The Summit County Council does not, after all, need to make changes to the way it appoints planning commissioners.
The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel on Tuesday issued a report clarifying the state’s laws regulating the creation of planning commissions. Essentially, the report said, Summit County’s system of two commissions was permissible and was exempt from changes made over the past 15 years.
The confusion began about eight months ago when South Summit resident Bruce Margolius brought state laws to the County Council’s attention that were in contradiction with the county’s own laws.
After consulting differing legal opinions, it was decided that the county needed to comply with the state code. Rep. Mel Brown, R-Coalville, sponsored a bill in the 2011 session of the State Legislature to buy the county time to abide by the law. Prior to Tuesday, it was believed that by Jan. 1, 2012, the County Council had to decide whether to combine the East Side and Snyderville Basin planning commissions or arrange for the public to elect three members of each. If it stayed with two commissions, the County Council would also need to allow the county manager to appoint the remaining four members of each with its consent.
Another rule the County Council already began following last month, and that influenced two appointments to the Basin commission, forbids residents of incorporated areas from serving.
It now appears that none of the changes needed to be made or are required in the future.
According to David Thomas, an attorney for the county, the County Council may continue its previous policies of appointing any qualified resident to either the East Side or the Snyderville Basin planning commissions.
As explained by the state report, the rules in the state code only apply to townships created through a vote by residents.
The problem began in 1995, when David Ure, then a state representative for Summit County and now a County Councilor, sponsored a bill to allow the county to have two planning commissions.
A year later, the Legislature passed a bill allowing unincorporated areas of a county to transform their neighborhoods into a township.
The next session, the Legislature passed a law converting all planning districts into townships and requiring them to follow the special rules governing appointments. In a special session a few months later, the Legislature eliminated any distinction between regular townships and those serving as planning districts.
But because Summit County’s planning districts are not townships in the regular sense of the word, these laws do not apply to it. According to Thomas, much of the legislative history was lost when a change was made to the state code in 2006, resulting in the current confusion.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that Summit County’s two planning districts are unique in Utah, Thomas said. It is the only place where the state laws do not apply.
At a Wednesday meeting, County Council member Sally Elliott said the information, if received earlier, may have resulted in different appointments to the Basin Planning Commission. In an email Thursday, however, she said no one has regrets about the appointments and the decisions will not be reversed.