Keeping House

by Representative Kraig Powell

February 24, 2009

This week, I would like to provide an update on a number of bills that many of you have inquired about through emails, letters and phone calls to me. As the pace of the legislative session gets more and more hectic, it is easy to lose sight of where a bill is in the process.

If you know the bill number (or the name of the legislator who is sponsoring it), you can always go to www.le.utah.gov and click on “bill status” to see what the most recent action has been and the schedule for any committee hearings on the bill. The committee hearings are important because that is where the public is allowed to take the microphone and comment on the bill in front of the legislators who are on the relevant committee. You can also listen live to committee hearings and watch floor debate at this same web site.

School Funding Equalization (H.B. 66): This bill would remove the authority of local school districts to impose several property tax levies and would instead impose a higher basic property tax rate on all citizens of Utah. Apparently, the goal of the bill is to provide more funding for certain school districts by shifting money from other districts.

I oppose this bill because it removes most of the ability for local school boards to set their own property tax rates to respond to the people and needs in their area. Duchesne and Wasatch School districts would lose millions of dollars under the proposal.

This bill passed the House Revenue and Taxation Committee by a vote of 8 to 4. The bill came up for debate on the House floor last Thursday, but was immediately held by the sponsor, presumably so that she could try to round up more votes to get it passed.

Access to Government Records (H.B. 122): This bill would allow a government entity to deny a request by a citizen to obtain a government record if the record relates to pending or “anticipated” litigation. I believe this definition is too broad and could greatly reduce the freedom of information in our society.

The bill passed 7-3 in committee. This week, when the bill came to the House floor, I introduced an amendment stating that only “reasonably imminent” litigation could justify withholding a record. My amendment failed, and the bill then passed the House by a vote of 43-27. I voted against the bill.

Stream and River Access (H.B. 187): This bill has generated more letters, calls and emails to me than any other topic this year. The bill establishes standards for using streams and rivers that flow over private property.

On 19 stretches of private river bottom throughout the state that are named in the bill, citizens would be allowed to wade for purposes of fishing. On these stretches, entrance to the river is allowed only at public access points, but anglers can then traverse the river, and can exit the water temporarily to walk around a barrier in the river and then re-enter.

The bill establishes a state board that can add to or subtract from the list of 19 protected river stretches, but the board operates only until the year 2015. The bill does not affect any publicly owned stretches of river bottom. As I read it, the bill also does not affect the historic right of Utahns to float on any river or stream in the state (including those with private river bottoms) as long as they do not touch the river bottom.

I have studied this bill extensively. Legislation is needed to clarify private property rights and anglers’ access. But I think this bill goes too far by establishing some harsh standards. For example, it prohibits a fisherman wading in a protected stream from “altering soil or a rock.” I think these tough standards will make it difficult for outdoorsman to use even the 19 stretches that are supposedly protected. And I do not believe that the 19 accessible stretches of private river bottom are enough. So I plan to vote no on this bill as written. The bill passed in committee last week 10 to 4 and is now coming to the House floor.

School Parent Groups (S.B. 199): I call this the “Anti-PTA Bill.” The bill would require a public school to provide equal access to all parent groups that want to work within the school.

I have no problem with that policy. But the bill then goes on to say that a school may not work with a parent organization that requires the payment of dues. This to me is clearly an attack directed against PTA groups.

In the Senate Committee hearing, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Curt Bramble, said that he had received complaints about this provision, and so he amended the bill to say that the school can still work with a parent group that charges dues if the group agrees to waive the dues upon request.

I think that is an improvement, but I still do not see why the bill is necessary. Also, the bill’s requirement that a school may not “explicitly or implicitly favor or endorse one parent group over another” in my view needlessly invites litigation.

I will vote no on this bill, which will probably come before the House Education Committee that I sit on. The bill passed the Senate Education Committee by a vote of 5 to 1 and is now on the Senate floor.

As always, you may contact me at kraigpowell [at] utah.gov or by calling 435-654-1550.