Link to Zipped WordPerfect Minutes 14K bytes

MINUTES OF THE

HOUSE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE

Room 450 Utah State Capitol

26 January 2010


MEMBERS PRESENT:    Rep. Fred R Hunsaker, Chair
            Rep. R. Curt Webb, Vice Chair
            Rep. Laura Black
            Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck
            Rep. Jack R. Draxler
            Rep. James A. Dunnigan
            Rep. Becky Edwards
            Rep. Janice M. Fisher
            Rep. Kerry W. Gibson
            Rep. Richard Greenwood
            Rep. Curtis Oda

MEMBERS ABSENT:    Rep. Marie H. Poulson

STAFF PRESENT:        Joseph Wade, Policy Analyst
            Becky Lawyer, Committee Secretary

Note: A list of visitors and a copy of handouts are filed with the committee minutes.

Representative Hunsaker called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.

H.B. 216    Incorporation of a Town Amendments (Rep. G. Froerer)

Rep. Froerer introduced and explained the bill to the committee. Lincoln Shurtz, representing the Utah League of Cities and Towns also addressed the committee.

MOTION: Rep. Draxler moved to substitute the bill with HB 216 1st Sub. The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION: Rep. Dunnigan moved to amend 1st Sub HB216 as follows:

1.    Page 1, Line 11 :    

             11          This bill:
  amends notice requirements;      


2.    Page 4, Line 88 :    

             88          (III) publishing notice of the public hearing in accordance with
{   Section 45-1-101 .   }        Section 63F-1-701 on the Utah Public Notice Website.      



3.    Page 7, Lines 207 through 210 :    

             207          [(II)] (ii)
  (A)       the results of the financial feasibility study described in Subsection (8)(a)(i)

             208      show that the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i)
{   [   } does not

             209      exceed
{   ]   }      {   exceeds   } the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection (1)(b)(ii) by more

             210      than
{   10%   }        25%            {   [   } ; or      {   ]   }       

    (B) the results of the financial feasibility study described in Subsection (8)(a)(i) show that the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not exceed the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) by more than 10%  
.


4.    Page 8, Lines 213 through 239 :    

             213          (c) (i) If [the county legislative body commissions a financial feasibility study under
             214      Subsection (8)(a) and] the results of the financial feasibility study described in Subsection
             215      (8)(a)(i) show that the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i)
             216     
{   [   } exceeds      {   ]   }      {   does not exceed   } the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection

             217      (1)(b)(ii) by more than
{   10%   }        25%       , the county legislative body [may] shall:

             218          (A) deny the petition, [subject to] in accordance with Subsection (8)(c)
{   (ii)   }        (iii)            {   [   } , if the

             219      results of the financial feasibility study show that the average annual amount of revenues
             220      described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) exceeds the average annual amount of costs described in
             221      Subsection (1)(b)(ii) by
  more than       25%      {   or more   }      {   ]   } ; or

             222          [(B) approve the petition and hold an election for town officers, as provided in
             223      Subsection (9); or]
             224          [(C)] (B) (I) with the consent of the petition sponsors:
             225          (Aa) impose conditions to [mitigate the fiscal inequities identified in the financial
             226      feasibility study] prevent the average annual amount of
{   costs   }        revenues       described in Subsection (1)(b)      {   (ii)   }        (i)      

             227      from exceeding the average annual amount of
{   revenues   }        costs       described in Subsection (1)(b)      {   (i)   }        (ii)       by


             228
     more than
{   10   }        25       %; or

             229          (Bb) alter the boundaries of the area proposed to be incorporated as a town to
             230      approximate the boundaries necessary to prevent the average annual amount of
{   [   } revenues      {   ]   }      {   costs   }

             231      described in Subsection (1)(b)
{   [   } (i)      {   ]   }      {   (ii)   } from exceeding the average annual amount of      {   [   } costs      {   ]   }

             232     
{   revenues   } described in Subsection (1)(b)      {   [   } (ii)      {   ]   }      {   (i) by more than 10%   }        by more than 25%       ; and

             233          (II) approve the incorporation petition and hold an election for town officers, as
             234      provided in Subsection (9).
    
  (ii) If the results of the financial feasibility study described in Subsection (8)(a)(i) show that the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection (1)(b)(ii) exceeds the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) by more than 10%, the county legislative body shall:

        (A) deny the petition in accordance with Subsection (8)(c)(iii); or
        (B)(I) with the consent of the petition sponsors;
            (Aa) impose conditions to prevent the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection (1)(b)(ii) from exceeding the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) by more than 10%; or
            (Bb) alter the boundaries of the area proposed to be incorporated as a town to approximate the boundaries necessary to prevent the average annual amount of costs described in Subsection (1)(b)(ii) from exceeding the average annual amount of revenues described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) by more than 10%; and
         (II) approve the incorporation petition and hold an election for town officers, as provided in Subsection (9)  

             235          
{   (ii)   }        (iii)       A county legislative body intending to deny a petition under Subsection (8)(c)(i)(A)        or (8)(c)(ii)(A)      

             236      shall deny the petition within 20 days after the feasibility consultant submits the written results
             237      of the financial feasibility study.
             238          (d) Each town that incorporates pursuant to a petition approved after the county
             239      legislative body imposes conditions under Subsection (8)(c)(i)[(C)(I)](B)(I)(Aa)
  or (8)(c)(ii)(B)(I)(Aa)       shall comply


5.    Page 9, Line 249 :    



             249      results of the financial feasibility study, for an election under Subsection (8)(c)(i)[(C)](B)(II)
  or ( 8)(c)(ii)( B)(II)       .


The motion to amend passed unanimously with Rep. Poulson absent for the vote.

MOTION: Rep. Dunnigan moved to amend the amendment of 1st Sub HB216 as follows:

1. Line 210:    Change " by more than 10% " to " by more than 25% "

2. Line 234:    Three times change " by more than 10% " to " by more than 25% "

The motion to amend passed with Rep. Draxler, Rep. Edwards and Rep. Greenwood voting against the amendment.

MOTION: Rep. Oda moved to pass 1st Sub HB216 out favorably as amended. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Poulson absent for the vote.

H.B. 199    Municipal Clerk and Recorder Responsibilities (Rep. B. Last)

Rep. Last introduced and explained the bill to the committee.

MOTION: Rep. Black moved to pass the bill out favorably. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Poulson absent for the vote.

H.B. 205    Impact Fee Amendments (Rep. S. Sandstrom)

Rep. Sandstrom presented the bill and gave explanations to the committee.

MOTION: Rep. Oda moved to amend the amendment as follows:

1.    Page 1, Lines 12 through 14 :    

             12          .    requires that an impact fee enactment allow, in certain circumstances, a developer
  including a school district or charter school       to

             13      receive a credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee
{   if the

             14      developer is a school district or charter school  
}
;

2.    Page 1, Line 25 through Page 2, Line 28 :    

             25              .    development activity for construction of a replacement school if the replacement


             26      school is built for a student capacity that is less than or equal to a
{   10%   }        20%       increase

             27      of the student capacity of the old school; and
             28          .    makes technical corrections.

3.    Page 4, Lines 101 through 102 :    

             101          (b) allows a developer,
{   if the developer is   }        including       a school district or        a       charter school, to receive

             102      a credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee if the developer:

4.    Page 5, Lines 121 through 131 :    

             121          (4) A local political subdivision or private entity shall include a provision in an impact
             122      fee enactment that requires a credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for,
             123      improvement to, or new construction of
{   [   } , any system improvements provided by the developer        or school district or charter school      

             124      if the
{   ]   } [facilities]      {   a facility if   }        facility       :

             125          
{   (a) the developer is a school district or charter school; and

             126          (b) the facility:  
}

             127          [(a) are]
{   (i)   }        (a)       is a system [improvements; or] improvement;

             128          [(b) (i) are]
{   (ii) (A)   }        (b)(i)       is dedicated to the public; and

             129          [(ii) offset]
{   (B)   }        (ii)       offsets the need for an identified system improvement[.]; or

             130          
{   (iii)   }        (c) in the case of a school district or charter school,       is not for the exclusive use of the school district or charter school, regardless of

             131      whether the facility is identified as a system improvement in a capital facilities plan.

5.    Page 6, Lines 169 through 171 :    

             169          (B) the new school [creates no greater demand or need for public facilities than] is built
             170      for a student capacity that is less than or equal to a
{   10%   }        20%       increase of the student capacity of the

             171      school being replaced; and

6.    Page 6, Lines 176 through 180 :    



             176          (A) the development resulting from the school
{   district   }        district's       or charter school's development

             177      activity directly results in a need for additional system improvements for which the impact fee
             178      is imposed; and
             179          (B) the impact fee is calculated to cover only the school
{   district   }        district's       or charter school's

             180      proportionate share of the cost of those additional system improvements
  , regardless of whether the school district's or charter school's development activity is on property that is zoned for a higher density public facility use than the school district's or charter's school's actual public facility use       ;


The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Poulson absent for the vote.

H.B. 211    Improvement District Board Membership (Rep. K. Powell)

This bill was not considered.

H.B. 220    Disproportionate Rental Fee Amendments (Rep. G. Froerer)

This bill was not considered.

MOTION: Rep. Oda moved to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Poulson absent for the vote.

Rep. Hunsaker adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.




                    ___________________________
                    Rep. Fred R Hunsaker, Chair