SB199 is a law that was passed last session that requires unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County to enter in to a special services district. Along with this there is a significant boundary change. In the legislation, there is an opt out clause for a corporation that owns parcels in two of the communities. The opt out allows the corporate owned land to remain unincorporated, thus avoiding franchise taxes, but requires the communities incorporate. In the process, the communities will lose 95% of land previously attributed to them, due to the opt out clause. This completely surrounds one community allowing for no economic development and no say in the zoning and regulatory aspects of the land that used to be theirs. Is there a legal challenge to be had for the members of the community?
First, I will tell you that I am licensed in California but reside in Salt Lake County. I was involved in a previous community council, an incorporation movement, and annexation in the County. The law does not require to be part of the Municipal Services District. Townships and unicorporTed areas now have no franchise tax as far as I know since that is a municipal authority... So if an area decides to become a city in the election thT city can impose a franchise tax... Unfortunately I don't see what the issue is with the Kennecott/Rio Tinto properties is on the west side. If I recall my history correctly that property has been historically exempt from incorporation by a city to prevent taxing inequities in the Valley, this plan only extends this. Much of the lack of economic development you are talking about has been the result of what residents have wanted in the area they live in. Many of the current townships that are targeted by this bill have historically fought development in their area trying to maintain the unicorpirated feel of the area. The property has no zoning use now, it's mine and refinery... Their industry is regulated by the County and the State, the current townships haven't ever had a say in whT happens there, I don't see how this changes anything...Counties are a greAt form of government in rural areas that are not urbanized. Counties are terrible as the county becomes highly urbanized. This bill gets Salt Lake County out of the municipal services and puts county back to more of the statutory role. This really creates wall to wall cities in the Valley except for the far northwest area, Kennecott area, and forest service areas on the east. Personally there are a bunch of unincorporated areas in Sandy (Granite, White City, etc,) that need to be in Sandy. It makes no sense that they are served by the County when closer services are available. If they choose to stay the way they are they will fall in the MSD, which should make them think about twice about staying unincorporated. As Kennecott spins off land, for other uses, they will have to somehow end up in a separate city or merge into an existing city. Daybreak is the model for that...honestly I don't think there is a challenge because the idea of the bill was to allow community preservation ( so the traditional communities like Copperton, Magna, Millcreek) are not lost but have them move forward in urbanized areas. I would have loved to have seen this to protect the Union area but at the time the only way to protect it was incorporation ( that failed) and then annexation into Midvale so we had some local control because of practices of the county back then.
I don't see a challenge but there are some good land and constitutional lawyers in the valley consult with one of them...but you will find that you would be fighting the county and kennecott. The legal bills you would face would be extensive with a limited chance of success....
