Latest news with #BeehiveDevelopmentAgency
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Controversial bill to create powerful new state agency is dead (for now), senator says
The Utah Capitol is pictured with downtown Salt Lake City behind it on Friday, Jan. 26, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) A Utah lawmaker who ran a bill that quickly became wildly unpopular across the political spectrum has confirmed to reporters that he's pulling it from consideration. Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said during a media availability that SB337 — a bill to create a mighty new state body called the Beehive Development Agency that would have had broad land use, taxing and planning authority — won't be moving forward during the 2025 legislative session, which ends at midnight on Friday. '(SB337) is not moving,' Cullimore told reporters on Thursday, the second-to-last day of the 2025 session. 'Yeah, it's dead,' Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, added. 'Power grab?' Despite cross-party outcry, bill to create mighty new state agency moves forward Cullimore acknowledged it was published late in the session, leaving little time for debate. The first version of the bill also stoked a lot of outcry, while he said the aim was to better 'coordinate' planning and tax use tools across the state for economic development and housing. 'The messaging got away, and so many people saw this as state overreach,' he said. 'Really the intent was to take all these tools and, I'm not going to say consolidate power, but consolidate the tools so that we know they're being used most efficiently and effectively.' However, Cullimore said similar legislation is likely to return in the future, perhaps in 2026. 'The governor was a huge supporter of this bill, and so I don't think the idea's going to go away,' Cullimore said. 'But I think it needs to be retooled and bring some more people to the table so that as it further develops they have more input and can help with the messaging along the way.' Adams echoed that the 'messaging' around Beehive Development Agency 'probably came out wrong.' 'I think there's a lot of good things that were intended with the bill, but at times the messaging gets away, and I think that makes it tough,' Adams said. Asked if he plans to revive the bill next year, Cullimore jokingly said, 'If they find a sponsor, probably,' drawing laughs from other Senate Republican leaders. Under SB337, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity would have a new tool in the Beehive Development Agency, which would be an 'independent nonprofit' that would have ultimate planning power with broad bonding, land use and taxing authority. It's meant to accomplish 'statewide strategic objectives' by facilitating and streamlining 'significant community impact project areas.' A previous version of the bill would have totally preempted cities and counties' local control by allowing the Beehive Development Agency to 'designate up to three significant community impact project areas' in a city each year — regardless of consent from local officials. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But last week, Cullimore changed the bill in a Senate committee after negotiating with groups including the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Utah Association of Counties to address their concerns. The new version of the bill would require a city or county council to 'consent or not consent to inclusion' in one of the Beehive Development Agencies' 'significant community impact plans' within 45 days of the agency's commissioner proposing a draft plan. If they consented, SB337 specified that decision would be 'irrevocable.' The bill would have also also required the Beehive Development Agency's commissioner to coordinate with a list of other powerful, previously created agencies (many of them controversial) that also have broad land, bonding and taxing use authority, including: The Military Installation Development Authority, also known as MIDA, which was created in 2007 to work with the military, private businesses and local governments to promote economic development. It's responsible for developing the Falcon Hill Aerospace Research Park at Hill Air Force Base, and a project area in Wasatch County that includes Mayflower Mountain Resort, a new ski resort near Deer Valley. The Utah Inland Port Authority, which the Utah Legislature created in 2018 under a cloud of scandal after Salt Lake City officials decried lawmakers for usurping local authority. Environmental groups continue to litigate its constitutionality, while state officials defend it as a tool to develop logistics hubs across the state to maximize Utah's import and export industries. The Point of the Mountain State Land Authority, a board tasked with overseeing the development of 600 acres of prime real estate at the site of the former Utah State Prison in Draper, now known as The Point. The Utah Lake Authority, a body to manage development in and around Utah Lake. The State Fair Park Authority, tasked with managing the existing Utah State Fairpark. The Utah Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District, which has taxing, bonding and land use authority to facilitate development of a Major League Baseball stadium in and around Salt Lake City's Fairpark neighborhood. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hefty new ‘Beehive Development Agency' bill advances despite government overreach concerns
SALT LAKE CITY () — A controversial economic development bill introduced a week before the end of the 45-day Utah Legislative Session passed the committee Monday before being paused on the Senate floor. sets out to create a powerful new state entity called the Beehive Development Agency (BDA), which would work to expedite and coordinate economic development projects, like housing or energy projects, funded through property tax differentials. The agency would have planning, bonding, land use, and taxing authority. READ NEXT: What could the tariffs on Canada, Mexico mean for Utahns?. The bill has the backing of some of the state's heavy hitters, like Governor Spencer Cox's office. Sponsor Sen. Kirk Cullimore (R – Draper) said it would be 'a limited tool for the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity' to create and attract big-impact, generational projects, such as nuclear power plants, large manufacturing areas, and coordinate housing projects under a single housing office. 'There's a demand for (development) out there, we would just like to see it more strategically coordinated,' Cullimore told reporters, specifying that the agency would be for projects that benefit the state, not a 'new subdivision and a Walmart,' he said. An original version of the bill had a provision that local cities and counties would not have a say in any of the development, but a substitute version removed that to allow for local buy-in via a city or county's legislative body. Even still, critics say this agency is an expansive use of state power. The bill sets up an Economic Opportunity Coordinating Council — comprised of state leaders and city stakeholders — to council the BDA. 'Utah needs to enhance its ability to respond quickly and efficiently to significant economic development opportunities,' Cullimore said to the committee. While the bill passed the committee, several residents expressed concerns about transferring power from elected officials to a private entity, saying it would be a shadow organization controlled by the governor with little public oversight. Others expressed concerns about having such a broad bill fast-tracked near the end of the session. 'A lot of people have just had it with the legislature. They just feel like you guys up here are not responsive. They don't want statewide control, they want local control. They don't want a new entity with taxing authority. They don't want coordinated efforts, they want freedom from their government,' said Maryann Christensen, the executive director of Utah Legislature Watch. Sen. John Johnson voted against the bill, citing similar concerns, saying, 'As a legislature, we're losing credibility with the public that thinks we rush into things and we don't listen.' Johnson continued: 'I have a hard time supporting it because I worry about the perception. We a lot of times lose the battle because we don't communicate effectively what we are trying to do.' Other lawmakers approved of the bill, but felt there was still work that needed to be done. Sen. Ann Millner (R – Ogden) said it's time to centralize and coordinate development better, and while the bill still 'needs some work,' she said Cullimore showed he was willing to make changes. 'I feel like we need to have the opportunity to keep it moving and get it in the right place because I really do feel like it's important for the future of Utah,' Millner said. The Utah Rivers Council is one of the groups most ardently opposed to the bill, claiming the bill would 'hijack' local tax revenue and could lead to projects that greatly increase water rates and dry up the Great Salt Lake. The council, along with the Great Salt Lake Waterkeeper, said the bill could pave the way for previously proposed water projects to move forward, potentially diverting water from the Great Salt Lake. 'The BDA is tasked with and given all the powers to get those projects done by forcing them on local communities since they will be exempt from local land use controls. To add insult to injury, the community can have its current tax collections hijacked to pay for the project,' the press release read. The bill was circled on the Senate floor Monday, just days before the end of the 2025 Legislative Session. It is unclear at this time if it will have enough time to go through both the Utah Senate and House before Friday. 'I think there is some positives in the bill that need to be refined and we probably need to keep it moving through the process so we can at least have a discussion,' Senate President Adams said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Utah's Legislature mounting a power grab or simply planning?
A bill that is a priority of Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, a powerful GOP lawmaker from Layton, is generating concern despite passing out of a Senate committee on Tuesday. Whatever the outcome, SB337 has left a sour taste in the mouth of opponents who allege it is nothing more than a power grab that would be conducted under the 'shadowy' entity called the Beehive Development Agency made up of unaccountable board members who can do what they want with Utah land in the name of economic development. 'This horrible bill will bankrupt local governments by stealing tax revenues and defunding local services to give those funds to the shadowy lobbyists who prowl the hallways of the Governor's office and the Utah statehouse' said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. 'If you think democracy is expensive, try communism' said Frankel. Harsh words for a bill that seeks to streamline the development of big projects, with community buy-in — but opponents see it as a bulldozer to fast-track development in a veil of secrecy. Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said the bill is designed to encourage 'big' projects and cut through red tape. 'It could be potentially a nuclear plant. It could be large manufacturing, or it could be really, really grand scale, mixed use developments. And what we're trying to address here is not not a new subdivision and a Walmart or something like that, but things that have large, large, significant impact on the state of Utah,' Cullimore said But there were doubters in the committee hearing Tuesday, advancing the bill on a 3-2 vote. 'I've read through this several times, and of course, I've gotten a few emails messages, and I think they have a major problem when government kind of takes over. And you know, there's a lot of this about local control, and you said you take this preemption thing, but explain to me how, how you believe that this actually gets government out of the way. Because I've heard that argument on on the other side of this bill,' said Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden. Cullimore said the bill is about consolidation and coordination of big projects. 'We have a lot of efforts like I mentioned, whether it's various development authorities, whether it's various housing programs, economic incentives, development incentives. And really, what this is doing is creating this development agency to coordinate all of these efforts, bring this together, so that, you know, we have one group over here working on something, and maybe the appropriate tools over here, and nobody's actually putting those things together. And so if we're going to have all these efforts, I think it's best that we do this in a coordinated fashion, so that we're making government more efficient in that respect, and making sure that the tools that we have are being effectively used.' He added that the newly created Beehive Development Agency would entertain three projects a year, and would not be a wholesale assault on local control. Others in the hearing disagreed. 'This bill is huge, something this broad, should never be brought out during the final week, when no one has the time to properly read and understand such a broad, sweeping bill and its implications,' said Kristin Richie with the Utah Eagle Forum. Under the measure, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity would employ a new tool called the Beehive Development Agency. The catch is it would be an independent nonprofit with power over expansive bonding, land use and taxing authority. The bill may have good intent and has powerful supporters, but that did not deter critics, with Marryann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, asserting it represents a tipping point for the public. 'I think that that confidence and trust in the Legislature is at an all-time low, and I think this bill will tip a lot of people over the edge. It's too much of a power grab, and after the inland port, the baseball stadium, the hockey arena, the Point at the Mountain development,' she said. 'And a lot of people have just had it with the legislature. They feel like you guys up here are not responsive. They don't want statewide control. They want local control. They don't want a new entity with taxing authority. '
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Utah's Legislature mounting a power grab or simply planning?
A bill that is a priority of Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah Senate President Stuart Adams, a powerful GOP lawmaker from Layton, is generating concern despite passing out of a Senate committee on Tuesday. Whatever the outcome, SB337 has left a sour taste in the mouth of opponents who allege it is nothing more than a power grab that would be conducted under the 'shadowy' entity called the Beehive Development Agency made up of unaccountable board members who can do what they want with Utah land in the name of economic development. 'This horrible bill will bankrupt local governments by stealing tax revenues and defunding local services to give those funds to the shadowy lobbyists who prowl the hallways of the Governor's office and the Utah statehouse' said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. 'If you think democracy is expensive, try communism' said Frankel. Harsh words for a bill that seeks to streamline the development of big projects, with community buy-in — but opponents see it as a bulldozer to fast-track development in a veil of secrecy. Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, said the bill is designed to encourage 'big' projects and cut through red tape. 'It could be potentially a nuclear plant. It could be large manufacturing, or it could be really, really grand scale, mixed use developments. And what we're trying to address here is not not a new subdivision and a Walmart or something like that, but things that have large, large, significant impact on the state of Utah,' Cullimore said But there were doubters in the committee hearing Tuesday, advancing the bill on a 3-2 vote. 'I've read through this several times, and of course, I've gotten a few emails messages, and I think they have a major problem when government kind of takes over. And you know, there's a lot of this about local control, and you said you take this preemption thing, but explain to me how, how you believe that this actually gets government out of the way. Because I've heard that argument on on the other side of this bill,' said Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden. Cullimore said the bill is about consolidation and coordination of big projects. 'We have a lot of efforts like I mentioned, whether it's various development authorities, whether it's various housing programs, economic incentives, development incentives. And really, what this is doing is creating this development agency to coordinate all of these efforts, bring this together, so that, you know, we have one group over here working on something, and maybe the appropriate tools over here, and nobody's actually putting those things together. And so if we're going to have all these efforts, I think it's best that we do this in a coordinated fashion, so that we're making government more efficient in that respect, and making sure that the tools that we have are being effectively used.' He added that the newly created Beehive Development Agency would entertain three projects a year, and would not be a wholesale assault on local control. Others in the hearing disagreed. 'This bill is huge, something this broad, should never be brought out during the final week, when no one has the time to properly read and understand such a broad, sweeping bill and its implications,' said Kristin Richie with the Utah Eagle Forum. Under the measure, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity would employ a new tool called the Beehive Development Agency. The catch is it would be an independent nonprofit with power over expansive bonding, land use and taxing authority. The bill may have good intent and has powerful supporters, but that did not deter critics, with Marryann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch, asserting it represents a tipping point for the public. 'I think that that confidence and trust in the Legislature is at an all-time low, and I think this bill will tip a lot of people over the edge. It's too much of a power grab, and after the inland port, the baseball stadium, the hockey arena, the Point at the Mountain development,' she said. 'And a lot of people have just had it with the legislature. They feel like you guys up here are not responsive. They don't want statewide control. They want local control. They don't want a new entity with taxing authority. '
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Power grab?' Despite cross-party outcry, bill to create mighty new state agency moves forward
Snow falls at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Friday, Dec. 13, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) The opposition was striking. Conservative and progressive groups alike fought it fiercely. Even a Republican lawmaker resisted it. Still, a newly unveiled bill that would create a powerful new state body called the Beehive Development Agency survived its first legislative hurdle on Monday. The Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee narrowly voted 3-2 to advance it to the Senate floor. Despite the fervor against it, SB337 also has heavyweight support. It's being pushed by Gov. Spencer Cox's office, and was supported by top Republican legislative leadership, including Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton. It's envisioned as a way to coordinate economic development — as well as housing incentives — for projects of statewide importance. Utah's new housing experiment 'Utah needs to enhance its ability to respond quickly and efficiently to significant economic development opportunities,' the bill's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy. 'That could be a wide variety of things. It could be potentially a nuclear plant. It could be large manufacturing. Or it could be really grand scale, mixed-use developments.' It wouldn't be for a regular development — 'not a new subdivision and a Walmart,' Cullimore said, 'but things that have large, significant impact on the state of Utah.' He pointed to a slate of new tools Utah lawmakers have passed in recent years meant to encourage cities and developers to build more affordable single-family homes, but also expressed a need for the state to 'consolidate all of these efforts.' 'Primarily that's what this is doing, is looking at the various things that we've done in the state of Utah over the last couple of years to boost economic development, boost housing opportunities, and really we need somebody that can come in and coordinate all of these efforts,' Cullimore said. Under SB337, the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity would have a new tool called the Beehive Development Agency, which would be an 'independent nonprofit' that would have ultimate planning power with broad bonding, land use and taxing authority. It's meant to accomplish 'statewide strategic objectives' by facilitating and streamlining 'significant community impact project areas.' Cullimore said a 'key thing' that he removed from the original version of the bill was 'local preemption,' or measures to usurp local control over development decisions. 'That's completely removed,' he said. Even though he acknowledged the bill was unveiled with less than nine days to go until the conclusion of the 2025 session, Cullimore said it's been 'worked on for a while,' with the governor's office and other stakeholders, 'and it's gone through a lot of iterations.' A previous version of the bill would have totally preempted cities and counties' local control by allowing the Beehive Development Agency to 'designate up to three significant community impact project areas' in a city each year — regardless of consent from local officials. Last week, Cullimore told reporters that provision of the bill was 'subject to a lot of negotiations,' and over the weekend he worked with groups including the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Utah Association of Counties to address their concerns. What resulted was the new version Cullimore proposed in Monday's committee, which would require a city or county council to 'consent or not consent to inclusion' in one of the Beehive Development Agencies' 'significant community impact plans' within 45 days of the agency's commissioner proposing a draft plan. If they consent, SB337 specifies that decision would be 'irrevocable.' The bill would also require the Beehive Development Agency's commissioner to coordinate with a list of other powerful, previously created agencies (many of them controversial) that also have broad land, bonding and taxing use authority, including: The Military Installation Development Authority, also known as MIDA, which was created in 2007 to work with the military, private businesses and local governments to promote economic development. It's responsible for developing the Falcon Hill Aerospace Research Park at Hill Air Force Base, and a project area in Wasatch County that includes Mayflower Mountain Resort, a new ski resort near Deer Valley. The Utah Inland Port Authority, which the Utah Legislature created in 2018 under a cloud of scandal after Salt Lake City officials decried lawmakers for usurping local authority. Environmental groups continue to litigate its constitutionality, while state officials defend it as a tool to develop logistics hubs across the state to maximize Utah's import and export industries. The Point of the Mountain State Land Authority, a board tasked with overseeing the development of 600 acres of prime real estate at the site of the former Utah State Prison in Draper, now known as The Point. The Utah Lake Authority, a body to manage development in and around Utah Lake. The State Fair Park Authority, tasked with managing the existing Utah State Fairpark. The Utah Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District, which has taxing, bonding and land use authority to facilitate development of a Major League Baseball stadium in and around Salt Lake City's Fairpark neighborhood. The Beehive Development Agency would become the mother of all development authorities — or 'the one authority to rule them all,' as The Salt Lake Tribune put it when it first reported on Cullimore's bill. Sen. John Johnson, R-North Ogden, was reluctant to support the bill. 'I think I have a major problem when government kind of takes over,' he said. While Cullimore said the new version of the bill doesn't preempt local governments, Johnson questioned how creating a new state agency 'actually gets government out of the way.' Cullimore said it's more about 'consolidating' government to better 'coordinate all of these efforts and bring this together so we don't have one group over here working on something, and then maybe the appropriate tools over here, and nobody's actually putting those things together.' Ryan Starks, executive director of the Governor' Office of Economic Opportunity, spoke in favor of the bill, arguing 'we think it's actually a very positive thing for the state of Utah in terms of where we want to go economically.' 'We have a lot of competition, and we still have a lot of growth within the state. And if we want to stay ahead of the curve, we need to be able to position ourselves to attract large-scale projects in energy and housing and business,' Starks said. 'As we meet with site selectors and companies, they're looking for this.' Starks also pointed out that the bonding, taxing and land use tools that would be granted to Beehive Development Agency are 'not new tools. These are tools that already exist with other agencies, but yet these are tools that the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity currently lacks.' Elaine Oaks, who serves on the South Davis Water District board but said she spoke on behalf of herself, was the first to speak against the bill during Monday's committee — including its latest version. 'Beehive Development Agency — or B-A-D for short — undermines our constitutional framework of local governance, transfering power from elected officials to an unaccountable, private entity with statewide power,' Oaks said. 'It removes planning authority from municipalities and transfers it to BAD — a super planning authority.'' Oaks added that it 'imposes taxation without representation (by) consolidating power to an unelected, private board, creates a shadow organization controlled by the governor with little to no public oversight or checks on its power.' 'Creating BAD is a bad idea,' Oaks said, urging lawmakers to 'kill this bad bill.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Steve Waldrip, the governor's senior housing policy adviser, spoke in favor of the bill, seeing it as a tool to help Utah fix its housing crisis by creating a 'consolidated spot for all of our housing policy to be decided as a state. … so we don't have a mismatch between job creation and our housing needs.' Zachary Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, 'begged' lawmakers to oppose the bill, which he described as 'very bad governance.' He noted HB337 would also allow the Beehive Development Agency to create a public infrastructure district for what it deems is a 'significant community project area.' That could include 'massive, multibillion-dollar water projects.' 'This bill fast tracks multibillion-dollar water projects by exempting local land use controls and trying to expedite the permitting,' Frankel said. 'That is bad utility planning.' Notably, representatives from conservative groups including the Utah Legislative Watch and Utah Eagle Forum — and even a leader of the Utah County Republican Party — spoke against the bill, warning it could be a final straw for Utahns already distrustful of their government. 'I'm viewing this bill as a tipping point,' said Maryann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch. 'Confidence and trust in the Legislature is at an all-time low, and I think this bill will tip a lot of people over the edge. It's too much of a power grab.' Chistensen also warned that many Utahns she's talked to have been frustrated that 'you guys up here are not responsive' to their concerns. 'They want local control,' she said. 'They don't want a new entity … they want freedom from their government.' Cameron Diehl, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns — which has been engaged in negotiations over the bill — said the League was 'very concerned and opposed' to SB337's first iteration, but hadn't yet taken a position on the new version of bill as of Monday morning. However, he said the new version was 'in a better place, in large part' because it removed provisions to preempt local authority. Senate Minority Whip Karen Kwan, D-West Valley, urged lawmakers to slow the bill down, saying it's 'very late in the session' to propose 'such a big change in policy.' 'I'm not comfortable with the idea of the bill to begin with,' she said. Johnson, the North Ogden senator, said he sees the need for it, arguing that 'local governments should really wake up and start realizing that one of the reasons why there's things being passed to override their local control, is that they don't think much about being reasonable or even being willing to work towards solutions that might help us on things like housing.' However, Johnson ultimately voted against the bill, adding that he worries 'we're losing credibility with the public that thinks we rush into things and we don't listen. And that bothers me.' Cullimore said that the 'concerns about government overreach' are 'legitimate and real concerns.' However, he argued the land use and tax authority tools are 'already available' through other agencies. 'What this is doing is bringing these together,' he said, while also 'requiring local consent.' The Senate president, Adams, cast a rare vote of support during Monday's hearing, urging his colleagues to support it. Adams told reporters in a media availability later Monday that he sees a need to 'coordinate' all of the state's major project areas. 'You need somebody to start controlling this,' he said. 'I think there needs to be at least another set of eyes looking and overseeing what's happening. That control I think is something that's really important.' Adams also addressed criticisms that legislators aren't 'listening.' He pointed to other controversial bills this session — including one that would have originally drastically restricted voting by mail — that has been changed multiple times in order to respond to public concerns. 'We are listening,' he said, 'and we're making changes, but we understand the perception is not necessarily reality, and the reality is we're listening.' The bill now goes to the full Senate for consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
