For whatever reason, working my way through the bills passed by the legislature this year has taken up all my oxygen, and I haven’t posted much, though there is plenty to post and talk about.  So, let me start by just getting several news stories out there about some of the bills we have been following.

A story out on the day before the end of the legislative session by the Utah News Dispatch captured the contention surrounding potential new “electrical energy development zones,” focused on a dispute highlighted in the story headline, Nuclear energy bill hangs on a single word as cities and counties fight for a say.

Senators who opposed the bill didn’t do it because they are against nuclear energy. They did it because signing on would mean a loss of some local control for municipalities if the new groups have an option rather than a requirement to collaborate with them on energy projects.

… the main issue remained in the choice of a single word that, for local governments, would either make or break how much involvement municipalities will have in future energy projects — may or shall.

The bill ultimately passed, and allows either a local government to propose an energy development zone (such zones must be approved by a newly-established Energy Council), or another “state land use authority” (like MIDA or Point of the Mountain or, when it gets created, the Beehive Development Authority) to propose one.  The language on local coordination that was ultimately approved in the bill says that the state LU must “show evidence” that the zone “is consistent with land use plans and regulations,” assuming that means local plans, though it doesn’t say that specifically.  Don’t look for this language in LUDMA, by the way, but rather in a newly created title of state code on energy development.

A bill (HB540 – Municipal Incorporation Amendments) that would have put an end to the concept of “preliminary municipalities,” essentially allowing a single landowner (read: developer) to begin the process of creating their own city, was supported by residents in Moab, in Summit County, and in Kane County because of unpopular developments underway in each of those communities.  But in the end, the bill failed to pass.  So, preliminary municipalities are still alive.

Another story from Park City (they seem to really get into the nitty-gritty of land use law up there!) focused on one aspect of SB262, which specifies the ability of cities to settle land use litigation through consent agreements.  At first I thought this was just a Park City thing, but a later conversation I had with a good friend who is also one of the best land use attorneys around indicated to me that this was something he and others had talked about before and supported as a tool to deal with land use litigation.

You may recall a couple of years ago a bill that was passed by the legislature that in essence gave approval for a development project in Summit County if the county didn’t act to create an HTRZ in a certain time frame.  The county didn’t, and things transpired from there, but the project was recently given the green light by county officials.  Among other things, SB26 related to what was approved there, modifying the previous bill, as outline in this Park KCPW area story.

“There were some discussions and actions between those two parties — I’ll leave it at that. They, over the summer, came through with an agreement. And this bill goes through and implements what the county and the developer agreed to,” Harper said in a Utah House committee Feb. 26. “Rather than forcing by statute what is happening there, we’re putting in what they agreed to.”

What they agreed to was a 725-unit neighborhood, with nearly half set aside for local workers, and a partnership to expand the Kimball Junction Transit Center. Dakota Pacific contributes $3.75 million to parts of the partnership, which also includes 165 county-owned affordable housing units.

Area residents are not happy, however, and have started a referendum petition against the approval.  The developer has also begun the process for a preliminary municipality.  The saga of this development is quite a story, would make a great case study!

I’ve been somewhat surprised that HB355, on gravel pits, hasn’t generated more attention, but it has in at least one instance.  Here’s a story from Tooele County about the potential impact on a controversial operation there.

Can money buy results in a democratic society?  Uh, yeah!  Here’s a Trib story about SB340 – Protected Person Amendments, which allows for bypassing of all local land use regulations.  According to the story, it’s just the latest round in an on-going dispute between the local government and a wealthy homebuilder.  Hmmm.

Here’s a Trib story just out about what happened on housing in the legislature.

Here’s a bill I haven’t talked much about, but it could have some impact on communities.  It is SB129 – Higher Education Development Areas.  The bill allows state higher education institutions to designate up to 75 acres of property for development or redevelopment and ways to handle revenue made from such development.  Once again, there is an issue with impact of state-directed development on local communities, kind of like the issue that arose with the energy development zones.  There is no required collaboration or compliance with local community planning processes and regulations, but the bill does require the institution to hold a public hearing, and then requires the trustees to address the issues raised in the hearing, but there is no requirement to conform or more formally coordinate.  I guess if local water, sewer, maybe electrical power, and other community services are needed, there would need to be collaboration on that.  This opinion piece in Build Salt Lake points out some of the issues, primarily with the status of campus planning, but also with how it can affect the adjacent community.  While this piece focuses on the University of Utah, similar issues would apply to many other state campuses like USU, UVU, UTech, SUSU.

Finally, after all the brain fogging that goes on during a legislative session, I got kind of a kick out of this bit of sarcasm about the proposed Beehive Development Authority in this opinion piece by Tom Clyde in the Park Record.  Just one quick bit from Tom:

The name alone should be enough to set off the bull-pucky alarms. It’s so benign sounding. Who doesn’t like honey bees? It’s like calling a strip mining operation Fluffy Bunny Excavating.

Whew!  Now it’s back to the salt mine to work up a succinct presentation on what happened in the 2025 legislative session.  Hope to see you at one of the upcoming legislative update sessions!