2010 Legislature
This page contains information pertaining to the Utah 2010 Legislative Session . For a more comprehensive list of legislation pertaining to Utah's Environment please visit the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club's Bill Tracker.
CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY, TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON SB 244!
(Click here to find legislators)
SB 244 (C. Bramble) * UPDATE- This legislation was withdrawn. Thank you for everyone who took action to stop this piece of legislation. We will probably see this again, in some form or another next year.
What this bill does?
This legislation, created specifically for Snowbird and Solitude, would allow for ski resorts to be annexed into a nearby city (Sandy and Cottonwood Heights), even though the property would be separated by up to 10 miles of federal, state or county land.
Why is this legislation harmful to the Wasatch Canyons?
In short, it is a political end-run on part of the ski resorts to get around those pesky zoning ordinances put in place by Salt Lake County to protect our watershed and the natural environment of the Wasatch Mountains.
Talking Points:
A. SB 244 circumvents the current Annexation Laws:
2. It changes the private real property requirement. The proposed legislation allows the annexation if “the owners of at least one-third of the value of the private real property within the resort area” consent to the annexation. This language expressly conflicts with the provision under Subsection (3)(a) that allows the owners of a majority of the total private land area and ½ the value of all private land area in the proposed annexation to protest the annexation and their protest would limit the ability of the municipality to adopt an ordinance annexing the area (Subsection (4)(a)). Snowbird owns 46% of the value of private real property.
3. Allows for annexation of noncontiguous parcels. It eliminates the requirement that the area be contiguous to the annexing municipality if only separated by federal government land.
4. Eliminates petition and notification process. There is no requirement to notify residents affected by annexation. Further, the definition for a “resort area” does not clarify whether this will include other property owners whose properties may be surrounded by or adjacent to the resort area. It simply does not protect private property rights.
B. If these ski areas (Solitude and Snowbird) wish to leave the County, they can already do so by being annexed into the Town of Alta. However, these resorts are unwilling to join the Town of Alta because of their land use and zoning regulations.
C. The ski areas have cited the police and public service fee as a reason to leave the county. According to the Deseret News article on 2/24/10, "the county has used $826,000 a year from its general fund to pay for canyon patrol and search and rescue in Big and Little Cottonwood canyons." Is asking Snowbird to pay $124,000 (figure from 2/24/10 Salt Lake Tribune) annually, really all that much to ask? Are Sandy and Cottonwood Heights even able to offer the premium services such as Search and Rescue as the County currently does?
D. The public has asked for tighter restrictions on development in the canyons to better protect our water quality and visual aesthetics of the natural environment. How does this legislation support over 90% of the public's opinions?
E. The canyons are a public resource as are the resort areas that lie within. It is completely inappropriate for a city to manage a public resource in its own interests. As J Michael Hansen, resident of the Granite Community said during a Senate hearing on Friday 2/19/10, "If you are going to allow cherry-picking, you must be required to take some of the pits, not just the berries."
