Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Buffer Zone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Approves Buffer and Easement Bill Around Hill Air Force Base After Negotiated Amendments
Summary
Fifth substitute of House Bill 227 — creating easements/buffer zones around Hill Air Force Base — passed the Senate after amendments and intent language clarifying use of funds for administrative and relocation expenses; debate centered on compensation and scope of relocations.
The Utah Senate approved the fifth substitute to House Bill 227, a measure designed to create a buffer zone around Hill Air Force Base through easements and limited buyouts intended to protect the base’s operations. Sponsors framed the bill as a strategic protection of a major employer and economic engine.
Senator Steele, speaking for the sponsors, said the measure reflects negotiations with property owners and local officials and is meant to strengthen the state’s bargaining position to preserve Hill AFB. He told senators, in urging adoption, that Hill’s economic impact means “every person in this state is impacted by the work done, the salaries paid” at the base and that the bill is part of a larger strategy to meet federal requirements and protections.
Debate focused on compensation for affected property owners and whether relocation payments should be full replacement value for schools, churches and businesses. Senator Barrett proposed amendments to require the Department of Community and Economic Development to pay full replacement value for schools, businesses and churches that must relocate; proponents of traditional condemnation practice urged fair market value plus relocation allowance instead of brand‑new replacement value.
To address concerns about funding and administrative costs, the Senate adopted intent language specifying that funds appropriated to purchase restrictive easements around Hill AFB “may also be used for the administrative and legal expenses” and “may be used for the expenses associated with relocation of existing entities that are impacted by the easement acquisitions.” Senators explicitly agreed the intent language did not create a new entitlement for relocation for all residents in the broader noise area; relocation funding was intended for specific impacts at runway ends and high‑risk zones.
The fifth substitute ultimately passed on recorded votes (first showing 23 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent and later a recorded 21 ayes, 4 nays, 4 absent), and the bill was sent to the House. Sponsors said appropriations and the right‑hand column of supplemental funding would be used to address fiscal impacts rather than the primary $19,000,000 list discussed elsewhere.
What’s next: With the bill passed in the Senate, the House will receive the version that contains the amendments and the intent language; sponsors and local officials indicated they will work to implement relocation procedures for the small number of directly affected entities.
Ending: The Senate closed debate after votes and moved back to the reading calendar.
