Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects interlocal coordination planning bill after hours of debate
Summary
Senate Bill 91, which would have created a voluntary interlocal coordination planning process across local governments and associations of governments, failed on the floor 11–18 after senators debated whether the measure would effectively mandate local planning and impose costs on smaller jurisdictions.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Senate rejected Senate Bill 91 after an extended floor debate, with opponents arguing the measure risked imposing mandates and costs on local governments and supporters saying it would improve coordination on transportation, air quality and land-use decisions.
Senator Sandra McAllister, the bill’s floor sponsor, said the measure was the product of extensive interim work and had been pared back to remove a certification requirement and direct fiscal authority. She told senators the revised bill had the support of the League of Cities and Towns and several local entities that sought clearer interlocal discussion.
The sponsor read a statement from Payson Mayor Russell Hillman highlighting cross-jurisdictional problems and urging coordination. McAllister relayed the mayor’s point: “We can no longer afford the plan in a vacuum,” citing examples where uncoordinated local actions had created conflicts across borders.
Opponents argued the bill uses the word “shall” in ways that could later be converted into a mandate and flagged the cost and administrative burden on small towns. Senator Blackcomb said the proposal “is a mandate bill” and expressed concern about forcing local governments into expensive planning obligations they could not afford.
The Senate recorded 11 aye votes and 18 nay votes; the bill failed. Sponsors said they would continue to refine the language; opponents said smaller communities needed assurances this would remain voluntary and would not be turned into compulsion in future sessions.
The debate surfaced recurring tensions between regional planning advocates and elected local officials wary of state-driven requirements and unfunded compliance costs.
