A couple more bills out, and an update on some of the bills that seem to have some juice to move forward (there are a lot that are just lying there, not doing anything).
The first newly released bill is SB278 – Point of the Mountain State Land Authority Modifications. While the bill title says Point of the Mountain State Land Authority, it is actually broader than that. The bill says that whenever a state agency, independent entity, or regional economic development authority (think Point of the Mountain, Inland Port, MIDA, etc.) intends to dispose of a property, the municipality in which that property is located may coordinate with the owning entity to “develop a prospective land use regulation or general plan amendment for the parcel in order to ensure alignment between the exempted government landowner’s activity and objectives and the municipality’s role as the land use authority in the event that the parcel is conveyed to a private owner.” The bill also then exempts the municipality from following the normal notices and procedures that LUDMA requires for general plan or ordinance amendments (I guess to expedite the process). The bill also then refers specifically to land disposal by the Point of the Mountain Authority and how Draper City can be involved in planning for the use of that property.
HB533 – Groundwater Amendments – this bill would add another part to LUDMA Part 6 on Particular Situations, this one titled Groundwater and land use decisions. It is rather draconian, because the bill would require that whenever land is being proposed to be changed from an existing agricultural use, the “land use authority shall consider groundwater preservation amounts and methods in determining whether to approve a land use application or issue a land use permit related to the development.” Wow. In many communities, most new development takes place on land that was agricultural, so this would add a substantial burden to the review process, not least because information on what the groundwater resource is on the parcel would need to be obtained. Keep eyes on this one.
Some of the bills moving forward are seeing significant modifications. The language about land use processes that were of concern in HB16 – Solar Power Plant Amendments have been changed and is okay. HB184 – Small Lots and Starter Homes Amendments was substituted which included a title change to indicate it now only deals with the one issue (ADUs are being addressed in a different bill), but there were still a lot of questions about how the bill was mixing administrative and legislative procedures, the preemption of local land use authority, and others. The bill was held by committee Monday, which usually means a bill is dead, but the League reports that there is on-going discussion on the bill, so it may be back.
HB126 – Micro-Education Entity Facility Amendments (showing the changes in the substitute bill) – the bill was substituted, and while it maintains the language that says micro-schools are a permitted use in all zones in cities and counties, it also now says that “the micro-education entity complies with all applicable ordinances of the political subdivision, which may include provisions described in Subsection (10) or other relevant provisions.” The bill also would now allow conversion of existing homes into a micro-school, but the number of students, listed now in the code as up to 100, would be limited to the occupancy allowed by building and safety codes.
HB328 – Water Usage Modifications – this bill, which would prohibit the use of overhead water sprinklers for non-functional turf, was amended to say that the local land use authority must simply assure that there is a statement recorded on the new development stating what the law says.
HB507 – State Coordination of Regional and Local Economic Development Projects Amendments – I said previously that this bill was complicated and I would report on it later – well, here’s the report. I am taking advantage of WFRC’s Miranda Jones Cox’s excellent analysis of the bill:
This bill consolidates various tax increment financing tools, including Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones, First Home Investment Zones, and Home Ownership Promotion Zones, and others into a single tool: Regionally Significant Development Zones (RSDZ). (1) RSDZ’s utilize local property tax, sales tax, and energy tax increment (up to 60% up to 25 years) to pay for development costs (housing, infrastructure, parking, etc) within the zone, or a zone-impacted area. (2) The zone’s must be submitted to and approved by a GOEO committee. (3) An RSDZ may overlap with a CRA, but may not with existing HTRZ, FHIZ, etc. (4) An RSDZ must be a RS transit-oriented development, RS first home village, RS major sporting event venue, or a RS economic development opportunity (similar to previous tools). (5) This bill doesn’t allow for HTRZs, FHIZ, HOPZ to be created after January 1, 2028. (6) This bill also creates the State Reinvestment Restricted Account which takes UIPA property tax differential, and 5-25% of RSDZs property tax revenue. (7) And makes other specific and various changes regarding these tools.
That’s the main activity for now. More to come.