Lines 34-35: cities shall mail, but counties don’t?

Shall mail, AND post on website

42-43: County can send an electronic notice to email addys, but that does not count for us?

Email addys OR post on website

 Suggested language:

Municipality shall provide notice that complies with 3(c)(ii)

May comply by including notice with newsletter, utility bill, or other mailed material, PLUS email

AND post on website/Public Notice Website

Thanks for giving us the chance to opine on SB 69. In its current form, SB 69 increases the notification options for a city or county for a ballot proposition. As I mentioned in my testimony before the Senate Political Subs Committee last week, we are comfortable with the bill’s intent and the notice content requirements of the ballot title, deadline, and request instructions. I met with Rep. Daw on Friday and we agreed that the SB 69 notification requirement could move independent of our referendum working group. As a result, ULCT has some recommendations to improve SB 69 in this session. I’m copying UAC on this email for their input as well.

The current SB 69 requires a city to post a notice on our website (lines 39-41). The bill also requires a city to mail a notice to each household in the city (lines 35-36). The bill then allows a city to include the notice with a newsletter, utility bill, or other material (lines 37-39). The two mandatory sections—website and mail—are both problematic.

First, there are still communities in Utah that do not have websites. We have nearly 100 towns in the state with a population of less than 1,000. Many of those towns do not have websites and are not required to have websites. However, those towns post notices of their meetings on the Utah Public Notice Website and physical notice at City Hall (or equivalent principal office, per 52-4-202). Thus, the language could require to post on website or on the Public Notice Website if the city/town does not have a website.

Second, the bill requires cities to mail a notice to each household, regardless of whether the household includes registered voters. The mailing costs for Lehi City to mail a postcard notice to the 12,000+ houses in the city at 49 cents would be nearly $6,000. That’s an expensive effort to solicit for/against arguments, especially when there are other less costly and more effective ways to contact people. 

Third, the bill does not have the same requirements of counties. Lines 42-46 require a county to send an electronic notice to email addresses or post a notice on the county’s website. The bill does not require counties to mail a notice.

Consequently, here are some recommendations on SB 69:

First, require cities and counties to post notice on either our websites or the Utah Public Notice Website if necessary as well as at a public building according to similar Open Meeting notice requirements.

Second, remove the costly mailing requirement on cities.

Third, the bill could provide a variety of other options for cities and counties alike, including email, utility bills, newsletters, and other material regularly mailed, like the current draft does in lines 37-39 and 44-46. By keeping the language permissive, it allows a local city/county to use the methods that are most appropriate in their community. It also would keep the requirements similar between cities and counties, which will make the notice requirements easier to administer.