Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House votes to recodify redevelopment statutes, narrows eminent domain authority
Summary
On Feb. 8 the House advanced a recodification of the state's redevelopment agency statutes (1st substitute HB 7), clarifying public-notice and protest procedures, expanding audit coverage, involving the state Office of Education, and restricting eminent domain to projects with formal blight findings and a five-year limit.
The Utah House of Representatives on Feb. 8 approved First substitute House Bill 7, a recodification and set of amendments to the state’s redevelopment agency statutes intended to clarify processes and limits for redevelopment agencies (RDAs).
Sponsor Representative Harper described the measure as "a recodification, not a rewrite of the redevelopment section of the code for the state of Utah," emphasizing organization, clearer public-notice procedures and stronger auditing requirements. He told colleagues the bill adds a 60-day protest period for project-area budgets, increases the state Office of Education’s review role for certain projects, clarifies the blight test, and narrows the circumstances in which an RDA may use eminent domain.
Representative Harper said the bill removes certain ambiguities and increases transparency: developer-created blight cannot be counted, agencies of any size are now subject to audit, and eminent domain may be used only when a finding of blight has been made and then only for a five-year period tied to the project—rather than open-ended authority. Opponents raised concerns that while clarification is welcome, the changes might nevertheless shift the balance between private property rights and redevelopment powers; Representative Shurtleff and others pressed whether the bill eases RDA creation or affects eminent-domain practice. Harper said the bill leans toward private rights by increasing notification and protest periods and tightening eminent-domain rules.
Members questioned definitions such as open space and proximity of buildings; sponsor and colleagues said the language narrows and clarifies those tests. Harper disclosed a conflict of interest, noting his employment with an RDA, and nonetheless urged support for clearer, step-by-step statutory language.
The bill was presented as a comprehensive codification to reduce ambiguity about process, public hearing steps and dissolution procedures. House debate covered substantive policy points including audit coverage for small agencies, the role of taxing-entity committees, and protections against developer-created blight.
What happens next: House action placed the recodification before the legislative process for continued consideration; the record shows extended debate and procedural votes on the floor on Feb. 8.
