We are already tracking 15 bills – historic!

January 15, 2024 by Nicole Masson
Policy/Legislative

By Wilf Sommerkorn, Link

We noted early on that, with all the attention that was being given to the housing affordability issue, this was likely going to be a “historic” legislative session for planning and land use bills. Things are certainly shaping up that way. The session hasn’t even started yet and we are already tracking fifteen numbered bills, only one of which was specifically discussed by the land use task force (LUTF) or CHA during the interim (that one bill is HB0013 Infrastructure Financing Districts).  A couple more bills that were just added to that list are:

HB0151 Public Lands Amendments – the state Office of Public Lands Coordinating would be required to produce an inventory of all federal BLM land within the boundaries of municipalities, and list what the municipality has planned as the intended use for that land, “including for recreation, economic development, affordable housing, or other use.”  The municipality may also notify the Office of any plans it may have for BLM property within a half mile of the current municipal boundaries.

HB0175 Impact Fees Amendments – would remove the restriction on using impact fees for a local government to acquire “fire suppression vehicles.”

HB0180 Short-term Rental Amendments – this topic was the subject of a couple of bills during the last legislative session, which were ultimately pulled in favor of having a working group address the overall issue over in interim and come up with a more comprehensive bill. This is that bill.  It would add a new section to the LUDMA stating that a local government that intends to allow STRs must adopt new regulations regarding them, that must comport with the newly enacted Chapter 31 in Title 57-Real Estate of the state code, also in this bill.  Pretty detailed and comprehensive approach to STRs.

HB0188 Building Permit Requirements – simply says “After issuance of a building permit, a municipality may not change or add to the requirements expressed in the building permit.”  Bills like this are often prompted by a specific instance or problem in a community somewhere, and rather than passing a new law that affects everyone , the situation might be better handled on an individual basis.  That was in part why the LUTF was instigated, and why bills like this could/should be vetted through there.

HB0258 Airport Land Use Amendments – you might recall that in last year’s legislative session a bill was passed that required any local entity within 5,000 feet of a public airport runway to prepare a compatible use plan and adopt overlay ordinances addressing those compatibility issues.  This bill would essentially require the same for private airports that meet the definition of being “significant.”  The bill defines that as “a private airport that:

(a) is registered with the Federal Aviation Administration;

(b) appears on aeronautical charts published by the Federal Aviation Administration;

(c) has more than 50 based aircraft; and

(d) has significant infrastructure investment, such as paved runway, lighting, and fuelfacilities.”

All these new requirements are done by adding another new section to the LUDMA.  Let me tell you, folks, the LUDMA over the last few years has gotten huge and increasingly complex, and that trend continues.  Making sure you comply with all its provisions, well, good luck!

Okay, that catches us up on all the relevant bills filed so far.  We still have all the bills enacting the things agreed on by the LUTF, the CHA, and the UEOC, to come, plus probably even more bills like these early ones.  Who said there should be some restraint on new laws going forward?

Adding to the sense of the unprecedented nature of this upcoming legislative session on planning and land use, are a couple of recent news reports.

Here’s a story in the DesNews from the weekend about the legislative audit on housing affordability (finally!).  The title is rather provocative, particularly for local government officials – Why zoning is key to watch as Utah legislators tackle the issue of affordable housing. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/1/13/24031048/utah-housing-bills-2024

While there’s really nothing new in the story from what we learned when the audit was first released in November, it is interesting to see the writer’s highlights of the report.  The emphasis seems to be more on the measures the state could take to “impose” policies and metrics on the purveyors of that zoning, the local governments.  For example, the story particularly notes that,

The audit report mentioned that California’s local governments have to submit plans where they will rezone land. If the plans don’t account for their portion of the growth forecast, then penalties are prescribed. “We believe the Legislature may want to consider similar options to benchmark moderate-income housing plans to Utah’s official projects for household growth. Doing so could allow local governments the flexibility to accommodate their portion of Utah’s population growth as they see fit,” the report said. Bills that have to do with zoning for houses is something to watch as the Utah Legislature will grapple with how to best create affordable housing.

But much of the evidence from around the country appears to show that top-down state policies imposed on local governments seem to encounter struggles in implementation, as we’ve noted in a number previous blog posts.  A recent piece by KUER news (https://www.kuer.org/politics-government/2024-01-09/policy-not-funding-is-the-way-out-of-utahs-housing-crisis-says-speaker-schultz) notes,

The decisions concerning where housing gets built are made by local planning commissions and city and county councils, not the state. Then there’s a question of defining what a “starter home” even is. Is it a townhome or a condo? Or is it a single-family home that’s priced in a way a first-time buyer can afford? That’s a question local officials already grapple with.

Newly installed House Speaker Mike Schultz said in the KUER story,

“The right approach is working with the local governments to say, ‘Hey, we need to create opportunities for homeownership,’” he said. “What may be good for one community may not be good for another community. We need to be giving the local governments the flexibility to make it work inside their communities.”

[Cities] have an obligation here to provide some housing for your kids and grandkids,” he said. “Working with them to try to help them find the right locations for that is crucial because it doesn’t just fit everywhere.”

It’s really shaping up to be an interesting … no, wait, a historic … session!