Committee favors bill requiring host-county permission, payment rules for cross-county land purchases

Representative Strong and Morgan County Commissioner Mike Newton framed HB 4 45 as a response to Summit County’s purchase of the 910 Ranch and other parcels that include land inside Morgan County. The bill requires an acquiring county to obtain the express permission of the legislative body of the county in which the property is located before acquiring real property there by purchase, exchange or lease; it also specifies tax treatment so such property would not be tax-exempt in the host county and proposes a payment-in-lieu approach tied to the property’s value at purchase.

Newton described three scenarios to illustrate host-county impacts: (1) a distant county buys land for a landfill, generating heavy truck traffic and road damage borne by the host county; (2) a county relocates a jail to another county, leaving emergency response and other service costs to the host county; and (3) a county purchases recreation land and remains tax-exempt, leaving the host county to cover emergency services and infrastructure costs. He said the bill does not prohibit purchases but seeks required consultation and some financial contribution so host counties have “skin in the game.”

Ruth Ann O’Keefe Ross of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel told the committee that the bill would treat real property owned by a county outside its boundaries as nonexempt for property tax and that rollback tax provisions could apply if use changes. Members asked whether an acquiring county remains subject to the host county’s land-use ordinances; counsel said political subdivisions generally must conform to applicable land-use ordinances under the County Land Use Development Management Act (LUDMA).

Public testimony split along county-size lines. Morgan, Duchesne, Box Elder and Daggett county representatives urged guardrails and early consultation; Summit County and Salt Lake County officials opposed the bill as an inappropriate limitation on property rights and expressed concerns that the bill singled out counties rather than other political subdivisions. Several speakers said the bill’s requirement helped bring Summit and Morgan to the table during negotiations on the 910 Ranch purchase.

Representative Ward moved to favorably recommend HB 4 45; after debate the committee passed the motion 7–2 (nays recorded as Ward and Dunnegan). Sponsors said tax provisions could be revisited if needed to facilitate agreement among counties, but they emphasized that the bill’s purpose is to require early consultation and mitigate off-site burdens.