House advances substitute for HB 13 after heated debate over eminent-domain buyback terms

On Feb. 1, 2003, the Utah House considered first-substitute House Bill 13, a package of transportation corridor preservation amendments that would extend planning horizons and change how surplus corridor property is treated. The floor moved to delete the original bill in title and body and substitute the first substitute HB 13; the substitute was adopted on a floor voice vote.

Sponsor Representative Dilley summarized key elements of the substitute: increasing the corridor-preservation planning window from 20 years to 30 years to align with metropolitan planning agencies' long-range plans and altering the disposition process for surplus property. Under the substitute, if property acquired for corridor preservation became surplus, it would be offered to the original grantor at the highest offer received by the state or one of its subdivisions, with the original grantor having a first right of refusal; that right could be expressly waived in writing or would lapse if not exercised within 90 days.

Several members pressed whether the substitute in practice changed the rules that apply to property originally acquired through eminent domain. Representative Hutchings moved an amendment to replace the phrase "at the highest offer" with "the original price," arguing it would be improper for the state to condemn property and later resell it at a profit. Hutchings stated, "I still have a big issue with the state having an ability to go and condemn your property, turn around, decide they actually didn't need it, and then sell it back to you at a higher price than they took it from you."

Sponsors and other supporters—including Representative Dilley and Representative Dilrigh—responded that the substitute was intended mainly to clean up drafting inconsistencies across different acquisition fact patterns and to protect taxpayers by avoiding requiring the state to return surplus property at the original purchase price in circumstances where that would create an undue burden on the transportation preservation fund. Sponsors said they considered eminent-domain rules in drafting but did not intend to alter the substantive eminent-domain standard.

Because of continuing concern about the sale-back standard and technical drafting issues, the floor agreed to "circle" the substitute (set it so amendments may be placed and the bill reworked) to permit further amendment on a future uncircle. The motion to circle passed on voice vote.

Next steps: The first-substitute HB 13 was advanced on the floor and subsequently circled for further consideration and redrafting; sponsors requested that any amendment addressing sale-back language be allowed when the bill is uncircled.