Reviewing and Revamping the City Code

Over the course of the past few days, we've had some spirited discussion in our lower comments threads concerning the issue of re-vamping the Emerald City Code to restore council approval power in real estate transactions involving "significant parcels." Currently, the applicable city ordinance vests that power almost entirely in the mayor, with council oversight and control limited only to transactions lacking adequate consideration. Curiously, the ordinance does provide for bare formal notice and public comments in such transactions -- yet actual council approval power is conspicuously and mysteriously lacking in the current version of the ordinance.

Perhaps coincidentally, today's Standard-Examiner editorial generally calls upon local Utah city governments to review their own ordinances, in order to refine responsibilities vis-a-vis the various branches and offices in local government. "Be certain that your cities are functioning according to the letter of state laws...," the Standard-Examiner admonishes.

The power over acquisition, management and disposition of real property is granted by the letter of state law to the city council, per provisions of Utah Code Section 10-8-2. Under this code provision, "(1) (a) A municipal legislative body may... (iii) subject to Subsections (4) and (5), purchase, receive, hold, sell, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal property for the benefit of the municipality, whether the property is within or without the municipality's corporate boundaries;..."

Additionally, Utah Code Section 10-3-1219.5 provides as follows: "In the council-mayor form of government, the council shall, by ordinance, provide for the manner in which... (1) municipal property is bought, sold, traded, encumbered, or otherwise transferred;..."

Unfortunately, the former "lame-duck Gang of Six" council amended Ogden City Code Section 4-3A-5 (presumably under dictate of the latter above state code section) to delegate almost all authority for the transfer of city-owned real property to the mayor, (in December of 2005 we believe, during the last month of its term of office.) This ordinance amendment amounted to an irresponsible and inexplicable over-delegation of the council's state-designated property-transfer approval power, in our opinion, and an near-complete abdication of the council's role under state law to serve as a check and balance against the executive branch (the mayor.)

We join the Standard-Examiner in its admonition that "[a] little work could save a heap of trouble down the road," and we accordingly urge our readers to contact their councilmembers and demand that the council act with all deliberate speed to restore to itself 1) the power to reject transactions which it deems to be not in the city's best interests, and 2) the approval power over all transactions involving properties defined as "significant parcels" under the City code.

Restoring the council's proper role respecting real estate transactions would be a fundamental formula for good representative government, we believe. In fact, there is no arguable reason, in our view, that the council should defer to the executive branch in any matter involving acquisition, management or disposition of "significant" Emerald City properties.

Reader comments are of course invited.

Update 12/12/06 10:27 a.m. MT: The Standard-Examiner reports a quick and public-spirited response from the Syracuse City Council, whom the Std-Ex editorially-criticized only a week or two ago, for a purported lack of transparency, in its recent reshuffling respective council-mayor powers. The Std-Ex editors report that the Syracuse Council will tonight host a 20-minute power-point presentation, explaining the council's rationale, and arguing their adherence to state law requirements.

Hopefully the citizens of Emerald City will be invited to a similar power-point discussion soon, wherein our own council will be able to explain the near-complete abdication of their legislatively mandated role, i.e., supervision of Emerald City property acquistion, management and dispostion.

Either that, or they can just fix the danged problem.