THE FINAL WEEK IS FINALLY HERE!

As the final week of the legislative session gets underway, here’s a quick summary of some of the bigger issues still outstanding, to be resolved in the next five days.

First, a reinforcement of the notion that housing (and by association, land use) is a top driver of what’s going on at the legislature this session.  A just-released report from the Sutherland Institute of a survey of Utah citizens at the end of January/beginning of February, shows that housing is, overall, the top concern.  It ranks ahead of other issues such as the economy, taxes, the environment, education, transportation, and a number of others.  Only among voters 65 years of age or older is it not the top issue.  Hence, it should come as no surprise that we are following some 38 bills in the legislature this session dealing with housing and land use.

A concerning transportation bill is still hanging fire at this point.  SB195 – Transportation Amendments takes the unprecedented step of dealing directly with a city’s governance of its own streets.  Now, as I said, this bill is still hanging fire, there are continuing discussions between state and Salt Lake City officials, but here’s the current status.  First, a summary from Miranda Jones Cox at WFRC:

As a reminder, this bill includes several key provisions:

  • requires municipalities to update their general plans to identify priority transportation connections;
  • clarifies reporting requirements after station area plans are adopted;
  • replaces an ongoing appropriation with an increase in the percentage of state sales tax going into the state Transportation Investment Fund; and
  • shifts responsibility for maintaining street lighting systems on state highways or state highway intersections from municipalities to UDOT.

Sub3 imposed restrictions on certain Salt Lake City (SLC) transportation projects.

Sub5 made notable changes to these provisions:

  • In summary, sub5 requires SLC to develop a “mobility plan” and submit it to UDOT for approval; and it prohibits SLC from proceeding on lane reduction/narrowing projects unless they are included in the approved mobility plan.
  • SLC is required to complete a mobility plan for a study area west of Foothill Drive, north of 2100S, east of I-15, and south of 600N. The plan would evaluate the impacts of “highway reduction strategies” on vehicle trip time, traffic, air quality, state roads, multimodal transportation, and safety, assess alternate routes, and provide options to mitigate negative impacts on vehicle traffic.
  • In the development of the mobility plan, SLC is required to seek input and consult with relevant stakeholders, including business owners, commuters, and residents, and provide the complete plan to UDOT; UDOT is required to approve or reject the plan within two months of receiving it.
  • SLC cannot implement or begin any project that is a highway reduction strategy on collector or arterial roads unless they are part of a mobility plan approved by UDOT. This restriction would not apply to projects advertised before March 7, 2025.
  • “Highway reduction strategy” is defined as any strategy having the potential to decrease the number of vehicles that can travel on a highway per hour, including permanently reducing the number of motorized vehicle lanes narrowing existing lanes, or increasing vehicle congestion on an arterial or collector road.

Here’s a news story about the bill as well.  Pretty amazing to see the legislature get so involved in a city’s normal role!  A warning to others?

Here’s a KSL news story about HB26 – HTRZ Amendments.  This bill is awaiting final action in the House.

Here’s a news story about the Beehive Development Authority bill, SB337 – Land Use and Development Amendments, which we highlighted in our previous post.  This bill will be heard in committee today, and is moving fast.

Finally, SB322 – Municipal Annexation and Incorporation Amendments, which we’ve also talked about previously, was heard (well, sort of) in committee last Friday.  I attended so I could speak to the bill because of my role with the working group that proposed the recodification of the annexation code (now included in HB368 – Local Land Use Amendments.  As it turned out, the committee was running short on time, and the bill sponsor, Sen. Cal Musselman, said he really didn’t intend for the bill to pass this session, he just wanted to get the conversation going for the upcoming interim about annexation and incorporation processes.  Here’s a news story about the bill.  I quickly took the opportunity to speak with Sen. Musselman after the committee meeting to tell him about the working group, and that it was our intent to reconvene that group to talk about the very issues around annexation that he was concerned about.  He was surprised and glad to hear it, and expressed his desire to be involved in those discussions.  So, to my fellow annexation working group members (and anyone else who might have interest), it looks like we definitely will need to get the band back together after the session and get into the weeds on annexation policy!  It’s about time!

Plenty more going on this final week of the session, these are but the most obvious highlights.  Stay tuned!