The flurry is on at the Capitol as time winds down on the session. Several new press items on bills we are following.
On SB295 – Dedicated Infrastructure District Act, a story in the DesNews and an opinion piece by Robert Gehrke.
The bill would allow for the creation of a “dedicated infrastructure district,” which would allow a landowner, if 100% of the property owners in an area sign on, to file a petition with the lieutenant governor to create the district. To be eligible, the project must require at least $2 million in infrastructure investments (such as roads, water lines, electricity or other improvements) and have at least 100 housing units, at least 50,000 or more square feet of non-residential development, or a minimum estimated appraised valuation upon completion of at least $50 million. If formed, the district would be a political subdivision of the state and therefore be able to access cheaper financing.
“What it does is allows access to capital that is less expensive, thereby making it so that the product that is provided, be it housing or otherwise, can be less expensive than it otherwise would be.” said Wade Budge, an attorney with the firm Snell & Wilmer, who joined McCay for his presentation of the bill.
Cameron Diehl, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, … “It really does come down to this fundamental question of do you as a state want to allow the creation of a political subdivision without elected officials that will have control over property tax?”
In his opinion piece, Gehrke says,
… the bill would let a developer or group of developers become their own government, issuing bonds to pay for infrastructure projects — like sewer lines or roads — and then levying taxes on residents to pay them off. The developers like it, obviously, because it would be far, far cheaper way to finance their projects than getting more traditional financing from a bank.
…SB295 is still a major change and an unprecedented delegation of power that has been rolled out on a Friday and rushed through the Legislature at breakneck speed. Why? I suppose the answer to that is because it’s something developers want.
The bill is currently awaiting a 2nd Reading vote by the Senate. It must still pass the Senate, and then pass in the House.
On HB408 – Mobile Business Licensing Amendments, a story in the St. George News.
If the bill passes, mobile businesses – such as a mobile barber shop, clothing store or book vendor for example – will only be required to get a business license in their municipality of county of origin and only be subject to inspections and regulations related to the product or service they offer… . In addition to providing mobile businesses with business license reciprocity from place to place in the state, the bill clarifies previous language that put food trucks, ice cream trucks, food carts and “enclosed mobile businesses” under the same umbrella by making them their own, independent definitions in state law.
In the past, bills like HB 408 have drawn opposition from municipal and county officials as they remove a part of a jurisdiction’s ability to regulate business or some other matter locally. However, no opposition has surfaced against HB 408.
HB408 has passed the House and is currently on the Senate 2nd Reading Calendar.
And finally, on SB271 – Home Ownership Requirements, a story in the Park Record.
Park City officials and staff members spent months crafting an ordinance that limits “fractional ownership” homes to certain zoning districts but a bill pending at the Utah Legislature could wipe out that effort. Senate Bill 271 would prohibit a county or municipal legislative body from enacting or enforcing a land use regulation that regulates co-owned homes differently from other residential units or punishing anyone for owning or using the homes.
“Resort communities in Utah and across the country are looking to Park City on this issue as we led out as the first to craft a community-based ordinance,” Park City spokesperson Clayton Scrivner said.
Pacaso, a San Francisco-based company that has 10 fractional ownership homes in Park City, applauded the state legislation. “Pacaso strongly supports property rights and the Utah Senate Bill 271, which empowers people to co-own homes without interference from local government,” company spokesperson Chrissy Bruchey said in a written statement. “We believe that governments should not infringe on the basic right of individuals, friends, or families to acquire, own, and use a home together.”
Summit County Council Chair Roger Armstrong called the bill “a direct assault on local control” by the Legislature… .
“A bill that restricts the ability to regulate fractional ownership and bills that restrict the ability to regulate nightly rentals are examples of being completely out of touch and legislating exactly the opposite of facilitating housing in communities,” Armstrong also said.
SB271 was passed by the Senate yesterday and sent to the House.
Four days left, more will surely follow.