This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It was one of those slam-bang bills, rushed through the Legislature at the end of the 2007 session. Titled "Incorporation of a Town Amendments," House Bill 466 was pushed by a lobbyist for the Utah League of Cities and Towns who was secretly double-dipping for a developer. And it showed. The "Developers' Dream Come True Act" would have been a better name.
Designed to make it easier to form new towns, the law allows unincorporated areas with 100-1,000 persons to form a town if the signers of the incorporation petition own property amounting to more than half of the assessed value of the tract. The sponsors, or in some cases a single large landowner, get to appoint their own captive town councils for a two-year period and make their own rules, sidestepping county planning and zoning regulations.
The measure was supposed to help regular folks interested in self-governance, not rich developers and resort owners. Oops!
By July, lawmakers realized their mistake. Ruby's Inn used the law as a tax loophole for resorts, enabling the owners to incorporate as Bryce Canyon City and retain sales tax revenue, creating a budget bind for Garfield County.
Instead of fixing the law in the August special session, the Legislature let it slide, and an avalanche of incorporation petitions followed. Developers, when encountering or anticipating resistance from county planning and zoning officials, simply drew a town on a map to include 100 residents, and filed for incorporation. And the rape of the Wasatch Back was under way.
Now, finally, lawmakers are trying to correct their error. Senate Bill 25 has cleared the Senate and is awaiting action in the House.
The proposed bill contains clauses allowing for representative government and majority rule. A majority of registered voters within the proposed town must sign the incorporation petition. A public hearing must be held. The town council would be elected.
The new measure is much better. It should stanch the bleeding. But we worry that a major developer could still have his way with a new, albeit elected, town council, which may lack the expertise of county planning and zoning officials.
Our open spaces and pristine places would be better protected if the Legislature simply repealed the old bill.