Opinion ID: 2548577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: transportation corridor preservation act

Text: ¶ 14 A municipality only has such powers that are (1) expressly granted to it by the legislature; (2) necessarily implied and incident to its express powers; and (3) indispensable to accomplish the declared objects and purposes of the municipality. Parker v. Provo City Corp., 543 P.2d 769, 770 (Utah 1975); see also Dairy Prod. Servs., Inc. v. City of Wellsville, 2000 UT 81, ¶ 30, 13 P.3d 581 ([C]ities have not only those powers expressly granted to them, but also those necessarily implied to carry out such responsibilities. (quotation omitted)). Generally, any specific grant of power to a municipality should be `construed with reasonable latitude in light of the broad language of the general welfare clause.' Dairy Prod., 2000 UT 81 at ¶ 30, 13 P.3d 581 (quoting State v. Hutchinson, 624 P.2d 1116, 1126 (Utah 1980)). Thus, unless the legislature has specifically limited the powers of cities, we will not interfere with the means selected to carry out the granted authority `unless it is arbitrary, or is directly prohibited by, or is inconsistent with the policy of, the state or federal laws or the constitution of this State or of the United States.' Id. at ¶ 31 (quoting Hutchinson, 624 P.2d at 1126) (other internal citation omitted). ¶ 15 Provo City contends that the legislature has authorized municipalities to condemn property for public streets outside their corporate limits through its enactment of the Transportation Corridor Preservation Act (TCPA or the Act). See Utah Code Ann. §§ 72-5-401 to -406 (2001 & Supp.2003). It asserts that the TCPA clearly envisions the possible `taking' of property for streets by municipalities both `within and without' their corporate limits by `acquir[ing]' easements or fee interests in the land which those entities determine are necessary for future transportation facility needs. We disagree with Provo City's assertion. ¶ 16 The TCPA provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) The department, counties, and municipalities may: .... (c) acquire fee simple rights and other rights of less than fee simple, including easement and development rights, or the rights to limit development, including rights in alternative transportation corridors, and to make these acquisitions up to 20 years in advance of using those rights in actual transportation facility construction. (2) In addition to the powers described under Subsection (1), counties and municipalities may: (a) limit development for transportation corridor preservation by land use regulation and by official maps; and (b) by ordinance prescribe procedures for approving limited development in transportation corridors until the time transportation facility construction begins. Id. § 72-5-403 (emphasis added). In asserting that this language permits municipalities to exercise extraterritorial condemnation, Provo City points to subsection (2)(a), which allows municipalities to limit development for a transportation corridor by use of official maps. The Act provides that municipalities may adopt such maps as an element of the general plan, pursuant to ... Title 10, Chapter 9, Part 3, General Plan. Id. § 72-5-401(4)(c). Consequently, because Utah Code section 10-9-302 provides that municipal planning commissions must make and recommend proposed general plans for areas within the municipality, which may also include areas outside the boundaries of the municipality if, in the commission's judgment, they are related to the planning of the municipality's territory, id. § 10-9-302(1)(b), Provo City argues that the TCPA authorizes it to condemn property outside its own municipal boundaries when needed to establish a public transportation facility. ¶ 17 Even if we were to agree that the Act clearly contemplates municipalities exercising eminent domain power when establishing alternate transportation corridors, [3] Provo City's argument regarding extraterritorial condemnation is flawed in one fundamental respect: While a municipal planning commission may propose a general plan under Utah Code section 10-9-302(1)(b) that includes areas outside its municipal boundaries, subsection (c) expressly limits such power by providing that [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, when the plan of a municipality involves territory outside the boundaries of the municipality, the municipality may not take action affecting that territory without the concurrence of the county or other municipalities affected. Id. § 10-9-302(1)(c). Here, neither Provo City nor the record indicates that Utah County consented to the condemnation of Spring Canyon's property. Moreover, Provo City has failed to cite any other legal exception that would authorize such action. Accordingly, we decline to hold that Provo City is empowered to condemn Spring Canyon's property pursuant to the TCPA.