×
×
homepage logo
SUBSCRIBE

Pleasant Grove rejects citizen referendum application to place budget amendment on ballot

By Carlene Coombs - | Feb 2, 2024

Isaac Hale, Daily Herald file photo

A pothole remains along a street in a Pleasant Grove residential neighborhood Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2020.

Pleasant Grove City is rejecting a citizen referendum application to place a recent city budget amendment on the ballot after the city attorney said the issue is not legally referable for a vote.

The referendum’s sponsors were notified of their application’s rejection by the city on Tuesday, about seven days after they sent in the application.

The budget amendment in question occurred at the Jan. 17 City Council meeting, where the council approved moving $600,000 from the city’s road fund into the general fund.

Jacob Zonts, one of the referendum’s sponsors and a Pleasant Grove resident, said they were surprised by the denial as he had previously been told it was a referable issue.

“When we got the letter, it was quite a surprise,” he said.

The city has $4.5 million set aside for road maintenance, and during the council meeting, the public works director stated the yearly cost for road upkeep is about $5.4 million. The city also will receive about $750,000 from the county in sales tax revenue to be used for transportation.

“After researching the Utah Constitution, Utah statutes and Utah case law, it is my opinion that the Resolution is not referable,” wrote City Attorney Christine Peterson in a letter.

According to Peterson’s letter, the budget amendment was an “administrative act” and, therefore, not referable to the ballot. Utah Code states a city can reject a referendum application if the issue is administrative instead of legislative.

Peterson wrote that city councils have both legislative and administrative powers, with state law directing councils to use resolutions — like the resolution used to pass the budget amendment — when making administrative actions.

“The Resolution does not constitute a referable legislative act,” Peterson wrote. “The Resolution does not promulgate any law at all. The Resolution was an administrative act by the governing body in its executive/administrative role over the City’s budget to adjust one line item.”

John St. Clair Jr., another sponsor, referenced last year’s referendum to put a property tax increase on the ballot, noting the budget and tax increase they challenged was passed via a resolution.

“If the city can pass a budget through resolution, and we can challenge that as we did successfully, to gather signatures and ultimately defeat the tax increase, I would have to think that a budget amendment would also be referable,” he said. “Logically, that makes sense to me.”

Zonts noted that the letter references a 2008 Utah Supreme Court case that cites a section of the Utah Code stating that local budgets and budget amendments are not referable to a referendum. That portion of Utah Code, 20A-7-401, was repealed in 2012 through a bill run by then-Sen. John Valentine.

In a text message on Thursday, Pleasant Grove city administrator Scott Darrington said, “We stand by our legal analysis that was sent to the petitioners in that this issue is not referable.”

Both Zonts and St. Clair said they and other citizens they’ve spoken with are concerned about the condition of Pleasant Grove’s roads.

Zonts said the roads will get worse until the city puts more money into them.

“Every dollar that they pull from the budget, from the road budget, is money we’re gonna have to spend in the future and it will be multiplied in the future,” he said.

Last year, Pleasant Grove residents voted against a property tax increase that had been approved by the City Council. Citizens had gathered signatures for a referendum to place the property tax issue on the ballot.

The projected income from the failed tax increase would have been $733,171 for the fiscal year, with the city saying funds would have gone toward the new Cook Family Park, increased police wages, another library employee and an additional firefighter.

Because those items to be funded were already planned in the budget, without the tax increase, the city will have to find funding elsewhere, according to previous Daily Herald reporting.

Zonts said they have 10 days after the notice of rejection to challenge the city’s decision, and they will likely be doing so.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)