League says SB 337 would let state pick major sites, collect tax increment without local consent

The Utah League of Cities and Towns Legislative Policy Committee discussed Senate Bill 337 on a special virtual meeting, concluding that the bill as drafted would let a state board approve large-scale “Significant Community Impact Projects” (SCIPs) and capture a large share of local tax increment without requiring local consent.

League staff told about 300 attendees that SB 337 would authorize a new Beehive Development Agency — a five-member board with three governor appointees and one appointee each from the Senate president and House speaker — to approve up to three SCIPs per year. The bill would let the agency act as land-use authority for approved SCIPs, require local governments to “cooperate to the fullest extent” but not require local consent, and authorize the agency to retain up to 75% of property- and sales-tax increment from the site for the first 25 years (and up to 50% for the following 15 years) to fund infrastructure.

The League’s presentation highlighted several provisions that drew concern from city members: the SCIP definition is broad and intentionally flexible (a project could be only a few acres if it is “significant” locally), the process gives the GOEO chief executive a lead role in site selection and recommendation to the Beehive board, and the statute would permit noncontiguous project areas spanning multiple jurisdictions. Staff also flagged that the bill’s definition of “public infrastructure” could include privately owned infrastructure the board deems to provide public benefit.

League staff emphasized practical constraints: even if the state approves a SCIP, cities and counties remain essential for inspections, utility hookups and other land‑use administration needed to complete development. Members raised questions about tax stacking where an RDA/CRA/HDRZ already exists at a site, the potential for tax revenue collected in one place to be spent elsewhere, and school-district impacts. Staff said the bill requires notice to “affected communities” within a half‑mile, but did not find explicit local consent language in the draft.

Staff recommended opposing SB 337 as drafted and invited members to propose partnership-based alternatives: site-selection roles for local governments, opt-in models, explicit limits on tax increment capture and stronger requirements that state funds cannot be used outside the project area without local agreement. The League said it has coordinated with the Utah Association of Counties on shared concerns.

The committee’s staff presentation did not offer a final bill text amendment; members were asked to give feedback through Slido and the chat so League officers and staff could pursue redrafting discussions with legislators.

The League’s position on SB 337 was later included in a ratification motion taken at the meeting (see “Votes at a glance”).