OCR Text |
Show Special Purpose Districts Inefficient, Foundation Says The proliferation of ' laws relating to special purpose districts in Utah has resulted in administrative problems, increased costs, and lowered efficiency. This was the conclusion of Utah Foundation, the private research organization, in a study of special purpose districts in Utah. According to the study, special purpose districts are responsible for much of the complexity and variance in local property tax levies. Moreover, they also often lead to double taxation, taxation without representation, and taxation without the receipt of benefits. The study suggests that a codification of the law pertaining to special districts might go a long way toward solving some of these problems. At present, the laws relating to special districts are scattered through the code. This has led to duplication and ambiguity and has created problems with respect to (1) overlapping jurisdictons (2) annexations, and (3) the method employed in formulating such districts. During recent years, the number of special purpose districts in Utah has escalated. Between 1942 and 1977 the number of special districts in Utah grew by 547 percent in Utah, a rate more than twice that of the nation as a whole. In 1980 there were 173 different special purpose districts in Utah, and they levied $35.2 million in general property taxes. Such districts comprise 37 percent of all governmental units in the state. At the close of the 1979 Fiscal year they had a combined long-term debt of $191 million, compared with a total debt of $140 million for all counties and $139 million for all municipalities in the state. Foundation, analysts point out that there are a number of reasons accounting for the rapid growth of the special district form of government in Utah. They include. 1. Population movements to suburban areas which brought about an increased demand for municipal-type services, such as water, sewers, etc. 2. The inability or reluctance of some county governments to furnish such special services. 3. Objection by city taxpayers to use county general funds to supply municipal-type services in unincorporated areas. 4. The desire by some local officials to expand legal tax and debt limits. 5. The use of special districts to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation. 6. The use of special districts to raise capital for industrial development through the issuance of tax-free, low-interest bonds. Proponents of special purpose districts claim that: Special districts tend to encourage governmental cooperation, districts are close to the people, districts tax those who receive special services from government, districts can be used to promote industrial devleopment, at present, they are the only practical means of providing essential governmental services in many areas of the state. Opponents of special districts, on the other hand, charge that: Special districts increase the complexity and cost of local government, districts often are not accountable to the people they are supposed to serve, special districts make inefficient use of machinery, equipment, and manpower, districts create problems when annexations are contemplated, the haphazard growth of districts in Utah discourages orderly development in the state, districts designed to promote industrial development are subject to abuse. |