Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts third substitute language for redevelopment bill and circles it for further review after heated debate
Summary
Lawmakers approved substituting a third version of House Bill 67, which narrows and clarifies how redevelopment agencies may use eminent domain, then voted to 'circle' the new substitute to allow sponsors time to review substantive changes. The substitution passed 39–35; the motion to circle passed 41–29.
The Utah House on Feb. 15 adopted a third-substitute version of House Bill 67, a measure that retools how redevelopment agencies (RDAs) may exercise the power of eminent domain and requires additional procedural safeguards, then sent it back for further review.
Representative Steve Knudson, who introduced the substitute, said the changes require local governing bodies to vote in public before an RDA uses eminent domain and require agencies to offer at least appraised value. "This makes it clear that no RDA is taking property without paying a fair price for it," Knudson said on the floor, arguing the language clarifies who makes decisions and preserves judicial review of the necessity and due-process steps.
Opponents argued the substitute would force property owners into court and could leave small owners at a disadvantage. One critic said the bill "mandates a court action" in eminent-domain cases and warned that requiring court proceedings in every case could expose owners to additional costs and uncertainty.
Supporters countered that the third substitute is a compromise: it preserves tools municipalities use for redevelopment while creating additional public review and an appraisal floor. Representative Tanner, speaking for backers of the substitute, said it is a balanced approach that preserves critical redevelopment tools while addressing property-rights concerns.
On final action for the substitute itself, the House voted 39–35 to replace the second substitute with the third. Members then voted 41–29 to circle the bill — a procedural step that pauses immediate final passage to allow sponsors and authors time to review and, if needed, craft amendments or clarifications before the bill is brought back.
The bill therefore remains active but circled for future floor action. Sponsors said the pause will allow them to refine language and respond to concerns about court costs and appraisal procedures. No final passage of the underlying substantive measure occurred on Feb. 15; the body instead deferred further consideration after the substitution and motion to circle.
