New bills introduced in the Utah Legislature could change how Summit County approaches its moderate-income housing plan, negatively affect the county’s renewable energy initiatives, and eliminate easy access to mail-in ballots.
Deputy County Manager Janna Young presented a slate of new bills being tracked by the county’s legislative taskforce to the County Council on Wednesday.
H.B. 88, which is sponsored by Rep. Raymond Ward of Davis County, was a key bill being watched because it would change how often the county needs to submit its moderate-income housing plan to the state.
Currently, Summit County is required to submit its plan each year, outlining strategies for developing housing in a price range affordable for residents based on the median household income in the area.
H.B. 88 would change the requirement to submit the moderate-income housing plan to every three years.
“That would actually help us,” Young told the County Council. “It allows us to actually get closer to some of those benchmarks or those milestones and look at the benchmarks and actually have some good things to report.”
H.B. 241, which is sponsored by Rep. Colin Jack of Washington County, intends to prohibit solar development on cropland, grazing land and forests. Summit County, which has renewable energy goals as part of its sustainability initiatives, would be negatively affected if the bill were to pass, according to Young.
H.B. 249, another bill focused on energy, encourages the development of nuclear power in Utah. The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Carl Albrecht, who represents parts of Sevier, Piute, Beaver and Iron counties.
“The concern we have with both of these bills is they seem to limit what we’re already doing in our county,” Young explained. “For instance, the solar power plant bill is intended to limit or prohibit solar development in the state of Utah. … It’s based on a particular amount of wattage, so it is really those large solar farms. We’ve been told that some of the ones we have invested in, under this bill, wouldn’t have been developed.”
Young said she wasn’t sure if others were aware of Summit County’s 100% net renewable energy goal, but the county is part of a coalition that worked to build a solar farm in Tooele County. The Tooele County solar farm now powers the County Courthouse’s operations, which is 100% net renewable.
“This is a big deal for us. We wouldn’t want to be in a position to be limiting that,” Young said. “There are other counties like Beaver County that also have a lot of solar who were initially opposed to the bill as well.”
Meanwhile, the nuclear energy bill, which Young described as “misleading,” sets up a commission to study and encourage the development of nuclear power in Utah.
“There are other provisions in the bill that I don’t think counties or even those participating in the committee hearing on this are aware of,” Young said. “Specifically, it would restrict local governments from negotiating tax incentives for energy development within their boundaries unless that energy development is proposed in one of these to-be-established electric energy development investment funds.”
Additionally, any tax incentives or tax increment financing would flow partially to the state and not stay entirely within the local government.
Young strongly encouraged the County Council to discuss the two bills further and bring up concerns at the next Utah Association of Counties meeting, which helps provide services to county governments and lobbies on their behalf during legislative sessions.
“We could see if the representative is amenable to work with us on at least those pieces,” Young said.
Rep. Jefferson Burton of Utah County is the sponsor of H.B. 300, which essentially “does away with the mail-in voting option,” according to Young. She called the bill “very concerning,” although she said she expects the bill to be modified and not pass in its original form.
“You basically would have to request a mail-in ballot every election, and then if you did receive a mail-in ballot, in order to vote, you would actually have to hand deliver it to either a ballot box or a polling station where you have staff there checking your ID,” Young explained. “It makes it a lot harder to vote as well as increasing the number of dropboxes we have to have.”
Amy Price, the county’s chief deputy clerk, told the County Council it would be a difficult logistic change because each dropbox would require a staff of three people over a 12-hour shift six days a week. Staff would also need an internet connection, and there would be additional costs for printing different return envelopes.
“Folks would need to put their ballot in the correct envelope depending on how they return their ballot,” Price said. “If they don’t return it in the proper envelope, we’d have to go through a cure process, like we do for the signature process if signatures don’t match.”
Young pointed out that 90% of voters in Summit County choose to vote by mail, according to information from County Clerk Eve Furse.
“Obviously, this is infringing too on what the preferred method is within our county,” Young said.
Two bills involving behavioral and mental health — H.B. 281 and H.B. 102 — also concerned Summit County officials.
“H.B. 281 would prevent organizations who we currently contract with to provide services from providing those school-based services, and there is a provision in the bill that would actually reinstate conversion therapy as an option,” Young said. “H.B. 102 would also defund health services in schools. This is also the bill that gets rid of the dual-language program and a lot of other things in our schools, which we’re very concerned about.”
Young also brought up H.B. 176, sponsored by Rep. Walt Brooks of Washington County, for the second week in a row. The bill would change Summit County’s classification from a third-class county to a fourth-class county.
Last week, Young talked to the County Council about the bill, noting that there were a few benefits to being a fourth-class county, such as more funding opportunities for infrastructure projects. Overall, though, Young expressed concerns about the change because of ordinances in the county code that were grandfathered in and specifically use language referring to Summit County as a third-class county.
If the county were to change classifications, Young said she didn’t know whether those ordinances would still be valid.
Since Young’s last update to the County Council, however, a substitute was introduced that would keep every county other than Washington County in its current classification.
“It also increases the population on the top end to give counties a little bit more wiggle room before they have to move up a class,” Young said.
Third-class counties have a population size between 40,000 and 175,000 residents. The H.B. 176 substitute would change the population size for a third-class county to between 40,000 and 260,000 residents.
“It looks like this change happened because most of the other counties didn’t want to move classes, and so they negotiated that,” Young said. “I don’t know exactly where [the County Council] lands on this conversation. There would be a chance to ask for changes with the bill sponsor if we want to or if we’re happy staying a third-class county.”
County Council Vice Chair Canice Harte asked Young to coordinate with Wasatch County, which is on the brink of being bumped up to third-class, to help officials determine whether they want to support or oppose any further class adjustments. Young said she knows Wasatch County isn’t thrilled about the possible change, adding she would reach out to their county manager for more details.
Young also mentioned H.B. 256, a bill sponsored by Rep. Neil Walter of Washington County, which would help the county regulate short-term rentals. Short-term rentals, often found on websites like Airbnb or VRBO, have been a big topic for the Summit County Council as councilors and county officials work together to find more effective methods of regulation.
“In general, I think it really helps the county because it allows us to regulate short-term rentals more easily in our county,” Young said. “It does allow us to use listings or offerings on rental websites as evidence of violations provided there is additional supporting information. We are seeking clarification on what that supporting information is because currently, we’re allowed to use guest reviews or statements as evidence that they rented it as part of our enforcement efforts, so we’d like to be able to maintain that in the new legislation. We’ll be reaching out to the representative to ask about that.”
The County Council will continue to work with the legislative taskforce to coordinate the county’s position on proposed bills. Young will provide updates each Wednesday throughout the general session.