Home > Legislative Tracker > Fifth Substitute Municipal Incorporation Amendments

Other Legislation:
Fifth Substitute Municipal Incorporation Amendments

Our Position: support
Bill Number: sb25s5
Sponsor: Sen. Dennis E. Stowell (R-Parowan)
Legislative Session: 2008 General Session

This legislation would amend the requirements for municipality incorporation. In the 2007 general session HB 466 was passed allowing lenient requirements for incorporation. SB 25 amends and places requirements that would prevent speculators from cherry picking areas with high tax revenues. It would require an election for mayor and council as well as to determine if the inhabitants do indeed want to be incorporated into a new municipality.

 Senator Stowell (Pictured left)

Status

This bill passed directly to the senate floor because it had been approved in interim committee.  We need to give it a strong push to make certain it passes this session!

On Jan 31st, the original bill SB 25 was uncircled and the sponsors replaced it with Second Substitute SB 25.  The substitute bill incorporates a useful feature from HB 164, introduced by Rep Mel Brown (R-Coalville), that prevents any town from incorporating under this bill in which the petition sponsors own more than 40% of the area of the proposed new town.  This provision helps to prevent the creation of company towns.

The bill is now on its fifth substitution.  The multiple evolutions and revolutions of this bill, and its house equivalent Fifth Substitute HB 164, have been to try to come up with a bill that does the job but avoids the opposition of Speaker Curtis and others.  Given how little time remains in the session, it needs a big shove of public support to pass.

Action Needed

It's important to send an e-mail or phone call to your representative as soon as possible.  Below are some points to make about SB25S5 and why HB 466 must be repealed.

1)  The incorporation process created by HB 466 was undemocratic.  It allowed large landowners to draw boundaries for the new cities to include other rural residents who have no chance to vote for or against the incorporation.

2)  HB 466 allowed the large landowners who submit an incorporation petition to select the first mayor and city council.  Such a process smacks of the old company towns or even medieval Europe, even the first mayor and city council should be elected, not appointed.

3)  HB 466 cut counties almost completely out of the picture.  The county where a new town could incorporate has almost no control, even though the costs of infrastructure and services in the new town might wind up falling on the shoulders of other county residents as well as state taxpayers.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on January 29th that SB 25 is hung up because according to House Speaker Greg Curtis, "If we did something stupid [last year], it's unfortunate," Curtis said. "But people have relied on what we've done."

The Tribune report continued, "Under the law, developers who own 50 percent of the land can draw lines on a map and create a town. The proposed municipality must include at least 100 residents. The mayor and city council would be appointed for the first two years from a list supplied by the developer.
    Curtis, who said he has no financial connection to Hideout or any other proposed municipality, said he is not averse to amending the law.
    But he wants the petitioners who already have filed to have a shot before new legislation potentially changes the rules."

We need to ask Curtis why a law--like SB 25--requiring an election for the new officers of the town and to determine if the folks in the area proposed for incorporation really want a new town should be put on a back burner for the convenience of developers.  Please call Speaker Curtis at 801-538-1930, or send him an e-mail at gcurtis@utah.gov to ask for him to drop his objections to SB 25.

More information

Contact