Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves process for municipal boundary disconnections limited to same county
Summary
The Utah House passed first substitute House Bill 335 on March 1, 2005, creating a process for municipalities to seek boundary disconnection and arbitration within the same county; Representative Craig Frank said the amendment prevents inter-county complications. Vote: 63-8.
The Utah House passed first substitute House Bill 335 on March 1, 2005, authorizing a formal process for a municipality to request the disconnection of territory and, if necessary, to petition the county boundary commission to resolve disputes. The bill was amended on the floor to limit its application to municipalities that share a common border within the same county. Final passage was 63 yes, 8 no.
Representative Craig Frank, the bill sponsor, said the amendment ‘‘clarifies that the bill … will only address the provisions of that bill within the same county,’’ and stressed that the measure provides an arbitration process for intra-county disputes. Frank described practical protections in the bill, including requirements that requested land be wholly owned by the requesting municipality, that boundary adjustments be consistent with the requesting municipality’s annexation policy, and that deed restrictions be preserved so future private ownership cannot change the intended zoning without a prior resolution of intent. He illustrated the need with a local example: Cedar Hills purchased land adjoining Highland to complete a golf course fairway and wants authority to disconnect and then reannex that parcel as part of a bond resolution.
During floor debate, Representative Hutchings questioned the limitation to intra-county disputes, noting some boundary issues cross county lines along the Wasatch Front and asking, ‘‘Why would we want to exclude those properties?’’ Frank replied the change was deliberate to avoid taxing complications and because ‘‘each county only has a boundary commission’’ and there is no inter-county boundary commission to adjudicate disputes. Representatives Allen and Hardy supported the amendment, saying it prevented unintended consequences for specific local disputes.
The amendment was adopted on a voice vote and Frank urged colleagues to support the overall bill as an orderly way for cities to resolve boundary disagreements. With the House amendment adopted, the bill will be referred to the Senate for further consideration.
