Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Local Government Property topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House approves bill shifting notice, public-comment duty for major local property sales to elected bodies

Utah House of Representatives · February 24, 2003
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Second Substitute HB 122 moves responsibility for notice and public comment on significant municipal or county property sales from planning commissions to elected bodies (city councils or county commissions). The House adopted an amendment requiring at least 14 days' notice and passed the bill.

The House passed legislation Tuesday that changes which local body must provide notice and accept public comment before disposing of significant municipal or county property.

Representative Hardy, sponsor of the second substitute to HB 122, told the House the bill places the notice and public-comment duty with the city council or county commission rather than planning commissions: "There is a role for public notice and public comment and the disposal of significant pieces of property ... The place for requirement for providing public notice is in the sections of the code relating to cities and counties acquiring and disposing of property."

Several members argued for a clearer minimum notice period. Representative Murray proposed Amendment #1 to require at least 14 days' notice before the opportunity for public comment; supporters said the change would avoid rushed sales and legal challenges, while the sponsor said the term "reasonable" gives local bodies necessary flexibility.

The House adopted the 14-day amendment and then passed the second substitute; supporters said the bill responds to litigation that voided a sale where the public was not given adequate notice and should create clearer practice for local governments.

Representative Becker noted a potential conflict of interest given his legal involvement in prior litigation related to property disposition but said he supported the sponsor's careful work with interested parties.