H.B. 457 County Governance Modifications

What this bill does

H.B. 457 would require unincorporated pockets of land completely surrounded by a city in second class counties to be annexed into that city by July 2027, with owners receiving notice. Under the latest version, Utah County and council-manager counties are also covered, and some counties may exempt certain parcels from annexation.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 9 yes, 0 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 2 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 62 yes, 2 no, 11 absentFinal House vote · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to change the bill · Mar 3, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 3, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 1 no, 3 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 61 yes, 6 no, 8 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 24, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Reading Clerk22:28

     First substitute House bill 4 57. County Growth Planning and annexation amendments by Representative Dunnigan. This bill was heard in political subdivisions with a vote of seven. Two three.

  2. Rep. James A. Dunnigan22:40

     Representative Dunnigan Thank you Mr. Sp move to circle.

  3. Speaker (presiding)22:44

     That motion is in order. Would like speak to it?

  4. Rep. James A. Dunnigan22:46

     Just waiting for the handout and then I'll be ready. Thank you.

  5. Speaker (presiding)22:49

     Thank you representative. We'll go and place the motion. The motion before us the house circle First substitute P 4 57. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill's been circled. Madam Reading Clerk

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (12 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)40:06

     We'll go and place the motion. The motion before is the house, UNC circle first substitute HP 4 57. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Well, that motion passes. The bill's been encircled.

  2. Speaker (presiding)40:18

     Back to your Representative. Dunnigan.

  3. Rep. James A. Dunnigan40:19

     Thank you. I move to adopt third substitute house Bill 4 57.

  4. Speaker (presiding)40:29

     Thank you representative. The motion before us is the house, uh, substitute, adopt, substitute. Four four substitute HP 54 57. Third substitute. Mr. Speaker Third substitute. Sorry about that. Thank you, representative. Okay, let me be clear. Uh, the, that motion is in order. The motion before us the house adopt third substitute HP 4 57. Would you like to speak to it?

  5. Rep. James A. Dunnigan40:52

     Yes. Uh, since this past committee, the commissioners from Davis County reached out, they want to be included in this bill. So I've added them. I've also put in a public notice for, uh, any property owners that may be involved in this annexation. They have to be noticed and there's additional notice and disclosure.

  6. Speaker (presiding)41:12

     Thank you, Representative Dunnigan. Uh, dis uh, both discussion to the motion to adopt third substitute on HB 4 57. Seen none will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is house adopt third, substitute HB 4 57. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bills have been substitute before the body for its consideration. Back to your Representative, Dunnigan.

  7. Rep. James A. Dunnigan41:37

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker representative. There's a handout. Looks like this if you're interested. So this impacts Weber and Davis County. So it's counties of the second class F population of less than 400,000. Those two qualify. This is the issue. They have, uh, cities that have little islands or pockets of UNC unincorporated land inside the city. So the city boundaries completely encompass these unincorporated pockets. And so the counties, you know, are supposed to provide municipal type services, snow plans. So they, they drive some miles, drop a plow for a little bit, then pull it up again and go. So what this bill does says is by July of next year, these, uh, small pockets of unincorporated property that's totally surrounded by a municipality will be annexed into the municipality. Now there's a cri some criteria, it has to be less than 55 acres. The infrastructure has to be up to the city standards or no infrastructure at all. There has to be public notice to all the property owners. The counties don't have to do all the, all the, let's say that there's one city that has five parcels. Uh, so the county can elect to do some of them, not all. And so that's the gist of it, is it just says, look, we have these little teeny pockets, uh, that the county's providing municipal services makes no service, no sense. And even in some of these pockets, they have, they're hooked up to the city sewer line, but the county's responsible for it. So that's part of the bill. Um, another part of the bill is, is a, a requested adjustment to, uh, a bill that did the same concept for Salt Lake County two years ago. Uh, what they found is they have multiple parcels encompassed within a city and they say it's, and they have to record a plat and pay up to $3,000 per plat fee for each of these annexations. They've asked if they can aggregate these parcels together to do more than one plat at a time, which will save them money, gets the same outcome. So this is a fix for a, uh, a bill a couple of years ago. And, uh, finally it directs third class counties at Border First Class County, which is Illa and Summit to do a, a, a master growth plan. Take data that they can get from workforce services and other government agencies, data that's already available as far as population anticipated growth. And instead of waiting for something to happen in your county and growth to go through and make a plan, they can use their own planners. They report the plan to themselves, but it directs them to come up with a growth plan. What are you gonna do about water and roads and transportation and urban areas? And so that's the other part of the bill. The annexation piece primarily involves, uh, North Ogden, city and Layton. Uh, and I've been told they're supportive of it. There's one little parcel I think in Farr West or no Pleasant View. But again, these are parcels that are completely with inside a city boundary without, I'm open to. Questions. Mr. Speaker?

  8. Speaker (presiding)44:45

     Thank you Representative Dunnigan discussion to the bill Representative Ward.

  9. Rep. Raymond P. Ward44:52

     You, Mr. Speaker, I just wanna rise in support of the bill and thank the good sponsor from Salt Lake for including Davis County. Our commission's been working on this for a while and this is a good help to them.

  10. Speaker (presiding)45:04

      Thank you, Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, back to Representative Dunnigan for summation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will Waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on third substitute where you put it here. Seeing all president having voted voting is now closed. Third substitute P 4 57 passed this body with 62 yes. Votes to no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  11. Speaker (presiding)47:17

      Representative Hall.

  12. Rep. Katy Hall47:21

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Personal privilege.

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (12 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)40:18

     Back to your Representative. Dunnigan.

  2. Rep. James A. Dunnigan40:19

     Thank you. I move to adopt third substitute house Bill 4 57.

  3. Speaker (presiding)40:29

     Thank you representative. The motion before us is the house, uh, substitute, adopt, substitute. Four four substitute HP 54 57. Third substitute. Mr. Speaker Third substitute. Sorry about that. Thank you, representative. Okay, let me be clear. Uh, the, that motion is in order. The motion before us the house adopt third substitute HP 4 57. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. James A. Dunnigan40:52

     Yes. Uh, since this past committee, the commissioners from Davis County reached out, they want to be included in this bill. So I've added them. I've also put in a public notice for, uh, any property owners that may be involved in this annexation. They have to be noticed and there's additional notice and disclosure.

  5. Speaker (presiding)41:12

     Thank you, Representative Dunnigan. Uh, dis uh, both discussion to the motion to adopt third substitute on HB 4 57. Seen none will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is house adopt third, substitute HB 4 57. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bills have been substitute before the body for its consideration. Back to your Representative, Dunnigan.

  6. Rep. James A. Dunnigan41:37

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker representative. There's a handout. Looks like this if you're interested. So this impacts Weber and Davis County. So it's counties of the second class F population of less than 400,000. Those two qualify. This is the issue. They have, uh, cities that have little islands or pockets of UNC unincorporated land inside the city. So the city boundaries completely encompass these unincorporated pockets. And so the counties, you know, are supposed to provide municipal type services, snow plans. So they, they drive some miles, drop a plow for a little bit, then pull it up again and go. So what this bill does says is by July of next year, these, uh, small pockets of unincorporated property that's totally surrounded by a municipality will be annexed into the municipality. Now there's a cri some criteria, it has to be less than 55 acres. The infrastructure has to be up to the city standards or no infrastructure at all. There has to be public notice to all the property owners. The counties don't have to do all the, all the, let's say that there's one city that has five parcels. Uh, so the county can elect to do some of them, not all. And so that's the gist of it, is it just says, look, we have these little teeny pockets, uh, that the county's providing municipal services makes no service, no sense. And even in some of these pockets, they have, they're hooked up to the city sewer line, but the county's responsible for it. So that's part of the bill. Um, another part of the bill is, is a, a requested adjustment to, uh, a bill that did the same concept for Salt Lake County two years ago. Uh, what they found is they have multiple parcels encompassed within a city and they say it's, and they have to record a plat and pay up to $3,000 per plat fee for each of these annexations. They've asked if they can aggregate these parcels together to do more than one plat at a time, which will save them money, gets the same outcome. So this is a fix for a, uh, a bill a couple of years ago. And, uh, finally it directs third class counties at Border First Class County, which is Illa and Summit to do a, a, a master growth plan. Take data that they can get from workforce services and other government agencies, data that's already available as far as population anticipated growth. And instead of waiting for something to happen in your county and growth to go through and make a plan, they can use their own planners. They report the plan to themselves, but it directs them to come up with a growth plan. What are you gonna do about water and roads and transportation and urban areas? And so that's the other part of the bill. The annexation piece primarily involves, uh, North Ogden, city and Layton. Uh, and I've been told they're supportive of it. There's one little parcel I think in Farr West or no Pleasant View. But again, these are parcels that are completely with inside a city boundary without, I'm open to. Questions. Mr. Speaker?

  7. Speaker (presiding)44:45

     Thank you Representative Dunnigan discussion to the bill Representative Ward.

  8. Rep. Ward Raymond44:52

     You, Mr. Speaker, I just wanna rise in support of the bill and thank the good sponsor from Salt Lake for including Davis County. Our commission's been working on this for a while and this is a good help to them.

  9. Speaker (presiding)45:04

     Thank you, Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, back to Representative Dunnigan for summation.

  10. Rep. James A. Dunnigan45:11

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will

  11. Speaker (presiding)45:13

      Waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on third substitute where you put it here. Seeing all president having voted voting is now closed. Third substitute P 4 57 passed this body with 62 yes. Votes to no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  12. Speaker (presiding)47:17

      Representative Hall.

• Mar 3, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (20 turns)

  1. Committee chair23:26

     We'll call third substitute house Bill four fifty seven. Representative Dunnigan. Can I, I'm Sorry to interrupt. Excuse me. Wait a minute. I'm sorry to interrupt. Put H bill 4 79. We didn't hear the bill. We moved the agenda, so if you came for that, I'm sorry, but No, we, did you hear it later? No, we we're not gonna hear it. The bill's over with, so I, I apologize. It's being held in the committee. It's not gonna go any further. Alright. Okay. No,

  2. Unknown speaker24:06speaker not certain

     You didn't. I was sitting down.

  3. Committee chair24:09

     Go ahead, representative. We have a Handout, maybe we have, yeah, yeah. I think for those of you, we do have a handout from the representative and, uh, you do have substitutes on the line. We're on the fifth sub. You're on the fifth, so you're gonna address that?

  4. Rep. James A. Dunnigan24:32

     Yes. Okay.

  5. Committee chair24:33

     So go ahead.

  6. Rep. James A. Dunnigan24:39

     Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, committee members. So two years ago we passed legislation for counties with first class Salt Lake County. And what it addressed is mostly Metropolitan County, but within a city you have little islands of unincorporated areas. And so, um, we passed that and require an automatic annexation by July of 2027. So that's in state code. What this bill does is, does kind of a similar concept to second class counties. So in Weber, Davis and Utah counties, they have the same issues. This bill's a little narrower scope than what we did two years ago. They did all of the unincorporated parcels. This only addresses inner city islands. So that's a, a unincorporated parcel, completely surrounded by one city. So you've got a city picture circle that's got acti on it. Those are the dots of unincorporated islands. Yes. And so what this does is it provides an automatic annexation by July of 2027 for the unincorporated inner city islands. What happens is currently the counties will provide, well, I'm, I've, I'm, I'll let, uh, my friend from Weber County explain. But, but what this does is addresses only second class counties owner, any only inner city islands. There are other parcels of unincorporated areas that border cities at border, maybe another county we're not addressing those. We're doing like the, the heart of the watermelon, the real easy policy calls where we have an island completely surrounded by one city that then would be incorporated within in that city. And I have a guest I'd like to comment.

  7. Stephanie Russell, Economic Development Director, Weber County26:31

     Okay, go ahead. Hi, I am Stephanie Russell. I'm Weaver County's Economic Development Director. I'm representing the commission today, uh, on behalf of Weber County Commission. We're really excited about this particular bill. Um, we've been working very hard on it, uh, for over a year. Uh, this addresses any type of inside islands inside a city municipal boundary that are 55 acres or less. Um, it also, uh, has a partnership for public notice. So it, it's not just an annexation where you're, we're just counties coming in and, and doing that. We're gonna do that in partnership with the city. Um, basically this bill would help us align services with tax areas. So currently in Weaver County, for example, we have one of our cities that has 16 of these islands where we have to drive into the island, into the city to service those islands, say like snowplowing, uh, land use, those types of things. This is a way for us to consolidate that and to be able to be good partners in community and economic development and take a little bit of a burden off of our tax base.

  8. Rep. James A. Dunnigan27:37

     Thank you. There, there's some criteria in there. As she said. Uh, any affected property owners have to be, uh, noticed, um, individually and on the city's or on the county's website. And in Utah County, which is included in this, the cities may opt to withhold certain parties or certain parcels from annexation Weaver and DA Davis. They don't really have that issue. And I'll go into more detail if you want, but in Utah County, they have a little more flexibility, which they've requested. We've worked very closely with the Association of Counties, with League of Cities and Towns. So that's what that part of the bill does.

  9. Stephanie Russell, Economic Development Director, Weber County28:16

     There's one other, uh, part that is found on line 2 65 currently in a county operating under the council manager form of government, which we have Twila Summit Wasatch. If a, if the county legislative body designated a, basically a budget officer prior to 2021, uh, like the auditor, then that's the auditor's the finance officer. It gives no flexibility to the county to change the finance officer that, or if the ordinance was adopted before then what this does, and this is found online, 2 67, 2 68 to nine, it just says the county council by, um, may delegate a county services on behalf of the county. Basically it says it gives a legislative body of the county the authority to designate who's going to do the accounting services for the county. That's our presentation.

  10. Unknown speaker29:11speaker not certain

      Okay. Um, since this has just dropped on our lap, uh, probably ask a question that you've probably addressed. Um, there, there was a piece in there for planning. Is it still there or is It That's gone. It's removed. Okay. And, and, uh, what would be the purpose of that?

  11. Rep. James A. Dunnigan29:32speaker not certain

      Of that part? Yeah. And not requir. So the purpose Requiring it, the purpose of that part was for second class counties that border a first class county. So that's gonna be be Twila and Summit. And the concern about that is those other counties are growing, right? They're filling in and all that, that part was, was gonna require that they do some planning for growth. Where are they gonna have housing? Where are they gonna have schools? Where are they gonna have roads and, and things like that is just required to do some plant, some overall planning that that's what that was for. Okay. It didn't, their own planners could do it. They just didn't have to report it. It was for their own use. It was just say, let's don't wait until stuff happens to us. Let's have a plan. That was the intent of that.

  12. Unknown speaker30:10speaker not certain

      Okay. But that's not in the physical then. It's not. Okay.

  13. Committee chair30:13

      Alright. Other questions for from the committee? Seeing none, uh, let's go to public comment. Is there individuals that would like to speak to this Bill? We've got one. Okay. Come on up. Uh, you know the drill there. Name, rank, serial number, sign in. Yes.

  14. Jared Tingey, Legal Director, Utah League of Cities and Towns30:35

      Thank you Chair members of the committee. Jared Tingy with the League of Cities and Towns, and, uh, we support this bill. We've worked a lot with the sponsor and, uh, grateful for, uh, all that he has taken into consideration with the language that, um, as we've checked with the different, uh, cities that would be affected by this bill. Uh, we have the language to a really good place. So just thank the sponsor for that and um, urge the committee to pass it out.

  15. Committee chair31:04

      Well, thank you. Alright. No, nobody on line. So we'll close public comment, we'll come back for further consideration from the committee. Oh, first of all, before we, we need to pass the fifth sub before we go to action. So I'd entertain a motion to delete title and body of the third and jump to the fifth. Senator ml, go ahead. I'll,

  16. Sen. Michael K. McKell31:31

      I'll make that motion as stated by our chair.

  17. Committee chair31:33

      Okay. Discussion to that motion. Seeing none. All those in favor of deleting title and body of third substitute house bill 4 57 and replacing it with fifth sub substitute house bill 4 57 say, aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. There's six there. Alright, that's unanimous. So now I would entertain another motion or action on the bill. You can come back. Senator Sandall?

  18. Sen. Scott D. Sandall32:06

      Yeah, I would move that we, uh, favorably recommend from this committee, fifth substitute house bill 4 57 Discussion to that motion.

  19. Committee chair32:16

      Let's go to the sponsor for summation, then I will Waive. Thank You Senator Sandall summation waive. Okay, all those in favor of sending fifth substitute house bill 4 57 out favorably say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you. The center sponsors. Thank you. Okay. Don't see. Okay.

  20. Committee chair32:49

      Representative Kerlin, why don't you come over and we'll call your first bill.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:52:53

     Thank you Mr. President. This is on the fifth sub and so this bill is very condensed in what it started out to be. Um, the key provisions on this, uh, bill, it defines the eligibility of unincorporated lands in, in a lot of our populated counties, we have a lot of unincorporated areas that are participating or having municipal services. And so this bill is to give them the ability to annex those in. Um, there's, they have to be 55 acres or smaller. They're surrounded by a single municipality and they are local located in a second class county. So this bill only addresses second class counties. I received a lot of emails and other counties don't want to be forced into this. We are talking about second class counties, so it's targeted to help them out. It, it does authorize the appropriate, uh, legislative bodies to exempt an island or a portion of an island from automatic annexation by resolution by May 1st, 2027. So that means the county legislative body, they have exemption authority for, uh, under 600,000 population. And that means that the cities, the municipalities, the legislative body holds exemption authority in second class counties over 600,000. And that's the extent of this. It does take the planning requirement away too, which that was it probably a good thing 'cause we all need plans, but that's where they settled. So I'm open for questions. Thank

  2. Senate President (presiding)1:54:33

     You for the presentation. Do we have discussion? I seeing no discussion going to you. Is there amendment on? No, see, no discussion. I'm gonna go to you summation and a motion.

  3. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton1:54:49

     Okay. Under suspension of the rules, I am motion to fifth house Bill 4 57 pass.

  4. Senate President (presiding)1:54:56

     Thank you. The question is under suspension, the rule shall fifth substitute house bill four fifty seven pass. Roll call Vote. Senator Vickers Baldry Bwin Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins Aye. Ipson Johnson Quan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Sandal Stevenson Stratton pickers Bickers er Wilson Aye. Winterton aye. Bus. Aye. President Adams Aye. Fifth substitute house Bill 4 57. Having received 25 yay votes, one nay vote three being absent passes this body and will be returned to the house for the se for further consideration. Senator Mikel got a couple of bills circled.

  5. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:56:21speaker not certain

     Yeah, sorry I was off the floor. So I would move to Uncer. First substitute house bill 1 37. I have A motion to Uncer first substitute house bill 1 37 Violent crime clearance rate amendments.

  6. Senate President (presiding)1:56:33

     All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed or let motion passes. The bill is Uncircled. Senator?

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (31 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)13:01

     It's substitute house bill 4 57 County governance modifications by Representative Dunnigan. Representative Dunnigan.

  2. Rep. James A. Dunnigan13:23

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to Concur with the Senate amendments.

  3. Speaker (presiding)13:26

     Thank you representative. Uh, that motion is ordered as I speak to it.

  4. Rep. James A. Dunnigan13:30

     Yes. Uh, Senate did a couple things. Uh, one thing is there was a, a portion in the bill that required second class counties bordering first class counties, which have been in Summit Illa to do a growth development plan that's been taken out. So that's no longer required since it passed the house. Utah County said they want in, uh, to the p provision for second class counties. So their city's contacted me and their county contacted me. So they're included in this inner city island, uh, annexation and then also for counties with a council manager form of government, which are Twila Summit and Wasatch. It allows them the ability to change who they delegate accounting services to. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

  5. Speaker (presiding)14:15

     Thank you Representative Dunnigan. Uh, discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on HB V. Substitute HB 4 57. Let's go to Representative Peck.

  6. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck14:28

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I rise opposition because there is some lines in this lines 2 66 and 2 68 that are going to create some financial confusion for my kitty, for my county, for Tula County. And so, um, I'm not sure maybe if it's ready yet, uh, even though I voted for this, this before, it seems to be that there's some confusion within the county about whether this will actually be beneficial to them. And so I'm hoping that we can maybe go with a no vote now and wait until later. Thank you

  7. Speaker (presiding)15:04speaker not certain

     Both representative er.

  8. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck15:07

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will this sponsor yield to a series of questions? Rep Sam Dunnigan, will you yield to a series of questions?

  9. Rep. James A. Dunnigan15:14

     Yes. Yes. Rep, Sam. I'm,

  10. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck15:15

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm looking at lines 2 28 from the original bill and it looks like, um, when we're talking about unincorporated islands being auto automatically annexed that before they were going to be able to have a public hearing and at least 14 days before the day of the hearing, uh, there would've been notice about that. And also posting notice in a place reasonably likely to give notice of a public hearing so people would actually be able to know what's going on and the fact that they're being annexed. But now it looks like they're just getting a written mail notice, um, letting them know that they are being annexed. And so I'm wondering if you could talk to that change, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what sub the sponsor or the representative's looking at, Uh, Mr. Speaker? I'm looking at the comparison between sub four and sub five.

  11. Rep. James A. Dunnigan16:05

      We never adopted sub four. The language about notices and all that. There's no, that's still in there that was not changed. Sub four was never adopted.

  12. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck16:12

      Okay, thank you. So right now people are just gonna get a notice saying they're being incorporated into a new city and there's nothing they can do about it. No, that's Not how it works. Thank you

  13. Rep. James A. Dunnigan16:22

      Mr. Speaker. Everybody will receive it's impacted, will receive a notice to their mail. The, the county has to post it and they can notify the, the officials. So they'll they'll have notice before it happens and they can respond to it.

  14. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck16:36

      So is there anything they can do to stop this? The people themselves rather than just the unincorporated area posting something before May 7th that they don't want to be incorporated?

  15. Rep. James A. Dunnigan16:49

      Absolutely. They can talk to their county officials. And the county officials have the option to not incorporate any particular island if, you know, people don't wanna be incorporated After the notice has been given.

  16. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck17:00

      Is that right Mr. Speaker? Well,

  17. Rep. James A. Dunnigan17:03

      Well they could, Mr Speaker, they can reach out if they know that they're an inner city in I City Island, they can reach out to their county leaders at any time. And Nassau County leaders that tell 'em they don't wanna opt in, that they wanna opt out.

  18. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck17:15

      Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker. One more question. So just for clarification in here it, it said that the unincorporated area needed to let them know before May of 2027. Um, so you're saying after someone gets a mailed in notice, letting them know that they're going to be annexed, they can then go to their leaders and let them know that they do not want to be annexed. And that would stop that at that point

  19. Rep. James A. Dunnigan17:41

      It'll be up to the, the county commissioners. They, they'll just like any notice, the uh, residents can go speak with their commissioners. The commissioners will make the decision, but the citizens will be notified of the proposed annexation. And again, if there's one or two or three islands that people don't want to, they tell the commissioners, commissioners have the ability to opt out or the Yeah. Of the opt those islands out.

  20. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck18:04

      They can opt them out after the mailed notice has been given. Is that correct?

  21. Rep. James A. Dunnigan18:08

      Yes. Or they can. Okay. Thank You. I mean, we have a map. They, the islands are identified right now and we have a map that's available for anybody that's interested.

  22. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck18:17

      I, I can appreciate that. I think most of our, um, constituents won't be following legislation closely enough to go nowhere to look at this map. So I think it's very important that they have the ability to opt out after receiving the mailed notice. Thank you.

  23. Speaker (presiding)18:34

      Thank you representative. Er further discussion to the bill or the motion to amend.

  24. Speaker (presiding)18:40

      Seeing none back to you. Representative Dun or sorry, the motion is to concur. Uh, seeing no more discussion to the motion to concur back to your Representative Dunnigan for summation.

  25. Rep. James A. Dunnigan18:53

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions. So we have worked very carefully with the counties, with the cities to try to address uh, the concerns we put in the notice of, uh, proposed annexations so the public will be aware and I encourage your support.

  26. Speaker (presiding)19:11

      Thank you. Representative Gwynn Gwen placed the motion. The motion be before the house concur with the Senate amendments on fifth substitute HB 4 57. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes to you Representative Dunnigan Again?

  27. Rep. James A. Dunnigan19:27

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. So since the bill left the house, the title of the bill has changed. So just to be safe, I move the under suspension of the rules. We suspend the constitutional three readings requirement and consider the bill read for first, second, and third time.

  28. Speaker (presiding)19:42

      Thank you Representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it

  29. Rep. James A. Dunnigan19:46

      If we just change the title and out of a abundance of safety, we're gonna consider the title's been read three times.

  30. Speaker (presiding)19:52

      Thank you representative Discussion to that motion? See none. We'll go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes voting will now be open and final passage on fifth substitute HB 4 57 Representative Barlow vote Seeing all present having voted voting is now closed.

  31. Speaker (presiding)20:37

      Fifth substitute HB 4 57 passed this body with 61 yes votes six no votes will be sent to the Senate for the signature of the president. Madam Reading Clerk