Back in October 2021, the headliner topic at the Utah Land Use Institute Fall Conference was Regional Development Authorities. The panelists included such in-the-know people as Sen. Jerry Stevenson (board member and one of the creators of MIDA (full disclosure – I’m guilty of that one too, as I was Davis County Community Development Director at the time and helped a lot) and Point of the Mountain), Greg Hughes (former House Speaker under who’s watch such authorities expanded a lot, including of the Inland Port Authority), and Alan Matheson (former executive director of the Point of the Mountain Authority). After having moderated one of the panels on this topic at the conference, I wrote a bit about the trend that seemed to be growing in state government for the state to take over planning and executing major land use and economic development projects through such regional development authorities (see the Nov. 29, 2021 blog post). Subsequently, another such authority was created by the legislature, the Utah Lake Commission.
Now, under a bill just released today, HB337 – Land Use and Development Amendments, comes the big kahuna of them all. This bill would create what will be called the Beehive Development Agency. It will have broad authority to designate what it calls “significant community impact projects,” essentially projects to enhance economic development in what is considered a project of statewide economic benefit. The Agency can create three such projects a year, and establishes the boundaries of the project area. What kind of projects? Doesn’t say, but it could be just about anything considered important for the economic development of the state.
Now, here’s the kicker: at line 450 in the bill, it says, “The agency and land within a project area established by the agency is not subject to: (a)Title 10, Chapter 9a, Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act; (b)Title 17, Chapter 27a, County Land Use, Development, and Management Act; (c)ordinances or regulations of a county or municipality, including those relating to land use, health, business license, or franchise.”
Now, that alone is not all that unusual, as the same provision applies in most of the other types of Regional Authorities the state has created. But generally, the authorities are required to coordinate with the local entities (because, if for no other reason, the projects often will need the municipal services that such communities provide). And in the case of MIDA, Point of the Mountain, and Inland Port Authority, there is also representation on the authority’s board from the local community.
This new Beehive Development Agency legislation, however, has a board comprised of three appointees by the governor, one by the speaker, and one by the senate president. It would be possible that one of those appointees could be a local official, but nothing in the legislation requires it.
The bill also goes on to say, at line 750, “The chief executive officer is not required to secure local consent from any affected local government entity before making a proposal for a significant community impact project plan or associated project area, as described in this section.”
But then it does also say, “In presenting a proposed significant community impact project plan to the board, the chief executive officer shall describe how the chief executive officer consulted with a local government entity that may be affected by the adoption of a significant community impact project area.”
Well, that’s something. It would be a good idea, particularly if the new project needs to tie in to local municipal services. Another interesting aspect of this bill is that it proposed to “consolidate the Division of Housing and Community Development within the office by July 1, 2026.” This bill will be interesting to watch, I’m sure it has a lot of juice and will likely fly through the legislative process.
Another bill that popped out today is HB559 – Local Agritourism Business Amendments. The bill would add considerable language to LUDMA that would require each municipality and county to enact an ordinance that specifies which agritourism activities are permitted or restricted on an agricultural enterprise, and then goes on to list a lot of types of activities that are to be allowed. Whew!