As often happens, a new bill released very late in the session has taken the lion’s share of attention in the closing hours of the legislative session.  We noted in our Feb. 26 post the release of HB337 – Land Use and Development Amendments, and how it would be the mother of all development authorities (called the Beehive Development Authority) being used by state officials, including a complete preemption of local land use authority and no required sign-off (though there was a coordination stipulation) from local entities.

At yesterday’s League Legislative Policy Committee meeting, League executive director Cameron Diehl noted that this bill has taken up most of his time since its release, including sessions over the weekend.  As expected since it has strong support from legislative leaders and the governor, the bill is moving along.  But there are changes being made, with a substitute version out now, and at least one more expected.  Local officials, who will likely experience the greatest impact of any future projects greenlighted by the Beehive DA, have been trying to get a meaningful role in the process.  The substitute bill makes some progress in that direction.

Here are some press accounts of the bill.  This is a story from Utah News Dispatch: https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2025/03/03/cross-party-outcry-bill-to-create-beehive-development-agency-moves-forward/?emci=c9a44e54-b5f8-ef11-90cb-0022482a9447&emdi=b961bfb2-0cf9-ef11-90cd-0022482a9fb7&ceid=566855  Pushback is coming from a number of groups, not just local officials.  A SL Trib story noted local officials’ reaction to the bill:

Both the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Utah Association of Counties opposed the original version of SB337, but said they had not taken a position on the new substitute. Representatives of the league met with Cox and Cullimore to discuss the bill Monday morning.

“The governor reiterated … that this is a big priority of his,” Cullimore told reporters Monday afternoon. “He did reiterate that this was important. … If we want to continue to build in Utah, we have some cities and counties that are eager to do it and we have some that make it a little difficult.”

Others as well, though I’m not sure just what the reason for some of the opposition is:

Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, warned that it would fast-track multi-billion-dollar water projects, exempting them from the normal approval processes and exposing local water users to 500% increases in their water bills.

Kristin Richey with the Utah Eagle Forum, said the bill is too broad and should have had more time for public input.

“It’s a huge power grab in a big rush,” she said. “When people lose trust in the Legislature, they turn to lawmaking by initiative and I don’t want to live in a state that has lawmaking by initiative.”

One legislator, who voted against the bill, also sounded a warning to local governments:

Sen. John Johnson, R-Logan, voted against the bill, citing concerns that the public felt like it was being rushed, but also said that “local governments should wake up and start realizing that the reason things are being passed to override their local control is they don’t think much about being reasonable or even being willing to work toward solutions that might help us on things like housing and others.”

Here’s an earlier Trib story about the bill, giving some more description of it, and here’s a story from the Wasatch Back about the bill.  Summit County Deputy Civil Attorney Dave Thomas, a former city councilmember and state legislator, said about the bill:

“We had been told this bill was potentially coming, and now it is here. It would take away local control, and if passed, then we would have kind of a ‘super planning commission’ in the state, and that may or may not be a good thing.”

Plenty of ringside action to watch with this one in the next few days.  I think this is coming about partly as a result of what has been happening with some of the other state-centered development authorities (MIDA, Point of the Mountain, Inland Port, etc), what has just recently transpired in Salt Lake City with the sports stadium authorities, and anticipation of the coming 2034 Olympics.  Are these a good thing?  I think it’s a mixed bag.  Looks like local planners and officials are going to need to learn to live with them, however, because I think they’re here to stay.

Now, almost as a side show to the main event, here’s a news story about HB540 – Municipal Incorporation Modifications, which would repeal last year’s bill that allowed for creation of what are called “preliminary municipalities” (see previous postings for more on this bill).  This story has an interesting perspective about how the provision is currently being used in one particular development case.

Dealing with the legislature on land use issues is a lot of things, I can say after these many years of doing it, but one thing it is not, is boring!