have
at-large seats only. The advantages of district-based seats include the ability to better represent all
communities, the ability to represent the rural portions of the county, an increase in civic
participation, and elimination of discrimination in representation. Complexity is a concern
presented in district-based seats.

In conclusion, Utah County is currently a significant outlier relative to comparable counties across
the nation, in that it operates under a three-commissioner system, has no separate CAO, and uses
exclusively at-large seats for purposes of electing legislative officers.

Findings

The following are the key findings of the Advisory Board based on the scope of work it was
commissioned to conduct within the set timeframe (by the end of May 2019).

A. Optimal composition of the legislative and executive functions:

The current three-member commission is effective and efficient — perhaps more so

than any other form of county government. However, without good actors, it is easily
manipulated or perceived as being manipulated by various actors, even when those
actors are well-intended. Ironically, it was clearly evident that regardless of its
understood effectiveness and efficiencies, almost all feedback received addressed the
ineffectiveness and inefficiencies created by real or perceived manipulation of this form
of government. A primary driver for this sentiment is due to the melding of the
legislative and executive function into a single three-person decision making body,
which, in the minds of most people offering feedback, creates a lake of accountability
(checks and balances) and reduced transparency (doing the work of the public in the
light of day). The perception of a transparency issue is fed by concerns with the public
meetings laws — that when two commissioners discuss a matter not in a formal public
meeting, they are brokering deals contrary to the public meeting laws.

11
 With rare exception, the public sentiment was in favor of expanding the county
commission to a five- or seven-member part-time county council. The overwhelming
sentiment was that the work of Utah County requires — and will soon require as the
county grows to be a county of the first class — the attention of full-time administrative
officials and a more representative council. The Advisory Board agreed with this
sentiment and, therefore, focused its deliberation between the county executive-council
(mayor-council) and county council-manager forms of government permitted by state
code. Both of these forms provide a structure that addresses the concerns and desires to
have a form of government that holds its elective officials accountable and transparent
in its dealings, is efficient and effective with its limited resources, is representative and
responsive to the public it serves, and is professionally managed and able to deal with
the complexities of a rapidly growing and complex county.

B. Analysis of compensation structure and full-time versus part-time responsibilities for elected
officials and staff:

The Advisory Board is comprised of citizen volunteers, leading very busy lives, who did
not have the expertise or time to conduct a compensation analysis for the various forms
of government and their associated elected officials and cost. With a deadline to
conclude its work by the end of May 2019, the Advisory Board focused its time on
conducting qualitative research and gathering public and key constituent feedback to
inform its recommendations. However, as noted in the recommendations of this report,
the Advisory Board acknowledges the importance of properly assessing the
compensation levels of county-level elected officials and recommends it be done
through another committee specifically charged with benchmarking compensation
levels of elected officials for a county as large and complex as Utah County.

C. Geographic districting:

Knowing that there are well-established judicial criteria to guide the establishment and
boundaries of political districts, the Advisory Board did not spend its limited time
analyzing district boundaries. Another committee should be constituted by the Utah
County Board of Commissioner to research and recommend political districts consistent
with this Advisory Board’s proposed new form of government and the state’s judicial
criteria for establishing political districts. The Advisory Board did receive and reviewed
the proposed districts by the Optional Plan for Utah County Government petitioners,
and they seemed reasonable and would serve as a good starting point for a districting
committee to begin its work (see Appendix I).

D. The best option among the government forms currently allowed under Utah State Code and
the attractiveness and feasibility of considering a form of government that would first require
a modification of state code, if applicable:

12
 Based on the research conducted and public input received, the Advisory Board did
recommend the best option currently allowed under Utah State Code (see
Recommendation #1 below).

E. The ideas presented in the Optional Plan for Utah County Government that is the subject of the
petition currently being circulated in Utah County.

The Advisory Board directly engaged petitioners for an Optional Plan for Utah County
Government to understand their position, rationale, research, and plan for a new
proposed form of government for Utah County. It was evident that the petitioners were
well-educated on state code allowances for county forms of government, districting
requirements, and are proposing a form of government that is consistent with the
recommendations of the Advisory Board (see Appendix I). However, given the time
constraint the Advisory Board is not making a recommendation on all of the specific
details of the Optional Plan for Utah County Government.

F. Budgetary impact of any modifications to the form of government:

The Advisory Board did not have the time to conduct a cost analysis of the various forms
of government. However, the Advisory Board took a clear stand that regardless of
budgetary implications of changing Utah County’s form of government, changing forms
is the right thing to do and, therefore, another committee should be constituted to
assess the budgetary impacts of changing to and sustaining a new form of government.

G. Optimal timing, deadlines, and legal considerations for placing a recommended change on the
ballot:

The Advisory Board consulted with the County Attorney’s office on all its
recommendations and specifically recommended that the county move forward in a
timely fashion to bring the proposed change of government to the voters of Utah County
(see Recommendation #4).

H. Optimal implementation timeline and management of legal issues for voters, candidates,
elected officials, etc., and whether to consider phasing of any proposed changes, as well as the
process and limitations for future modifications and evolutions of county government:

The Advisory Board consulted with the County Attorney’s office on all its
recommendations and specifically recommended that the county move forward in a
timely fashion to bring the proposed change of government to the voters of Utah County
(see Recommendation #4).

I. Any other recommendations for improved governance:

13
 The Advisory Board did recommend additional governance improvements within its
recommendation for a new form of government (see Recommendation #2). Other
observations are shared in the conclusion of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Four Options for County Government

The Advisory Board asked the Utah County Attorney’s office to provide a summary of the possible
forms of government under current state code that it could select from as its recommended form of
government. Deputy County Attorney Paul Jones provided the Advisory Board a memorandum
summarizing the four optional forms of county government currently allowed in state code (see
Appendix J). In general, they are:
A. County commission (current three-member commission),
B. Expanded county commission (five- or seven-member part-time commission),
C. County executive-council (commonly referred to as a mayor-council), and
D. County council-manager.

Guiding Principles and Values

To assist the Advisory Board in its deliberation and recommendation of a form of government for
Utah County, the Advisory Board identified key principles and values as it reviewed the research
and received public input throughout the process of fulfilling its commission. A summary of guiding
principles and values was discussed in the Advisory Board’s final public meeting in preparation for
its deliberation of options and determination of its official recommendations to the Utah County
Commission (see Appendix K). Below are the Advisory Board-approved guiding principles and
values.

A. Accountability (The ability to hold those in power to account for their actions.)
a. Rule of law
b. Checks and balances
i. One branch of government cannot act unilaterally
ii. Veto/override powers
c. Separation of powers
i. Unique responsibilities for executive and legislative branches
ii. Budget approval/management
B. Transparency
a. The public’s business should be done in the light
b. Public meeting laws
C. 4-Es (These necessitate trade-offs as they may be mutually exclusive at times. The challenge
is to find the best balance among them.)

14
 a. Efficiency
i. Maximizing the output for a given level of inputs
ii. Limited government
b. Effectiveness
i. The ability to meet objectives and demands
ii. Affordable
c. Equality
i. Sameness, without differentiation
ii. Opportunities
iii. Outcomes
d. Equity
i. Fairness and access to opportunities
ii. Absence of avoidable differences
D. Representation
a. All at-large seats
b. District seats
i. Number of districts
ii. Population-based
iii. Geographic-based (urban/rural, city/unincorporated)
c. At-large seats with district seats
i. Number of “at-large” versus “district” seats
ii. 3-, 5-, 7-, or 9-seats
iii. Neutral body to recommend boundaries
d. Of the County
i. Speak on behalf of
ii. Champion
iii. Negotiate
E. Responsiveness
a. Timeliness
b. Willingness to address issues
c. Sense of community obligation
d. Actionable (ability to get things done)
F. Professionalism
a. Expertise of public sector management
b. Demeanor
c. Not partisan (doing the right things, the right way for the right reasons)
G. Future orientation
a. Ability to respond to growth
b. Ability to respond to changing preferences
H. Summary guiding statement: We want a form of government that provides an effective
structure that serves the people, responds to growth and issues in a timely way, and
discharges its resources in a fiscally and responsive manner.

15
With these above principles, values, and guiding statement as the backdrop for evaluating each
form of government and to make official recommendations to the Utah County Commission, the
Advisory Board presents the following recommendations with the expectation that the Utah County
Commission will act upon them for the betterment of the county and its future prosperity.

Motions and Recommendations

The Utah County Good Governance Advisory Board voted on seven motions during its meeting on
May 23. Pursuant to the seven motions, the Advisory Board recommends the following actions be
taken by the Utah County Board of Commissioners.

Motion #1: We recommended a county executive council form of government with a seven-
member council, five of which are based upon districts, two of which are at large. Motion passed
unanimously.

Recommendation #1: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should support a
change of Utah County’s form of government from its current three-member “county
commission” form to the “county executive-council” form of government, with a full-time
elected at-large mayor, an elected seven-member part-time county council that has five
seats elected by districts and two seats elected at large.

Given that the name in code of the recommended government form may not be clear to the
general public (county executive-council), the Advisory Board recommends referring to the
recommended form as the “mayor-council” form of government, terms that the public are
more familiar with.

Motion #2: We recommended that Utah County create an ordinance that establishes a chief
administrative officer (CAO) function in support of the mayor-council form of government and with
the process of advise and consent. Motion passed unanimously.

Recommendation #2: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should pass a
county ordinance to hire a professionally trained and skilled CAO to aid in the day-to-day
management of the county.

State code allows an elected mayor within the mayor-council form of government to
appoint a deputy mayor, it does not require the mayor or deputy mayor to be professionally
trained in public sector management. Therefore, the Advisory Board strongly recommends
that the Utah County Board of County Commissioners pass an ordinance stipulating that a
professionally trained and skilled CAO be hired to administratively support both the office
of the mayor and the county council. Furthermore, the hiring of the CAO must be done
collaboratively through an “advise and consent” process between the mayor and county
council. Finally, the Advisory Board agreed that how the administrative function was to be
established and what authority the CAO is to be given should be determined by the mayor

16
 and county council; however, it is the Advisory Board’s opinion that the existing three
policy analysts supporting the current three commissioners report directly to the appointed
CAO to assist in her or his administrative duties in support of both the offices of the mayor
and county council.

Motion #3: We recommended the mayor should be full-time and council members part-time.
Motion passed unanimously.

See Recommendation #1.

Motion #4: We recommended a special election to be in November 2019 to vote on a change of

form of government for Utah County, with the proposed change taking effect January 2021. Further,
this motion was affirmed at the Board’s June 13 meeting.2

Recommendation #3: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should move
expeditiously to hold a special election in November 2019 to seek voter approval for a
change in Utah County’s form of government to the mayor-council form.

If Utah County voters support a change of government, then mayoral and county council
candidates would be able to declare and run for office as part of the November 2020 ballot
with those elected taking office on January 1, 2021.

Motion #5: We recommended the Utah County Commission follow the well-established principles
for district criteria in setting boundaries for the five county council seats. Motion passed
unanimously.

Recommendation #4: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should establish a
nonpartisan committee to follow established federal and state judicial criteria and
recommend the geographic boundaries for the five district seats of the county council.
Public engagement in this process guards against perceptions of self-serving decisions
made by county officials.

Motion #6: We recommended a compensation commission be established to assess and

recommend compensation levels for the mayor, county council members, and CAO. Motion passed
unanimously.

Recommendation #5: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should establish a
compensation committee comprised of volunteers with expertise in cost analysis and
compensation. Public engagement in this process guards against perceptions of self-serving
decisions made by county officials.

2The Board voted 9-1 to adopt the following motion “to affirm the recommendation for a special election to be held in
November 2019 to vote on a change of government form for Utah County with it taking effect in 2021.”

17
 This committee would, on a regular basis, review the compensation levels and practices for
Utah County’s mayor, deputy mayors, county council members, and CAO. Public
engagement in this process guards against perceptions of self-serving decisions made by
county officials.

Motion #7: We recommended the County Commission engage in an education campaign to inform
the residents of Utah County of the county’s services and proposed changes to its form of
government. Motion passed unanimously.

Recommendation #6: The Utah County Board of County Commissioners should educate
Utah County voters on the mayor-council form of government and how it holds elected
officials accountable, improves representation of all areas and communities within the
county, and how the transition will be funded.

Given that Utah’s Political Activities of a Public Entity Act (Utah Code Ann. $20A-ll-I20I, et
seq.) limits the activities and abilities of a public entity, such as Utah County, to engage in
expenditures for political purposes as well as making expenditures in effort to influence a
ballot proposition, the Advisory Board recommends the Utah County Board of County
Commissioners engage with the community and other interested groups to facilitate the
effort to educate Utah County voters, in accordance with PAPEA, of the county’s need to
change its form of government. This is also a great opportunity to educate the people of
Utah County of the overall services provided by the county government. One important
element the educational efforts should include is an estimate of the cost of transitioning to
and the implementation of a mayor-council form of government with a CAO. This
assessment should include an analysis of whether the current county budget can absorb
these costs or if increased resources are necessary.

CONCLUSION

Summary

Overwhelmingly, the public sentiment and feedback received by the Utah County Good Governance
Advisory Board (Advisory Board) has been that a change to Utah County’s form of government is
needed and desired. Based upon that sentiment and public feedback, it was evident to the Advisory
Board that regardless of the current form’s effectiveness and efficiencies, a three-member
commission that melds the executive branch with the legislative branch of government for a county
with the size, scope, and nature as Utah County is no longer sufficient or acceptable. The
organizational demands on the county have grown in complexity with its increased diverse
populations and demands on county services — a trajectory that will not slow for decades. The cry
for functional accountability of our county officials and how services are managed, improved
transparency of officials’ dealings and decision-making processes, and a need for balanced

18
representation among the rural and urban populations were received loud and clear by the
Advisory Board.

Appreciating the need for Utah County to change from its current form of government, the Advisory
Board explored three alternatives to the current form of government allowed under state code.
First, an expanded county commission (a five- or seven-member part-time commission); second, a
county executive-council (commonly referred to as a mayor-council form); and third, a county
council-manager form of government. To select the best fit for the needs of the county, the Advisory
Board identified, approved, and used guiding principles and values based on public sentiment and
feedback to eliminate the expanded county commission form, which left the mayor-council form
and the council-manager forms to assess and debate for fit.

While the Advisory Board acknowledged the significant merits and strengths of the council-
manager form of government — specifically having a trained professional to manage the day-to-day
function of the county — the board decided that politically the mayor-council form was most widely
understood, specifically requested by most who engaged with the Advisory Board, and, therefore,
has the greatest chance of winning at the polls. However, upon review of the state code outlining
the available forms of government, the Advisory Board also realized that state code does not
prohibit the county from passing its own ordinance to require that, along with an elected full-time
county mayor and part-time county council, the county hire a trained professional — a chief
executive officer (CAO) — to manage the day-to-day functions of the county and who can
administratively support the operations of the county. To make such a structure work, the Advisory
Board also recommended that the hiring and firing of the appointed CAO be done with advice and
consent between the mayor and county council members.

As part of the recommended mayor-council form of government, the Advisory Board also
recommended the county council be comprised of seven part-time elected officials with five elected
from seats representing five specific districts and two elected countywide. Balanced representation
between the urban and rural (unincorporated) areas of the county was a consistent theme through
the feedback received by the Advisory Board. Other consistent themes called for were improved
accountability, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and equality with a vision for the future.

Pursuant to the Advisory Board’s recommendation for the Utah County Commission to call a special
election so the voters can decide whether or not to change Utah County’s form of government in
November 2019, the County Commission must: 1) perform its due diligence and understand the
fiscal impact and resources necessary to change its form of government, 2) determine the district
boundaries of the five county council seats, and 3) educate the residents of Utah County of their
options pertaining to the county’s form of government, their costs, and the services the county
provides. The Advisory Board also recommends that the County Commission engage the
community in performing these tasks to help guard against the perception of county officials acting
out of their own self-interests.

19
Other Issues and Observations

Through the course of conducting its business, the Advisory Board identified other issues and made
other observations beyond its scope and commission; nonetheless, the Advisory Board believes it is
important to share them with the Utah County Board of County Commissioners for its follow-up
and address. They include:
A. While state law does not currently allow term limits for the county mayor and county
council members, the issue should be explored. Part of the feedback the board received was
the need to be broadly representative of the community, and term limits may be one
mechanism to achieve this objective.
B. Utah County has not made significant changes to the county’s tax structure in decades. As a
result, the county has operated with very limited resources. As the county grows and
becomes a county of the first class, the county should evaluate its tax structure and
spending priorities to ensure that there is the capacity to appropriately fund a new form of
government, maintain quality service delivery, and provide resources to deal with a
growing and increasingly complex county.

20
 APPENDICES

Appendix A — Utah County ordinance 2019:11 and 2019:50

Appendix B — Advisory Board Charter

Appendix C — Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Appendix D — UtahCountyFuture.com Website Feedback

Appendix E — Summary of Relevant Research Articles

Appendix F — Assessment County Structures Correlated with Economic Development Endeavors

Appendix G — Utah County Government Services Summary

Appendix H — UVU Office of New Urban Mechanics (ONUM) Report

Appendix I — “Optional Plan for Utah County Government” Petition Information

Appendix J — Utah County Attorney Office Memorandum: Optional Forms of County Government

Appendix K — Board General Discussion and Deliberation Outline

21