County legislative update: bills on Dakota Pacific, resort-tax, property assessments and a proposed state development agency

County staff briefed the Summit County Council on Feb. 26 about several bills pending at the Utah Legislature that could affect local land use, taxation and revenues.

Jana (county staff) led the update. She said SB 26 — the housing and transit reinvestment zone statute — had a new substitute that “includes language that provides the density and uses consistent with the amended development agreement that Summit County approved with Dakota Pacific and would allow DPRA to make an administrative application to Summit County for approval.” Staff said that substitute had just been released and was being heard in committee.

Staff also described SB 91, a bill that would extend restaurant-tax parity so prepared foods sold in grocery and convenience stores would be taxed similarly to restaurant-prepared foods, potentially increasing county restaurant-tax revenues.

County staff flagged SB 295, a property-tax modification bill, and said recent inserted language appeared to target Summit County’s assessment process for ski resorts, including the Montage assessments currently under appeal. Jana said the assessor was working to remove the inserted lines and the county planned to raise the issue with the Utah Association of Counties.

The county also discussed SB 333, characterized by staff as a large infrastructure-funding bill intended to support sport and event venues statewide (items listed for potential funding included Park City Mountain, Deer Valley and the Utah Olympic Park). Jana said SB 333 would also give counties the option to implement a resort-communities tax should they choose.

Staff and Dave Thomas described SB 337, a proposal to create a state-level Beehive Development Agency that could act as a regional planning authority and, in limited numbers, supersede local land-use authority for projects of “significant community impact.” Dave said the agency would be able to consider up to three projects per year statewide and that “whatever they approve . . . it supersedes, local land use authority.” Council members expressed concern about potential loss of local control and said they would continue to monitor the bill.

Other updates included: HB 540 (changes to the pilot program for preliminary municipalities), HB 456 (changes to the transient room tax that would give more flexibility but tie grant eligibility to local adoption of a small additional rate and revenue thresholds), and changes to election-law bills (a substitute removed the rule requiring two staff at drop boxes). Staff noted that a bill to extend the ranked-choice voting pilot did not advance and the pilot will expire after 2026.

Why it matters: Several bills could change local revenue flows, the county’s ability to regulate development, and the county’s exposure to statewide planning actions. County staff said they are working with lobbyists, the Utah Association of Counties and legislative contacts to seek clarifications and amendments where needed.

Council members asked staff to continue outreach on SB 295’s inserted lines and to monitor SB 337 closely for implications to local land-use control.