The incorporation law passed in 2007 was hastily passed and badly flawed. It effectively allow a "company town" or a large land-owner to incorporate residents into a town controlled by the developer without there permission or even their KNOWLEDGE.
The bill was presented as assisting a group of people to acquire municipal services and requiring a feasibility study. The wording of the bill is now being interpreted (by developers) as carte blanche approval of nearly anything.
As widely reported that bill was hastily conceived in the last legislative session HB466 (Sponsor Mel Brown) and passed unanimously by both houses.
Brown introduced this in committee 2/20/07 (click here for audio): (paraphrased) We've had a problems with municipal services for growing areas, this will provide for a petition to incorporate as a town with 1/3 of value and property owner signatures to "require the county to do a feasibility study. . ." Jodi Hoffman (ULCT atty) says Mel described the bill very well. There is no good law now for incorporation of a town (referred to Daniel). question on feasibility study and cost analysis. Line 113 requires fiscal inequities to be mitigated.
Q. Difference between base and qualifying
A. Hoffman: 1/3 vs 1/2 of property value ; qualifying "goes through a more expedited feasibility study" More talk of municipal services. click for audio: Total hearing time 11 min.
2/22/07 House floor debate Brown: Easier process for incorporation for providing services. A group of people get together for a petition. base requires feasibility study - qualifying county can grant petition citizen friendly NO QUESTIONS from Reps. Total time 3 minutes
2/28/07 Senate Floor debate Sen. Killpack "only involves townships" - both tracts require petition - qualifying provides "expedited process for the uncontested incorporation" endorsed by cities and counties. Total time 3 minutes - (incl roll call vote)
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment