Select a different bill



HB 0408 - State Property and School and Institutional Trust Land Amendments

Tracking Level: Hot
Sponsor: Michael Noel
Last Action: 3/9/2017 - House/ filed in House file for bills not passed
House Committee: Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment
Senate Committee: Rules
Assigned To:
Land UseNext Bill
OpposedNext Bill
ULCTNext Bill

Staff Analysis of the Legislation

From: Steve Mumford <SMumford@Emcity.org>
Date: March 1, 2017 at 2:22:44 PM MST
To: Wilf Sommerkorn <WSommerkorn@slco.org>
Subject: RE: SITLA bill

Wilf & Jodi,

Eagle Mountain is Extremely concerned about this bill. SITLA owns hundreds of acres within the city, and we are currently in negotiations with SITLA and Ivory Homes (who has partnered with SITLA for development of their property). Much of this acreage is right in the middle of town, and will have a major impact on transportation, land use, the look and feel of the city, and the overall quality of life of our city. If this bill allows Ivory Homes (SITLA’s partner) to obtain development rights without the City’s jurisdiction, then Ivory or SITLA will essentially control the future of our city without the residents’ input.

SITLA also controls the mineral rights in several other areas of the city, and we would like some control over these mining activities, including buffering, dust, noise, etc.

SITLA’s vested residential units in their two master plans in the city total more than 5,000. Thank you for fighting this bill.

From: Dennis Marker <DMarker@santaquin.org>
Date: March 1, 2017 at 11:52:16 AM MST
To: Wilf Sommerkorn <WSommerkorn@slco.org>
Subject: RE: SITLA bill

We have 1 tract (564 acres) that was annexed for development purposes. A development agreement between the city and SITLA is in place that addresses future uses and development of the property. However, there has been a lot of discussion about SITLA leasing the property for mineral extraction in order to prepare the property for the intended development. I believe our agreement covers this issue but the proposed legislation muddies the water.

 

On Mar 1, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Zacharia Levine <zlevine@grandcountyutah.net> wrote:

This would be monumental in Grand County and Moab City as we have many SITLA parcels in the area.

 

In fact, check out this dispute regarding the interpretation of a major vs. minor change to  a development agreement between the City of Moab, SITLA, and a private lessee going on RIGHT NOW.

 

http://secure-web.cisco.com/1uoEjiBOt5d8urC5HABZBgtwJWoP2MOplNdJP9016nK9iIWUnGRa-gcdHGJMeALkOq3CRWUpmQU57Gj_v5aBYp2DnOq8maYh-ZVP6ZuHvRdoJvR3r_A36fntM5n9oau-Ul9MKILQchIKZzuOZmraQa8Nv8z3XZ1piE8lcOSqTzuHwUqKhlvPxJgfpxRt9WTA-ecYbbRDTpjuoXqScMnM4Id6ZFLuoDJmS68856IFlw0ZLEkozzNUFE8xwEQxJeCNR/http%3A%2F%2Fmoabtimes.com%2Fview%2Ffull_story%2F27334889%2Farticle-City-postpones-review-of-Lionsback-Resort-agreement?

 

http://secure-web.cisco.com/1GklluTJeXOWWntZmx8q7M4oM8clSVHtt3mChXIwvComcx8EVVRWi_uzWL-muD1uX8pUuN3WvUJqR6kf1aYFNFoFiQhBH0ssT7YUlN9V3Qka-qciDaNWv8i5PoPKALLG3YVUM5h5H4ij_XBOOC0kjHWhkJA8KvReF62jBMYIx3VFKVVxIq7IIVCV-TIkH0haJX9b4dkymGRFGgWmFpE3AHh4NnRna4mYpaYwLOZJyJltDb3DWOi8V0IQFLGQSwqiD/http%3A%2F%2Fmoabtimes.com%2Fview%2Ffull_story%2F27370337%2Farticle-City-wants-SITLA-to-pay-legal-expenses-if-new-Lionsback-lawsuits-occur%3Finstance%3Dhome_news_right

 

Best,

Zacharia

Jodi:

Summit County has SITLA lands within its jurisdictional boundaries.  The SITLA property is located within the Canyons Specially Planned Area and is encumbered by the 1999 Canyons Resort Specially Planned Area Development Agreement.

Best,

Pat

Here is a link to SITLA online map. I don’t know if it is 100% accurate, but it might help you find land you may not be aware of.

http://platmap.trustlands.utah.gov/

Once you open the map, I think the Surface Plat Map tab probably gives you the best information.

Mark H. Stratford

Assistant City Attorney

Ogden City Attorney’s Office

(801) 629-8145

Jodi,

We have well over 1000 acres of SITLA properties in and adjacent to our city, within our annexation declaration area, which we have been working with SITLA to master plan for years. Most of these areas are uphill from neighborhoods with limited infrastructure, and would create massive impacts – and/or be completely infeasible to develop - unless local regulations for provision of water tanks, adequate road connectivity and transportation mitigation, storm drain connections, and many other items are met.

We are extremely opposed to this bill. Please let us know what we need to do.

Kimber Gabryszak, AICP


Bill Summary from the State Site - Click for the State Summary Page / Click for Current Full Text