Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrowly embraces annexation clarification after extended debate
Summary
After prolonged floor debate and a failed amendment to delete section 4-18, the House passed House Bill 1 66 on Feb. 13, 1995, clarifying that a 1979 annexation provision should not be applied to existing industrial facilities; the amendment to remove that section was defeated 33-38 and the bill passed 59-11.
A contentious floor debate over annexation law ended with the Utah House passing House Bill 1 66 on Feb. 13, 1995, after an amendment to delete a key section failed and the bill passed as amended.
Representative Karen B. Smith, sponsor of the bill, said the measure was intended to restore original legislative intent from a 1979 law and to clarify that section 4-18 should not be used to annex existing industrial facilities. She described pink-sheet amendments to change committee membership and meeting frequency for the records committee and to add language exempting ‘‘modification or contiguous expansion of an existing industrial development’’ from 4-18, using the $750,000 development-cost threshold in the statutory definition. Smith said the change is a ‘‘baby step’’ to correct what she called a misapplication of the 1979 intent.
Representative Ripley Olsen moved an amendment that would delete section 4-18 from the bill entirely, urging broader study of annexation law and input from counties and cities. Olsen and other opponents argued the law is complex and that deleting the section would avoid prematurely adopting language drafted by a private attorney in a single example case. Olsen said he preferred sending the issue to the interim committee for more study.
Floor exchange centered on whether the sponsor’s language would increase or decrease city annexation power. Representative Smith repeatedly said the amendment was intended to restore the 1979 intent and would not expand a city’s power; Olsen countered that the problem with 4-18 is unclear language and that solutions should be developed with broader local input.
A division vote on Olsen’s amendment failed, 33 yes to 38 no, after which members returned to debate and final passage proceedings. The House then approved HB1 66 as amended on a roll-call tally of 59 yes to 11 no; the bill will be forwarded to the Senate.
The record includes several floor disclosures of conflicts of interest related to industries and metropolitan water boards during parallel items. Sponsor Smith requested interim study language be added so the issue can be further examined.
