It’s over.  Now to assess the damage. Here’s a rundown of all the bills we were tracking and brief synopsis of how they affect planners and planning (many of these bills do a lot more, but I’m focused mainly on the land use planning impacts).

BILLS PASSED

H.B. 35 Economic Development Modifications – changes how economic development incentives are determined and how economic development zones are set up, including a requirement that such proposed areas must have a locally-developed long range plan that addresses transportation and infrastructure, workforce development, and housing needs.

H.B. 36 Commission on Housing Affordability Amendments – makes the Commission on Housing Affordability a subcommittee of the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission, which as we’ve noted in previous posts has become the de facto growth planning body for state government.

H.B. 118 Wetland Amendments – in the LUDMA section on wetlands, adds the requirement that a copy of any land use permit approved by a local entity that affects a designated wetlands must be sent to the Utah Geological Survey.

H.B. 146 Local Licensing Amendments – among other things, loosens up regulation of food trucks considerably to the point where a food truck needs only one business license from one jurisdiction, after which it can operate in any jurisdiction without having to obtain any further licenses or approvals.  As part of obtaining a business license, the local entity cannot require the food truck operator to show how land use and zoning regulations will be complied with.

H.B. 151 Retail Facility Incentive Payments Amendments – an extensive bill that limits local economic incentives that can be provided for commercial development.  This bill will have its own training session, it’s that extensive.

H.B. 232 Utah Lake Authority and H.B. 240 Utah Lake Amendments – here’s a good news story that describes what these bills do.

H.B. 282 Water Wise Landscaping Amendments – creates a new section in LUDMA titled Water Wise Landscaping.  Among other things, this new section prohibits local entities from prohibiting defined water wise landscaping.

H.B. 303 Local Land Use Amendments – originally this bill was a ridiculous provision that would have required notice to be given for any change of zoning or change in the text of land use ordinances and allowed property owners the right to apply for changes before the proposed modifications were considered by the local entity.  The bill was substituted and became the land use task force bill, which has a number of changes to LUDMA.  Will be discussed in detail at post-legislative sessions and future posts.

H.B. 305 Natural Resources Revisions – makes a number of changes in the Department of Natural Resources, including to the Outdoor Recreation programs administration, and does away with the old Quality Growth Commission.  It creates essentially a new Land Conservation Commission to oversee use of state funds for open lands preservation, among other things.

H.B. 322 Public Transit Capital Development Modifications – This bill requires the State Department of Transportation to manage and oversee all fixed guideway capital development projects that include state funding. There’s an editorial comment in this in that the state has never overseen rail and transit projects to the extent that UTA has, but oh well.

H.B. 409 Recreation Infrastructure Amendments – This bill provides for the creation of a restricted account to fund outdoor recreation infrastructure, and allocates over $36 million for outdoor recreation projects, including for trails.

H.B. 410 Great Salt Lake Watershed Enhancement and H.B. 429 Great Salt Lake Amendments – here’s a news story that describes what these bills do.

H.B. 438 Point of the Mountain State Land Authority Amendments – makes changes to sources of revenue for the Authority and how the board operates, among other things.

H.B. 440 Homeless Services Amendments – This bill modifies provisions related to the oversight and provision of services for individuals experiencing homelessness. On the land use side, it prohibits municipalities from imposing certain capacity limits on homeless shelters during a limited period of time under certain circumstances, and prohibits municipalities from restricting an entity from operating a temporary overflow shelter from a facility owned or operated by the entity during a limited period of time under certain circumstances.

H.B. 443 Utah Inland Port Authority Amendments – this bill made a number of modifications to the UIPA.  The most noted is well-described by the Deseret News: “This year’s bill, HB443, was approved with widespread support by both the House and Senate. It would dissolve Salt Lake City’s voting membership on the Utah Inland Port Authority Board in exchange for a 25-year contract and a larger share of future tax increment within the port’s jurisdiction.  Even though the bill would strip Utah’s capital city of voting power on the board, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall and the City Council supported the bill as a result of good faith negotiations with state leaders to better position Salt Lake City in control of its future tax revenue.”

H.B. 462 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments – this is the biggie bill from this year, the housing bill.  It makes a number of changes to the general plan section of LUDMA, in the moderate income housing element and creates a new required element for transit station area plans.  It also makes extensive changes to the reporting requirements for moderate income housing implementation.  There are some other things as well, including some funding provisions for some planning-related programs, more about those in the near future.

S.B. 110 Water as Part of General Plan – this bill adds another new required element to the general plans section of LUDMA, for water planning.

S.B. 140 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments – this bill makes a number of changes to the provisions for HTRZs, which were first authorized in a bill last year.  These provisions are extensive enough that they probably warrant their own training session for those who are interested, or even may be required to put one in place to comply with other requirements just adopted this year.

S.B. 232 Military Installation Development Authority Revision – makes a number of what are essentially technical changes to the MIDA provisions in state code.  On this topic of Authorities like MIDA, UIPA, Point of the Mountain and now Utah Lake, here’s an interesting piece from Salt Lake Trib writer Robert Gehrke about them.

As you can see, plenty of new requirements to meet and processes to adjust.  Now here’s a list of the bills we were following that did not pass, some of which may be back in the future!

BILLS NOT PASSED

H.B. 85 Eminent Domain Amendments – would have prohibited use of eminent domain for parks and open space.

H.B. 95 Landscaping Requirements – poor Rep. Ward worked so hard on this bill…

H.B. 128 Education Impact Fee Amendments – would have authorized the use of impact fees for schools.

H.B. 135 Open and Public Meeting Modifications – would have required that most open public meetings to allow for public comment (though, interestingly, it would have exempted Planning Commission meetings).

H.B. 164 Public Transit Fares – would have provided for all free public transit – an idea who’s time may yet come.

H.B. 253 Large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Amendments – would have removed the February 1, 2022 deadline for counties to adopt regulations restriction these operations.

H.B. 288 New Growth Amendments – would have stipulated for county assessors how to value ADUs.

H.B. 327 Airport Land Use Amendments – This bill would have amended provisions in LUDMA related to land use requirements near an airport influence area.

H.B. 372 Short-term Property Rental Amendments – would have authorized local governments to regulate short term rentals (they can be now without this provisions, it would just have removed the prohibition on using on-line advertising as the basis for enforcement).

H.B. 407 Short-term Rental Enforcement Amendments – similar to HB372 above.

H.B. 416 Property Rights Ombudsman Amendments – a ridiculous bill that would have in essence turned the property rights ombudsman’s office into the state land use police.

H.B. 435 Mining Regulation Amendments – would have required that defined “small mining operations” seeking state permits must publish a notice of intention in counties of the first and second class.

H.B. 445 Homeowners Association Amendments – would have put the property rights ombudsman’s office in the business of adjudicating for HOAs, which are private contracts, not governmental functions.

H.B. 474 Municipal and County Land Use and Development Revisions – this was originally the land use task force bill, but due to timing in the legislative session and the workload of the sponsor, this bill was rolled into and became HB303.

H.B. 476 Local Agricultural Regulations – an odd prohibition on local regulation of animal-related businesses and activity, except that it exempted land use regulations (??).

S.B. 225 Farmland Assessment Act Amendments – would have allowed property that is rezoned or redesignated for development, but is not yet development, to remain in greenbelt designation.

Also, from the WFRC, here’s an explanation of funding for planning related activities passed in appropriations:

These two planning and growth items were included in the Governor’s FY23 recommended budget, endorsed by the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission (UEOC), and endorsed by the UEOC working group on Sustainable Community Growth.

• $1.65M ongoing for planning technical assistance. Of the total, $1.05 million would go to the state’s seven Associations of Governments for training, grant writing, and other technical assistance. $600,000 of the total would go to UDOT for the Technical Planning Assistance Grant Program. Technical assistance will help aid local governments as they are challenged to meet the increasing demands of planning for growth, transportation, housing, and economic opportunity.
• $1M one-time for GOPB planning for growth. This appropriation is intended for a “Statewide Growth Conversation” to help residents statewide understand the implications of the various ways that growth might unfold, and the importance of planning today for tomorrow. GOPB, in conjunction with various community partners, will oversee the effort, and will engage many stakeholders.

Additionally, note these funding provisions that were passed as part of the housing bill, HB462:

Housing Development          $250,000
The Legislature intends that the Department of Workforce Services distribute funds appropriated under this item to a nonprofit entity in the state that provides training and education on land use law,  the recipient entity use funds distributed from the Department of Workforce Services under this item to provide regional land use training and workshops to local officials and policymakers on housing issues.

Housing Development          $250,000
The Legislature intends that the Department of Workforce Services distribute funds appropriated under this item to a nonprofit entity in the state that engages in efforts to increase housing affordability through local zoning and housing regulation reform.

More on what these funds are for in a future post as they are fleshed out more.

Okay, I still have things to say about what did and didn’t happen in the session, like the need for annexation code reform, and what’s happening to the general plan section of LUDMA, but I’m tired writing all I have this morning and I’m going skiing now on this fresh snow!  So, watch this space for future posts!