Opinion ID: 1161597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: History of Municipal Government in Utah

Text: ¶ 9 In Martindale v. Anderson, 581 P.2d 1022 (Utah 1978), this court examined the history of municipal government in Utah and the context within which the Optional Forms Act emerged. A review of that history, as set forth in Martindale, is helpful for present purposes. ¶ 10 The Utah Constitution expressly invests the legislature with power to create municipalities within its borders. See id. at 1024 (citing Utah Const. art. XI, § 5). All municipal powers derive from the legislature, and the legislature has traditionally invested both legislative and executive power in a solitary governing body varying in name, depending upon the population classification of the municipality. See id. (citations omitted). Where a single body exercises all governing power, it has been described as government by committee. Id. Mayors or managers under this system have no significant powers independent from the council and are viewed as merely titular heads of municipal government. See id. ¶ 11 In 1959, the legislature departed from this unitary approach by enacting the Strong Mayor Form of Government Act (Act) which gave first and second class cities the option of a significantly different form of government than the government by committee approach. See id. The major difference in the strong mayor form is a formal separation of powers: the executive power resides with the mayor and the legislative powers with the council. See id. The legislative intent of the Act was to provide an optional form of government based upon state and federal models. See id. ¶ 12 The Act was repealed in 1975 and replaced with provisions (the 1975 Act) substantially similar to the current Optional Forms Act at issue in this appeal. See id. at 1025. The 1975 Act made available to all cities, regardless of population classification, two additional options: the council-manager and the council-mayor forms of municipal government. See id. In 1977, the legislature repealed and recodified the 1975 Act. See id. at 1026. Under the recodified act, the legislature clarified its intent to distinguish the traditional system  where power is vested solely in a single governing body  from the new council-mayor system  where the vested power is shared by the mayor and the council. See id. It stated the distinction as follows: Each municipality shall have a governing body which shall exercise the legislative and executive powers of the municipality unless the municipality is organized with separate executive and legislative branches of government. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-101 (1977) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the recodification emphasized the legislature's intent to clearly separate executive and legislative powers: The optional form of government known as the council-mayor form vests the government of a municipality which adopts this form in two separate, independent, and equal branches of municipal government; the executive branch consisting of a mayor and the administrative departments and officers; and the legislative branch consisting of a municipal council. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-1209 (1977). ¶ 13 Thus, the express legislative intent behind the council-mayor form of government was to allow for a form of government substantially different from the traditional form of government.