A near meltdown in parliamentary procedure recently demonstrated the volatility of attempts to resolve boundary disputes between several neighboring community councils.

Boundaries overlap between the Taylorsville-Bennion and Kearns councils, the Kearns and Oquirrh councils and the Holladay-Cottonwood and Cottonwood Heights community councils.Members of the United Association of Community Councils were attempting to decide whether to substitute a "let's sit down and talk" plan for a proposed ordinance that would let the Salt Lake County Commission have the final say in resolving overlapping boundaries.

The group voted 6-6 with six more abstaining, then voted 7-5 in favor of a substitute plan and ultimately voted 7-7 with association President Norm Sims breaking the tie in favor of the substitute proposal that would have members of competing community councils meet with the entire County Commission to find solutions to boundary overlaps.

Sims was criticized for taking a second vote after recognizing the first tie. By acting as a tie-breaker in the third vote, he sided against critics who wanted to see the original ordinance proposal presented to the County Commission.

Taylorsville-Bennion representative Jim Whitehead has lived for 10 years in the disputed area between the Taylorsville-Bennion council and Kearns. "We have worked diligently behind the scenes to resolve this," he said. "It's become a mockery of the system. It's become a joke."

The disputed boundaries also have drawn fire from the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce because businesses and developers working in disputed areas are asked, before approaching the County Planning Commission, to make development presentations to both councils. That doubles their work and slows progress, a chamber report says.

Whitehead said self-determination should be the rule in resolving boundary disputes. He favors the original ordinance, which would allow a vote by area residents with the final boundary decision made by the County Commission. The commission could group all or part of the disputed area with an existing council or could organize the gray area into a new and independent council.

But opponents of the ordinance proposal say it doesn't answer questions about who would be allowed to vote, who would pay for the vote or whether the outcome would be reflected in the County Commission's decision on the boundaries.

The ordinance proposal doesn't sit well with David Howick, Kearns representative and past association president. "Our philosophy in UACC, and it's probably our No. 1 philosophy, is that the community councils work from the bottom up. What this ordinance does say is the County Commission exclusively has the authority to come in and modify boundaries. They can hold an election, but the election is not binding."

Holladay-Cottonwood representative Rene Nelson said people living adjacent to disputed areas should have a say in what happens to their neighbors.

View Comments

But Art Haddow, representing the Imperial Community Council which hopes to extend its boundaries into the East Millcreek area, said people living in a disputed area could end up with little say about their community representation if they are outnumbered by residents of neighboring council areas.

Haddow's concern is manifest in the dispute between Holladay-Cottonwood and Cottonwood Heights, where both groups want control over the Old Mill Valley, which is mostly undeveloped and has only a handful of property owners who own large tracts that are prime for development.

Association secretary Janice Snider, also representing Kearns, initiated the ultimately adopted suggestion that the ordinance proposal be abandoned in favor of having the entire County Commission meet with disputing councils.

The commission has not yet discussed the modified role it will be asked to play in arbitrating boundary disputes.

Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.