Gov. Gary Herbert has let lawmakers know he doesn't want any significant liquor reform legislation that he would have to either sign or veto in the forthcoming legislative session, sources within the hallowed halls of the Capitol confide.

That's because he has to run for election next November and doesn't want to deal with one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't campaign issues.

Many legislators agree they don't want to do anything controversial in the liquor arena in 2010, mostly because of this year's massive reform legislation.

Most believe there needs to be a two-year cooling-off period to avoid the perception of being too radical on liquor reform, one source said.

That's bad news for restaurant owners and economic development advocates who say this year's liquor reform package left several problems that should be rectified right away.

First, when the Legislature passed legislation that removed alcoholic pop drinks from grocery stores and put them in liquor stores, hidden in that bill was a state mandate that makes it difficult to put more taverns or clubs in a city, as Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker would like to do.

The provision dealt with the existing law that bans the sale of alcohol within 200 feet of a school or church. Previously, a church could agree to a variance in the law if church leaders didn't mind a restaurant serving alcohol nearby. The new law takes that option away from churches.

Advertisement
Regardless of what they want, no such establishment can exist within 200 feet.

Economic development officials say that will negatively affect rural towns that hope to attract tourists and business growth.

A second issue that apparently won't see daylight next session is a provision in the 2009 law that requires new restaurants to build a separate alcohol preparation area, making the construction and opening of the new businesses much more expensive. Hospitality and economic development folks hoped to repeal that provision in 2010.

And the third issue is the restrictive number of liquor permits available because the law bases availability on population. Advocates hoped to do away with or change the population ratio because the status quo leaves so few licenses available.

But after the election, expect more attention to be paid to the current foibles in 2011.

SITLA was in fantasy land » Herbert opposed the bonuses given to SITLA officials before he endorsed them.

That might be because while legislators were blasting the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration for manipulating the bonus timetable to award more than $100,000 in bonuses to its six top executives while the state was cutting budgets, the top executive was not there to explain.

He was in Disney World.

SITLA director Kevin Carter, one of the top bonus recipients, was vacationing in sunny Orlando, Fla., when legislators learned of the bonuses and became apoplectic.

Herbert at first agreed with the legislators. But last week he said he met with SITLA officials (Carter was back from visiting Mickey and Goofy) and decided the bonuses were appropriate.

A funny joke » In outlining changes coming to Valley Mental Health because of an $8 million to $10 million budget deficit that will cost 100 or more employees their jobs, Adult Services Director Jona Nusink Curry encouraged mentally ill clients to contact their legislators for assistance.

"Contact legislators?" responded one client incredulously. "Who in the hell do you think came up with this idea?"

Valley Mental Health, a nonprofit corporation that has contracts to treat mentally ill people in Salt Lake, Summit and Tooele counties, cites cutbacks by the Legislature and Medicaid as the source of its financial stress.

Paul Rolly is a political columnist. Reach him at prolly@sltrib.com