April 2001

By James Lawlor

Utah: Annexation under control. After adding a few amendments to appease Salt Lake County, the Utah legislature enacted H.B. 155, the annexation reform bill drafted by the chapter. The vote in the house, reports Wilf Sommerkorn, AICP, was 60 to five; the senate vote was unanimous.

As noted last month, the chapter's goals in drafting the reform measure were to simplify the annexation process, restore the role of planning, and help cities manage growth. As amended, the act requires municipalities to adopt an annexation policy plan that includes criteria for deciding on petitions for annexing unincorporated land.

The act calls on municipalities to avoid conflicts with neighboring jurisdictions as they develop their plans, and to consider the need for additional land for development. Annexed areas must be contiguous with municipalities, and municipalities may not annex land merely to enhance revenues or to block another jurisdiction. Finally, each county must appoint a boundary commission to consider protests to annexation petitions.

The act also establishes a moratorium on annexation petitions within Salt Lake County until November 15, giving city and county officials time to work out their annexation plans and submit them to the legislature.

Colorado: Growth management times four. Four comprehensive growth management bills have been introduced in this legislative session, along with a number of bills addressing various aspects of the issue. H.B. 1165, supported by the environmental community, died in committee. The chapter supports two other bills: S.B. 97 would require metro areas of one million or more population to prepare regional plans. S.B. 148 would require adoption by regional agencies (councils of government, planning commissions, and metropolitan planning organizations).

The chapter may formally oppose a fourth bill, H.B. 1225, which is similar to S.B. 148. Under S.B. 148, however, the urban service area established by the plan is limited to the area needed to accommodate population and job growth over the next 20 years. H.B. 1225 provides for an area that would accommodate 115 percent to 125 percent of projected population and job growth.

Another difference between the two bills relates to land designated for conservation and open space. S.B. 148 would permit such land to be acquired by the use of transferable development rights or easements. H.B. 1225 would require the planning jurisdiction to pay fair market value. For the time being, the chapter will work on improving both bills.

New Mexico: Consistency bill clears committee. The first product of the chapter's effort to update the state's planning laws, a bill requiring municipal comprehensive plans to be consistent with local land-use regulations, was approved by the house government and urban affairs committee February 20, by a three-to-two vote.

Legislative committee chair Lora Lucero, AICP, says H.B. 464 reflects principles developed by APA's Growing Smart project and by the laws of other states that have adopted consistency requirements. The bill appropriates $3 million for grants to aid communities to develop comprehensive plans and revise regulations. Communities would have until 2003 to remove inconsistencies.

Florida: Growth report ready. The growth management commission finished its work in mid-February, dumping about 90 recommendations in the laps of Gov. Jeb Bush and the state legislature. As this column was being prepared, chapter leaders had not yet released a formal position statement on the commission's work.

So far, the chapter says, the idea of requiring school construction to be concurrent with development and the proposal for better accounting of development costs look to be important steps forward. The chapter also praises the recommendations for incentives to revitalize urban areas and for development of a state policy on rural areas, and the report's acknowledgment of the importance of regional plans.

More troubling aspects of the report, according to the chapter, include: replacing the state comprehensive plan with a brief vision statement, shifting planning duties to the local level with no assurance that the work will be done, trimming the state's regulatory involvement in several areas, and tinkering with the process regulating developments of regional impact.