Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Competition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill requiring economic review before cities enter private‑sector competition
Summary
Senate Bill 222, a measure requiring municipalities to conduct feasibility studies and public hearings before offering services that compete with private businesses, advanced to the third‑reading calendar after a long floor debate about scope and whether quasi‑public entities should be included.
The Utah Senate moved First Substitute Senate Bill 222 to the third reading calendar on March 1, 2004, after extended floor debate on how broadly the state should constrain municipal activities that compete with private enterprise.
Senator Scott Jenkins, sponsor, said the bill requires municipalities that perform a service for the first time that would compete with the private sector to complete an economic and feasibility study, hold a public hearing 20–60 days after publication, and disclose expected revenues and expenses. "If the service meets a need that is not already being met by the private sector," Jenkins said, the municipality must show the economic impact within a 15‑mile radius and make the study public.
Supporters described the measure as a modest check on municipal actions that can undercut local businesses, citing examples such as municipally owned reception centers and golf courses that can operate on subsidized terms. Senator Eastman urged strengthening the bill to include a protest mechanism or a referendum option, and several senators asked that quasi‑governmental entities (for example, transit authorities or other publicly subsidized entities) be included.
Critics — foremost among them Senator Thomas — warned the draft is overly broad and could sweep in core municipal functions (ambulance, police, water), thereby adding costs and complexity. Thomas argued that if certain municipal functions should be off limits, the statute should state those prohibitions plainly rather than require an expensive feasibility study in every case.
Sponsor Jenkins acknowledged drafting constraints and said the substitute represents the furthest he could take the measure with available support; after discussion senators approved moving the bill to a third‑reading calendar by voice/roll call. The recorded tally was 19 aye, 7 no, 3 absent.
Next steps: sponsors indicated willingness to pursue amendments in committee or on third reading to clarify scope, add quasi‑public entities, and refine protest or public‑vote mechanisms; the bill will return to the floor on third reading with potential written amendments.
