[0:00] I am going to call our uh meeting of our
[0:04] board together. Um it is great to see
[0:08] everybody down here in St. George.
[0:11] Thanks to all who had short commutes,
[0:14] those who had longer commutes.
[0:16] It's nice to have switch roles.
[0:21] I appreciate that everyone down to spend
[0:24] time together. We unfortunately are
[0:26] going to start our meeting with a bit of
[0:28] sad news.
[0:29] Um we've just received word um that
[0:33] mayor Mike
[0:36] from Garden City passed away yesterday.
[0:39] He had been stomach cancer.
[0:44] So
[0:48] for
[0:50] his family
[1:06] Any
[1:12] thoughts you want to share about Mike?
[1:14] >> Yeah, for those who didn't know Mike, he
[1:18] was a force of major
[1:21] Peterson is from Northern Utah. He was
[1:23] on the lead board prior to Peterson
[1:26] representing Utah. He was also our town
[1:28] representative. He had a couple of terms
[1:30] representing Garden City and
[1:36] Mike represented or Mike from Garden
[1:38] City represented Northern Utah on the
[1:39] board. He also represented towns on the
[1:42] board. He served several times on our
[1:46] nominations committee and I saw him
[1:49] several times during legislative
[1:50] session. So Brad referenced the last
[1:55] cancer. was actually diagnosed during
[1:57] the session and I didn't know in fact
[1:59] the public didn't really know until just
[2:02] the last few days because he's diagnosed
[2:04] very aggressive form stomach cancer but
[2:08] didn't want to interfere with how he was
[2:10] serving his community and so that
[2:14] treatment's done and and ultimately um
[2:17] passed away last night but you can't go
[2:21] anywhere in Garden City without uh
[2:24] feeling his influence influence and
[2:26] seeing his fingerprints all over that
[2:27] place and I saw during sessions he was
[2:30] at the capital advocating for the city
[2:32] and advocating for smart tourism
[2:35] policies and he was involved in
[2:37] everything from short-term rentals to
[2:40] playgrounds and pickle ball courts and
[2:42] harbors and other things in city. So bit
[2:45] of shock, a big shock and great man,
[2:48] great advocates and Michael.
[2:56] » Sorry, as we talk a little quieter each
[2:58] time, uh, we don't pick up as much
[3:00] because the mic's all the way over here.
[3:02] So just folks, at least at that table,
[3:04] if you can, just try and talk into that
[3:05] mic I just turned on right there. I
[3:07] think that'll come through up here and
[3:08] that should help. Okay, talk at it.
[3:14] on my drive down. Um, I was thinking
[3:17] about
[3:19] tradition of would you rather
[3:22] and I didn't I I did drive down and not
[3:24] bike down. Did you bike down?
[3:27] >> You did.
[3:29] >> How when did you start your your ride?
[3:32] >> We're glad that you safely made it.
[3:36] Um,
[3:40] » I know it was driving it was going on
[3:42] the way drive down. So, I'm just
[3:44] following
[3:48] the fact that we needed one and I had
[3:50] not sent one to the staff to prepare as
[3:52] a slide out poll. So, hopefully you'll
[3:53] forgive that to do a slide out poll. I
[3:56] thought we could just do it by raising
[3:57] hands. So,
[4:00] would you rather be in St. George here
[4:04] or would you rather be meeting in the
[4:06] league board or room in Salt Lake?
[4:10] Okay. So, if you'd rather be meeting
[4:12] down here, please raise your hand.
[4:18] » Anyone that would like to be meeting in
[4:19] Salt Lake today
[4:29] be in Salt Lake.
[4:30] >> Well, I'm here all the time. at
[4:34] least once a week, sometimes four times
[4:35] a week, like this week, but my grand
[4:44] can help facilitate that.
[4:50] » All right, thank you for indulging my
[4:51] love.
[4:54] With that, we can move on to the rest of
[4:55] our regular agenda. Hopefully everyone
[4:58] had an opportunity to read and review
[5:00] the minutes uh from our last two days
[5:03] January.
[5:07] All had a chance to digest them and
[5:09] study them.
[5:16] Motion council.
[5:20] All in favor of voting to approve both
[5:22] our January and March board minutes,
[5:25] please say I.
[5:27] >> I.
[5:29] >> Any opposed?
[5:31] Thank you. Just as a reminder, we always
[5:34] have our annual conflict of interest
[5:36] opportunity. If anyone has a conflict of
[5:39] interest to declare,
[5:42] now is your moment.
[5:47] Seeing no conflict switches declared, we
[5:49] will move on to item number three, which
[5:51] is our Q3 budget report and check
[5:54] register.
[5:56] You want to take that away if you want
[5:58] the microphone.
[5:59] >> Well, I'm trying to figure out I'm not
[6:01] seeing anything pop up. I was seeing
[6:04] little green uh coming up on the audio.
[6:07] So, I've just asked Carson to step out
[6:08] and join and see if he's hearing
[6:11] anything. Um we do have some members of
[6:13] the public uh attending um but they're
[6:16] not able to participate in so I I would
[6:18] if panelists were attending they could
[6:20] be able to say hey I can't hear you. Um
[6:22] so Carson is in right now. Um so we're
[6:28] just seeing for a second uh if we
[6:29] actually have a recording going which is
[6:31] required of us. So um
[6:34] >> that's okay. We can continue to stop for
[6:36] a minute. I can keep up.
[6:37] >> Keep as long as you're speaking. Oh
[6:39] Carson says I can't hear you. So, we
[6:41] will ignore uh the fact that I'm not
[6:44] seeing any green bars popping on audio
[6:46] and we'll head into the Q3 budget
[6:48] report.
[6:52] Okay, so this is all included in your
[6:55] packet. Um this covers the first 75% of
[6:59] our fiscal year, uh July 1st through, uh
[7:02] 2025 through March 31st. Um, as you're
[7:06] aware, we've gone through these budget
[7:07] reports before. We tend to look at our
[7:11] um, budget in kind of two sections.
[7:12] We've got our core budget, which is
[7:14] funded by dues in our regular general
[7:16] revenue as well as unrestricted
[7:17] reserves. And then we have the portion
[7:19] of the budget that's funded by um,
[7:21] either state funding or our restricted
[7:23] reserves for this particular fiscal year
[7:25] like LAA. Um
[7:28] uh so we uh overall at the end of this
[7:31] period leagues collected um close to 79%
[7:35] of the total revenue budgeted for the
[7:37] year that being 99.3% of the general
[7:40] revenue. Uh 70% of our annual general
[7:44] revenue drives from membership dues.
[7:46] That is uh 64% of our core budget and
[7:49] those are 99.9%
[7:51] collected at the end of Q3.
[7:55] Uh uh sponsorship/donation is 10% of our
[7:58] revenue and we are just over what we
[8:00] expect to collect for the year at
[8:02] 101.2%.
[8:03] Uh registration fees are 13.5% of
[8:06] general revenue and we've collected
[8:08] 88.9% of that. Um we have at the end of
[8:12] March we have collected more as more
[8:14] people have registered for this midyear.
[8:15] However um we did have less than
[8:17] expected revenue in registration fees
[8:20] for our annual convention. So, we don't
[8:22] expect at the end of the year to hit
[8:24] 100%. Um, however, the expenses have
[8:27] also gone down, so we're not too worried
[8:28] about um that. Uh, and in addition,
[8:31] exhibit space revenue is higher than
[8:33] we've expected at 105%
[8:37] uh of our budget.
[8:40] Um, as you recall, when you passed this
[8:42] budget, we've included uh 2 and I
[8:45] believe, let me see here, 270 thou or
[8:49] 293,000
[8:51] worth of unrestricted reserves uh to
[8:53] fund some onetime projects for this
[8:55] year. Uh the reason for that inclusion
[8:57] is our policy of having our um
[9:00] unrestricted uh reserve funds be at
[9:03] between 25 and 50% of the previous
[9:05] year's annual budget. We were just over
[9:08] that. So, we're um using that $293,000
[9:10] to knock us down a little farther. Um
[9:13] and if we were to spend every dime that
[9:14] is budgeted this year, that would put us
[9:16] at about 48% next year.
[9:20] >> One thing just to add to what Jake said
[9:22] about the onetime projects, you're going
[9:23] to see some of those onetime projects
[9:25] here in about
[9:26] >> Yes. Yes, indeed. Um
[9:29] uh we also had the uh LAA uh state
[9:32] appropriation uh that was not included
[9:35] in last year's uh legislative session.
[9:37] It had ongoing funding has been approved
[9:39] in 2026, but for this fiscal year, we've
[9:42] used some of the restricted reserves
[9:44] that we had left over uh to fund that
[9:46] program for this year.
[9:52] Um, additional state funded technical
[9:54] assistance, and this will be part of the
[9:56] discussion that we'll have uh in the
[9:57] operations portion of the uh small group
[10:00] discussion. Um, additional state funded
[10:02] technical assistance for this year
[10:03] include the office of data privacy with
[10:05] the $50,000 grant uh to be used in the
[10:08] first half of the year at our Q2 budget
[10:10] report. We had concluded that. Um, so
[10:12] the numbers are the same there. Um,
[10:13] we've also received a two-year grant
[10:16] from the Department of Workforce
[10:18] Services uh to help with um subdivision
[10:21] uh help and mapping in certain areas.
[10:23] Um, we received $189,000 upfront to help
[10:27] pay for that. Most of that grant will be
[10:29] on a reimbursement bas basis. We've
[10:31] budgeted in this year because we didn't
[10:33] know how that would shake out the full
[10:35] $700,000 of that grant. However, it's
[10:37] going they've allowed us to have it be a
[10:39] two-year grant. So, we won't see the
[10:41] full $700,000 in revenue that will
[10:44] trickle out over the next uh two two
[10:46] three actual years. Um overall in our
[10:49] expenditures, we are at 58.7% of the
[10:52] total budget with 75% of the year gone
[10:55] by. Um, another good comparison because
[10:57] that uh $700,000 kind of throws us off
[11:00] there. Um, we are 75% of the year has
[11:03] gone by and we have spent 74.4%
[11:06] of actual revenue taken in. So, we're on
[11:08] pace right there. Uh, expenditures for
[11:11] personnel services are just over half of
[11:13] our core budget. Um, and so far has
[11:17] spent uh 72.6%
[11:20] of that budget. And I'm sorry, that's a
[11:22] typo. That should be uh 61% not 51%.
[11:25] You'll see that in the graph down here
[11:27] later. Um so it's closer to 2/3 of our
[11:30] budget than half. Um operating program
[11:33] expenses are uh just under 17% of our
[11:36] budget and we have spent 61% of that this year. Events make up about a
[11:41] quarter of our budget and we spent just
[11:43] under 70% in that category. grants and
[11:46] special projects account for roughly 7%
[11:48] of our core budget and are just under a
[11:51] quarter spent at the end of Q2. Uh one
[11:53] of the projects that you will see later
[11:55] on in this meeting. Um we uh had not had
[11:59] it's going to be about $82,000 worth of
[12:01] spending, none of which had happened in
[12:02] the first three quarters. So we do
[12:04] expect that to catch up um eating away
[12:06] at some of those reserves that we
[12:07] budgeted for this year.
[12:10] Um and then finally, state funed
[12:11] technical assistance accounts for 19% of
[12:14] the total budget, uh which is not in
[12:16] this core budget that we've been
[12:17] referencing before and are just over a
[12:19] quarter expended in the first half of
[12:21] the year.
[12:23] So that concludes what our typical
[12:25] budget reports have been for both Q1 and
[12:28] Q2 that we've given to you before. Now,
[12:30] as we prepare in our next meeting, we're
[12:32] going to be getting uh presenting to you
[12:34] a tenative budget and we'll enter into
[12:35] the full uh full on uh FY2027 budgeting
[12:40] process. So, we wanted to give you just
[12:42] a little bit more context of what our
[12:44] general and core budget looks like this
[12:46] year and what we'll be looking at going
[12:48] forward. And we'll discuss a little more
[12:49] of that in our small breakout groups. Um
[12:52] below you have a snapshot of our core or
[12:55] excuse me, it is 51%. Uh my correction
[12:58] earlier saying it was 61 was uh
[12:59] incorrect. It is 51%. Um for personnel
[13:03] services
[13:05] uh in January you adopted dues rates
[13:08] that would uh produce uh 2.782
[13:11] million in dues revenue if we have 100%
[13:15] membership uh and including the new uh
[13:18] newly incorporated communities. Um if
[13:21] you were to apply that uh then we also
[13:23] have this year's core budget uh revenue
[13:25] and expenses. you can kind of get an
[13:26] idea of what dues we um apply it on to
[13:30] the previous year uh the 2027 dues if
[13:33] you apply it to this year where kind of
[13:34] like our discretionary uh amounts of
[13:37] both revenue and expenditure are core
[13:39] revenue 64% membership dues. Uh you have
[13:43] a board um objective that says we need
[13:46] to shoot for our dues to cover 95% of
[13:50] our uh personnel and non-conference
[13:52] operational expenses. And as you can see
[13:55] here, you've got 64% uh coming from
[13:57] membership dues. And then if you look at
[13:59] personnel uh personnel expenses as well
[14:02] as operations and engagement, that's
[14:04] 68%. That shakes out to be at it's 94
[14:07] something%. So you're really on uh on
[14:10] for your goal right there. Um in event
[14:14] revenue, we see about 13% of our event
[14:17] revenue comes from uh what we're calling
[14:19] corporate event revenue. So that
[14:20] includes our sponsorship program and our
[14:23] exhibitors uh with another 12% coming
[14:25] from registration fees. And look at that
[14:28] 25% of our expenditures are our event
[14:32] expenditures. Um so those two are tied
[14:34] there and that's why we have the colors
[14:35] kind of matching.
[14:37] >> Um Nick and I just jumped in here real
[14:40] quick.
[14:42] When Nick and I took over Nick as chief
[14:44] financial officer and me as director,
[14:48] we did not have that symmetry in our
[14:50] event revenue versus then we spent you
[14:53] lost money. And it actually was the
[14:57] board strategic session, one of the
[14:59] first ones we did where we had
[15:01] discussions with the board of what their
[15:02] priorities were around conferences. And
[15:05] this is a simple illustration but an
[15:08] important one. The board made it
[15:10] abundantly clear that they did not want
[15:13] to spend the amount of money we've been
[15:15] spending historically on entertainment
[15:17] at conferences. So we cut those really
[15:22] large big ticket items from conferences.
[15:25] We also formalized sponsorship programs.
[15:26] Katie hardly manages that for us and we
[15:29] have more sponsors today than we've ever
[15:31] had. In fact, we have even more sponsors
[15:33] at this conference than we had six
[15:34] months ago because she recruited a
[15:36] couple more sponsors and they'll pay a
[15:40] higher rate than the exhibitors. They
[15:41] get different benefits, but she's done a
[15:43] phenomenal job with that program. And so
[15:46] now you can see we actually make more
[15:48] money off of sponsors and exhibitors in
[15:51] our conferences than we do from the
[15:53] registration fees. That's an important
[15:56] thing to keep in mind when we get to our
[15:58] small group discussion later because of
[16:00] the uncertainty around the salt palace.
[16:02] And what we need to do for the annual
[16:04] convention going forward is
[16:07] having an exhibit hall at both
[16:09] conferences generates a lot of revenue.
[16:12] That then has helped us keep
[16:13] registration rates registration costs
[16:16] really flat for attendees while still
[16:19] having
[16:21] 600 or 596 as of Friday.
[16:26] We process.
[16:32] » Well, I'm hoping we get more people.
[16:34] >> I can look it up in the meantime.
[16:35] >> We've only we've only got over 600
[16:38] registrants for the midyear conference
[16:40] once those two. So, gives you a sense of how successful the the conferences
[16:45] have become. It's been a team effort to
[16:47] get us there, but we wanted you to see
[16:49] how these dollars fit together. Go
[16:51] ahead.
[16:54] >> Um, okay. Uh you can also see uh on the
[16:56] graphs as Cam mentioned yes uh that is
[16:59] how our event revenue looks. Um
[17:02] revenue-wise you'll see a 1% is that
[17:04] indirect cost rate that we apply to
[17:06] state grants. So yes our state funed
[17:09] technical assistance is outside of our
[17:11] core budget except for the 10% of the
[17:13] revenue that 10% charge on the revenue
[17:16] we collect from them helps fund our core
[17:19] budget uh which ends up being 1% of our
[17:21] core budget. And then this year uh 7% of
[17:25] our core budget is funded through that
[17:28] uh those unrestricted reserves that
[17:29] we're using. Um grants and special
[17:32] projects make up 7% of our spending. Um
[17:35] and as Cam mentioned before, uh a lot of
[17:38] those grants and special projects this
[17:39] year are being funded by that one-time
[17:41] uh revenue.
[17:44] Um we'll we'll um just kind of keep this
[17:46] graph in mind uh as we talk about in our
[17:49] small group discussions about the
[17:50] revenue portion of everything.
[17:52] Ultimately, 3/4 of the way through
[17:54] FY2026, the league is uh 1,38,698
[18:01] revenue over expenses, and the finances
[18:03] are in good shape. At this time, staff
[18:06] would ask the board to approve both the
[18:08] uh Q3 budget report and the Q3 check
[18:12] register uh that is also attached in
[18:14] your packet. Um if you have any
[18:16] questions about the specific expenses
[18:19] within that check register uh we are
[18:21] happy to answer those at this time.
[18:25] >> We have a question over here.
[18:29] » Motion to approve the budget in the
[18:31] register.
[18:34] We have a second from council.
[18:37] We didn't ask anyone any questions. Now
[18:39] I'll just ask
[18:43] for questions.
[18:46] See none
[18:51] check.
[19:00] » Excellent. Thank you.
[19:03] also have our next item which is the
[19:05] annual progress assessment.
[19:07] >> Yes indeed. Um you should all be
[19:09] familiar with this. We've done it a
[19:10] number of times uh in in our meetings
[19:13] and you need to do it for your cities as
[19:15] well. Um but this is the annual fraud
[19:17] risk assessment that the auditor's
[19:19] office asked us to complete. Um we have
[19:21] filled this out along with our financial
[19:24] oversight consultant Dave Sanderson. Um,
[19:27] and these this tells you all of the
[19:29] steps that we take to limit our exposure
[19:32] for the potential for fraud. Um, as you
[19:35] can see, we rate we score a 375 out of
[19:38] 395. That is in the very low level. Um,
[19:42] this is uh unchanged as of last year.
[19:46] Um, except in this basic separation of
[19:48] duties portion. Um, I'm trying to see
[19:51] which one it is that we changed. Uh we
[19:54] used to have a mitigating factor um on
[19:57] the access to blank checks um for some
[19:59] reason. Uh but Cam does not have access
[20:01] to those and neither does Mayor Hales
[20:03] who are signers. So we switched that
[20:04] over to yes. But as far as the scoring
[20:06] goes unchanged as of um last year. So
[20:11] Cam and I have both signed that and
[20:13] we're ready to go. We just need the
[20:14] board to adopt that and we will submit
[20:16] it to the auditor's office.
[20:19] >> Any questions or anyone?
[20:22] >> I'll make a motion.
[20:23] Thank you.
[20:32] » Thank you.
[20:34] >> There we go. Uh, all in favor, please
[20:36] say
[20:36] >> I.
[20:38] Any opposed?
[20:45] » Very low.
[20:46] >> Yes.
[20:48] Next is we have a post policy update and
[20:59] » y attack team on this one.
[21:01] >> Yes indeed. This is a very simple change
[21:04] to our internal uh policies and
[21:06] procedures. Um as the policies and
[21:09] procedures you adopted uh I believe this
[21:12] one was in September of 2025.
[21:16] um or excuse me 2024 uh budget adoption
[21:19] is a portion of those policies and
[21:22] within it we talk about the the
[21:24] procedure we have to follow in in doing
[21:26] our budgeting. Um one thing we've left
[21:28] out of there is establishing any
[21:30] procedural rules for the only public
[21:32] hearing we have every year which is our
[21:34] budget hearing. Um so we've simply added
[21:36] in here that at uh notice and setting
[21:40] the date of a public hearing on the
[21:41] budget at the meeting at which the
[21:43] tenative budget is provided to the
[21:44] board. So, our May meeting, the board
[21:46] shall establish the time uh place and
[21:49] procedural rules to conduct a public
[21:52] hearing to consider the budget's final
[21:53] adoption and public notice of the
[21:55] hearing at least 7 days before the uh
[21:58] the day of the hearing on the Utah
[21:59] public notice website and CT website. Um
[22:03] if you recall last year when we did the
[22:04] budget uh for the first time under these
[22:07] rules, we had to do a number of motions
[22:09] which included oh we are setting the
[22:10] date and time, oh we are adopting the
[22:12] tenative budget. This is going to add
[22:14] one more in here where we adopt
[22:15] procedural rules for uh the public
[22:18] hearing uh which I'm sure you have in
[22:20] many of your cities will be uh time is
[22:22] limited to 3 minutes uh can also submit
[22:26] written comments etc. We'll bring a a
[22:29] copy of those rules uh to the meeting in
[22:31] May. That way we don't have those
[22:33] particular rules set in stone with and
[22:36] anytime we need to update it we have to
[22:38] go and update our policies and
[22:39] procedures. it will just be a part of
[22:40] the process every year uh in our
[22:42] budgeting process to establish those
[22:44] procedures.
[22:45] >> But essentially we realiz
[22:49] we've got a bit of a hole here. We had
[22:51] never talked about well what are the
[22:53] processes for the only security we have.
[22:56] So this is approach saying at the same
[22:59] time you adopt those we'll adopt these
[23:01] rules and now I suggested an approach to
[23:04] take which is three minute public
[23:07] comment you can submit any written
[23:09] submissions you want to so anyway we're
[23:11] trying to fill a hole in anticipation of
[23:13] something you might have
[23:15] >> that's good to get a hold of the budget
[23:21] » any questions from anyone about the
[23:24] changes
[23:28] I two I think three
[23:32] but you're you're going to basically
[23:34] make that decision
[23:36] when we set everything in May
[23:39] >> and if that's with the draft that we
[23:41] bring to you in May we can we can go any
[23:43] time frame that we think
[23:46] >> just to be clear we're in our April
[23:48] meetings we're allowing ourselves be our rules to have teachers in place the
[23:54] procedures then we'll have that finer
[23:58] detail discussion in May. What you're
[23:59] adopting now is a change the budget
[24:03] and
[24:06] » so in May you expect a robust discussion
[24:09] between two minutes and absolutely
[24:15] » so that's not on the table for today
[24:17] what's on the table we have some
[24:22] procedures
[24:23] >> anyone else
[24:27] proceeding
[24:29] In that case, do we have a motion to
[24:32] adopt
[24:37] » motions? We have motions all
[24:44] right. All in favor of adopting.
[24:50] » Any opposing
[24:57] appropriate public comment
[25:00] window for a meeting discussion.
[25:06] I'm sure everyone sitting has a good
[25:08] time.
[25:10] Next is our engagement update. Molly,
[25:13] you want the microphone?
[25:19] Hello. Um, thanks for joining us in St.
[25:22] George. First part of our engagement
[25:24] update is our midyear conference which
[25:27] is happening right now in St. George. Um
[25:29] we as Cam said we have about 600 people
[25:31] signed up. Um we're really looking
[25:33] forward to it. Um we have our first
[25:36] pre-conference programming that we've
[25:38] ever tried happening now with Donnory
[25:40] running conflict competence that seems
[25:42] to be going well. So it was a fun thing
[25:44] for us to try out. Um additionally we
[25:47] are going to have keynote speaker
[25:48] Professor Greg Jackson. He's a professor
[25:51] at UVU and uh has a great podcast called
[25:54] History That Doesn't Suck as well as a
[25:56] book titled We've Been Here Befor um
[25:59] that talks about kind of uh different
[26:02] periods of kind of uh conflict
[26:05] throughout America American history and
[26:06] how we've worked through it and grown as a country. So, we're excited to
[26:10] hear from him. Um a few other things I
[26:13] will point out. Nick, can we pull up
[26:15] that uh America 250 slide?
[26:18] >> Yes. So, so we have uh Greg speaking as
[26:21] a part of America 250. We're also going
[26:23] to have some America 250 programming on
[26:25] the main stage. One thing that we will
[26:27] have in the exhibit hall that we're
[26:29] pretty excited about and we have to give
[26:30] big kudos to Cassidy and Carson is we're
[26:33] going to have a what America means to me
[26:36] um booth and we're going to be asking
[26:38] folks different questions about American
[26:40] values and things like that that are
[26:42] significant to them whether it's freedom
[26:44] of religion or freedom of speech or you
[26:46] know individualism you you name it and
[26:49] think of it. Um, and actually do name it
[26:51] and think of it by scanning this QR code
[26:53] and telling us so that we have some um,
[26:56] good things to fill this out. Um, so
[26:58] it'll be a pretty interactive exhibit.
[27:00] We're pretty excited for it. So if you
[27:02] could help us kick things off by telling
[27:05] us what America means to you, it would
[27:08] be very helpful.
[27:12] » It is an independent culture. Keep you
[27:14] on your toes. Not St. George. You know,
[27:16] things are a little different.
[27:18] I want to ask you a question.
[27:19] >> Absolutely.
[27:20] >> Um, how come there's not a resort?
[27:23] >> Great question. So, this year, because
[27:26] we are focusing on water, um, and
[27:30] Justin, correct me if I'm wrong on any
[27:31] of this, we had limited time spots and
[27:34] we felt it was pretty important to have
[27:35] a southern Utah caucus with some of
[27:38] their unique water challenges. And in
[27:40] our kind of look on things, a lot of the
[27:43] resort caucus issues on water as a topic
[27:46] could fall into other communities. And
[27:49] so that is why this one time where
[27:54] >> Yeah, just pick another caucus.
[28:06] Wow,
[28:07] >> that's such an incredible brag.
[28:15] » Um, one other thing I will point out
[28:16] that is also a little different about
[28:18] this year. Um, we're going to have a
[28:20] women and local government networking
[28:22] session rather than a whole standalone
[28:23] lunch. Um we would really appreciate it
[28:26] if our uh lady members of the board
[28:28] could prioritize attending that um just
[28:31] to make sure that we have you know good
[28:32] showing and support for that
[28:33] programming. It would be very much
[28:34] appreciated.
[28:36] Um additionally I think next item on the
[28:39] agenda is property tax right actual
[28:42] agenda if
[28:44] >> oh pardon me an annual report. So you
[28:47] will see in front of you our AEO report
[28:50] or our annual report where we go through
[28:52] highlights of our advocacy engagement
[28:54] and operations um and everything we have
[28:57] accomplished in the last year. Um as
[29:00] well as a nice board shout out in there.
[29:01] So go find yourselves in your
[29:03] communities. Um if you have any
[29:04] questions about it, let us know. Kim, is
[29:06] there anything in particular you want to
[29:08] highlight in there?
[29:11] Kate's message, pardon me, Kate also
[29:13] wrote a really outstanding message.
[29:19] Um, yeah, I'm sorry. Also, Mayor
[29:22] Bradshaw wrote a really outstanding
[29:23] message. My bad. Um, additionally, we
[29:27] are pretty excited. We've been working
[29:29] hard on a property tax video series that
[29:32] we will formally unveil um tomorrow in
[29:36] the main stage. Um but one thing that we
[29:38] really realized this session as we kept
[29:40] having property tax discussions was it
[29:43] became very clear that there is not a
[29:46] lot of understanding as to how property
[29:48] tax works in general. Um that's amongst
[29:51] the general public. It's amongst
[29:52] legislators. It's amongst some of our
[29:54] own, you know, municipal officials. And
[29:56] so one thing we really realized this
[29:59] session is it almost doesn't matter what
[30:02] policies uh the legislature imposes in a
[30:05] sense because if the if the public
[30:07] doesn't understand what's happening the
[30:10] inst isn't really going to be resolved
[30:12] with different procedures. And so what
[30:15] we have implemented, we're doing um uh
[30:19] 10 minutes of kind of short video series
[30:22] targeted at the general public to
[30:24] educate them about about what property
[30:26] tax is, what it does, um specifically
[30:29] with the lens of what it does through
[30:31] municipal government. And so our goal is
[30:34] that we will get these to you and your
[30:36] communities and you can share them with
[30:38] the public. And then if you're going
[30:40] through truth and taxation or anything
[30:41] like that, you can use this as a
[30:44] building block to tell your story. And
[30:46] then hopefully people will understand
[30:48] what property tax is, why they pay it,
[30:51] how it's calculated, and so that when
[30:53] you go through truth and taxation or
[30:54] your budget conversations, that baseline
[30:57] understanding is there. So I think we
[30:59] wanted to show the third video as an
[31:01] example.
[32:46] Excellent.
[33:10] Um, so yeah, we'll have a handful of
[33:12] those videos going through just the
[33:14] basics of property tax as well as truth
[33:16] and taxation. Um, and then we're also
[33:17] working with tax the tax commission on
[33:19] more resources specifically targeted for
[33:22] municipalities on property tax as well.
[33:24] Um, so stuff for you all and then stuff
[33:27] for your residents as well. And then I
[33:29] think the final thing on the list is the
[33:31] mitigation task force
[33:35] correctly. Perfect. So HB596 during
[33:38] session would have created a homeless
[33:41] shelter city mitigation task force to
[33:44] really dive into mitigation
[33:45] contributions and distributions and try
[33:47] to come up with a better policy so that
[33:50] we didn't have to crack open the code
[33:52] every few years and tweak things. Um
[33:55] that bill did not pass. However, we got
[33:57] a lot of feedback from a lot of folks
[33:59] who felt like it was pretty important to
[34:00] do this. And so we will uh we would like
[34:04] to run that task force with OS. Um we've
[34:07] been working with Tyler Clancy who's the
[34:09] new state homeless coordinator and we'll
[34:10] also be here tomorrow for a workshop. Um
[34:14] so the proposal that we have worked on
[34:16] with OS and is based on the legislation
[34:21] is a mix of municipal and state leaders
[34:24] since there are state dollars in the
[34:25] mitigation fund. So it would be uh it
[34:28] would have nine voting members. One
[34:30] would be uh Tyler Clancy as the state
[34:32] homelessness coordinator or his
[34:33] designate. Then there would be two
[34:35] members from the state homeless board.
[34:38] Then there would be three uh municipal
[34:41] officials that represent shelter cities
[34:43] that are recommended by the shelter
[34:46] cities group but selected by the ULCT
[34:49] board and then three non-shelter city
[34:52] representatives that are again selected
[34:55] by the ULCT board. Um we want to make
[34:57] sure that we are keeping an eye on a
[35:00] good uh mix of having folks from across
[35:03] the state uh potentially you know
[35:04] elected officials, administrative
[35:06] officials um things of that sort. So,
[35:09] uh, we wanted to just run this, uh,
[35:12] model by the board and make sure we had
[35:14] your buy in on that. And then our role
[35:18] would be to solicit, uh, interest over
[35:20] the next month and then at the May board
[35:23] meeting, have you vote on who the
[35:25] municipal members of that task force
[35:27] would be.
[35:30] » This is a, you know, significant.
[35:36] So, no elected officials.
[35:38] >> No, there would be elected officials,
[35:40] but we we I think we just want to be
[35:42] flexible, right? Like if there is an
[35:43] outstanding police chief who really
[35:45] understands this and you're like, we
[35:47] actually would love to have our chief on
[35:48] this or we'd love to have our finance
[35:51] director or city manager. Or if it's we
[35:54] really want the mayor, we want to have
[35:55] just the flexibility to have the board
[35:58] say we think these are the best people.
[36:00] and it could be a mix.
[36:07] » So just as a reminder, this was a
[36:10] provision in the last few days of the
[36:13] session when we passed
[36:20] the court who we looked at and said it
[36:22] goes in this bill. And the intern went
[36:25] and said it goes in that bill and
[36:32] But uh this provision came out but was
[36:34] something that was was a handshake in the hallway that we will
[36:39] make sure this happens. This is
[36:41] important cities
[36:44] a shelter whether you're fun this
[36:48] discussion
[36:52] like council you had a question about
[36:54] the membership side of the house
[36:59] layout look good on the non side the
[37:04] homeless problem is a
[37:08] wall
[37:09] bigger these areas has a bigger problem
[37:11] because we have a bigger population. So
[37:14] there's rural Utah that probably has a
[37:16] lot of people that are also probably on
[37:18] that unsheltered or you know couch
[37:21] surfing level that doesn't get seen much
[37:24] because it's so small population. So if
[37:28] there's opportunity to maybe have a non
[37:31] voting member or someone with a voice
[37:33] from the areas that are in the small
[37:35] rural areas on that
[37:39] membership just so that they can
[37:41] probably their perspective. the main
[37:43] services that we can provide them that
[37:46] aren't as a resource center like we have
[37:50] like a resource center
[37:56] that just gets a perspective on that and
[37:59] I'm not just throwing that out because
[38:01] there's
[38:03] that's
[38:05] our state is full and we have lot of
[38:08] small pockets that could possibly use in
[38:13] those problems those areas.
[38:14] >> So the just just so you're clear the
[38:16] test the task force duties are on the
[38:18] back page
[38:20] >> and um while I'm confident that Molly
[38:24] can and
[38:26] this this group can be to do all kinds
[38:28] of really broad work in this I think
[38:32] that
[38:33] the group's focus is a little bit
[38:35] narrow. It's it's the mitigation fund
[38:38] and what things are appropriate costs.
[38:41] How do you how do you apply? How do you
[38:44] count beds? We all need to count beds
[38:47] >> in the same ways. We all need to account
[38:48] for the public safety aspects in the
[38:51] same ways. Um and right now sometimes
[38:55] we're not doing those things. So the
[38:58] duties are a little bit narrower. Um
[39:01] some of those broader things I think
[39:02] fall to the broader level of services.
[39:05] And I if I may I would also suggest I
[39:08] think to your point it's a good one and
[39:10] that's why
[39:12] I try to
[39:15] this group if that's important for this
[39:17] group you have the three voting members
[39:19] and I think if you're going to have a
[39:21] plan to include the world it would be
[39:23] important to include the voting member
[39:25] and so whether they're a non- shelter
[39:26] city or one of our smaller shelter
[39:29] cities um I think if you could make that
[39:33] decision to say that's how we want
[39:35] Prioritize.
[39:44] Do you want to do you happen to off the
[39:46] top of your head that are members of you
[39:50] who might be eligible to serve from that
[39:53] group?
[39:53] >> Oh, I could unfortunately. Yeah. Um, so
[39:58] I thought you might. Um, so it was
[40:00] chaired by uh Randy Shley. Um it has an
[40:05] executive group that includes Spence
[40:07] Eckles, Aaron Mendal Mendal and um Kyler
[40:13] Lindy. The way that it is formulated,
[40:15] the board would have two appointments.
[40:17] There are two municipal officials on
[40:19] that board. Um I can't see the board
[40:22] picking either of the municipal
[40:24] officials. So that would be Sherewood of
[40:27] South Salt Lake as well as
[40:30] home. So I think if it's important for
[40:33] anything that would also be helpful just
[40:35] for the balance of a group not to have
[40:37] you know the shelter cities over
[40:40] represented kind of through another
[40:42] avenue but we'll also see what the board
[40:44] does. Um, other members of the homeless
[40:47] services board include uh Jen Campbell
[40:50] from the providers, Randy Grace from the
[40:53] counties, Mo Egan uh was with the other
[40:55] side county and had lived experience,
[40:58] Tiffany Price um who's been involved
[41:01] with the business.
[41:06] Um oh Cameron from the governor's office
[41:15] and Josh is there's
[41:22] five
[41:29] people are eligible to be alliged
[41:34] by the chair.
[41:38] I thought who I would suspect the chair
[41:41] would go forward.
[41:48] I was so going to ask if you want to
[41:49] share that thought.
[41:53] So the anticipation is that we will um
[41:58] we'll be discussing this and subs for
[42:02] next month or Yeah. So, we would collect
[42:05] names over the next month of those who
[42:06] are interested. Um, we would need to
[42:09] convene the shelter cities group and get
[42:11] their names of who they'd like to put
[42:12] forward to represent them. And then we
[42:15] would bring kind of two um slates of
[42:19] names before you. One of the folks who
[42:22] are interested from the shelter cities,
[42:23] one of the folks who are interested in
[42:25] the non-shelter cities, and this group
[42:27] would get to pick three of each.
[42:31] So we're doing obviously Salt Lake has
[42:34] more experience than they would probably
[42:36] like in this category
[42:39] but you shared some thoughts on
[42:40] perspective. Is there anyone else that
[42:42] has thoughts about you know guidelines
[42:44] for what we have to be thinking about
[42:47] this
[42:50] free shelter shelter?
[43:10] Any
[43:25] other thoughts?
[43:28] um you have you'd like to start doing
[43:32] something to
[43:33] >> so what we'll probably do is just create
[43:35] a brief form just to solicit interest um
[43:39] from at least the non shelter cities I
[43:41] think
[43:43] cities
[43:44] that group first um so if there's any
[43:48] like if you have any like questions or
[43:52] anything like you particularly like to
[43:54] know from people who are interested um
[43:56] we can certainly put in like a short
[43:58] question or two. I don't want to make it
[43:59] too ownorous of like an application
[44:02] necessarily, but um if you would like
[44:04] anything kind of beyond name position
[44:07] community um let me know. We can make
[44:10] sure we appropriate that to give you the
[44:13] information that you feel like we need
[44:14] to make an important choice.
[44:18] We just ask
[44:20] for reason they would like to serve why
[44:24] they
[44:25] think that they
[44:30] question
[44:31] >> is this a
[44:36] » this is kind of a one time.
[44:44] » Yeah. to reporting our findings back to
[44:47] the service for the shelters by the
[44:50] board and then in theory this will
[44:52] probably work its way into the 2027
[44:57] session annual homelessness bill
[45:04] and
[45:04] >> that doesn't mean we could never revisit
[45:06] it but it is kind of the goal to
[45:09] every couple years we kind of like have
[45:11] to crack this open and have this big
[45:12] discussion and so I think it's trying
[45:14] figure out how do you make a system that
[45:16] can just kind of run and that like grow
[45:20] or shrink accordingly and just be
[45:22] tailored rather than having to
[45:24] completely rewrite code when another
[45:26] city becomes a shelter city or more
[45:29] housing comes online
[45:34] any additional questions or thoughts
[45:39] you need if you have anything else any
[45:42] other thoughts feel free to let me know
[45:50] Next is our advocacy update by Jerry.
[46:01] Before we get to I just want to add one
[46:02] last piece on property tax videos. We
[46:05] told you during the budget piece that
[46:08] you would see the fruits and flavors of
[46:10] using those one time reserves and that's
[46:12] what's paying for those protect videos.
[46:14] Molly, how many will there be when it's
[46:15] all said and done?
[46:17] >> Um,
[46:19] it's a good question. We have 10
[46:20] minutes, but a few of them are longer
[46:22] than a minute. So, probably six or seven
[46:23] videos total.
[46:24] >> So, 10 total minutes of video broken up
[46:26] into six or seven pieces. So, Mayor
[46:28] Walker leaned over to me after you
[46:29] watched that and said, "Well, we are we
[46:31] answering this question and we don't we
[46:34] don't get additional property tax even
[46:36] when property values go up." Yes, that
[46:38] is one of the pieces that will be in the
[46:40] video. So, the feedback you gave us last
[46:42] month is all being incorporated into
[46:44] this video series. Three are done now.
[46:46] The rest will be done in the next couple
[46:47] weeks. We anticipate a lot of tax
[46:50] entities, many cities and towns will go
[46:53] through truth and taxation this year.
[46:54] So, just be prepared for that. We expect
[46:56] a lot and there'll be some state
[47:00] politics about that and politics about
[47:02] that. We just in Friday facts this past
[47:05] Friday
[47:06] put a link to the updated checklist from
[47:09] the tax commission that our team worked
[47:11] handin glove with them on. So there was
[47:13] some frustration last year about the
[47:15] checklist. So I want to thank the tax
[47:16] commission publicly. They worked very
[47:18] closely with us over the last few weeks
[47:20] building out that checklist. And then we
[47:22] have some supplemental materials that
[47:24] Carrie and Frank Mcomero, Roger Tu and
[47:26] others on the staff have worked on for
[47:28] the last few weeks. Alexa
[47:31] has has turned into a property tax
[47:33] expert over the last few weeks as she's
[47:36] been proofreading every document that's
[47:37] been going back and forth to make sure
[47:39] all the details are correct. Then we'll
[47:42] have this video series which is more for
[47:43] the public and broader than if you're
[47:45] going through truth and taxation or not
[47:47] because it's more about property taxing
[47:49] channel. For those of you who are going
[47:50] through truth taxation, please use those
[47:52] resources and please stay in touch with
[47:54] us as we go into that process this
[47:55] summer. With that, Jared, let's keep
[47:58] talking about revenue and uh let's give
[48:00] an update on impact pieces.
[48:05] Uh let's see. I thought it was the
[48:09] So, um, we occasionally, uh, the league
[48:13] gets requests to participate in amicus,
[48:16] uh, which is a a brief in another case.
[48:21] And, uh, as in the past, we've received
[48:24] some of those. In fact, I think the last
[48:28] two or three board meetings, uh, we've had requests come in. We have
[48:33] another request come in uh from Salt
[48:36] Lake City and this one uh deals with
[48:39] impact fees. The issue that is involved
[48:43] in the case is should a city that
[48:46] collects impact fee uh under one impact
[48:50] fee facilities plan be able to spend
[48:53] those impact fees on system improvements
[48:56] that were only identified in a later
[48:59] adopted impact fee facilities plan.
[49:03] um that is the issue. Um
[49:07] I I won't get into the the the uh case
[49:11] and and all of that. We have provided
[49:13] you with those documents um in the board
[49:17] agenda and uh it it is a lot of pages.
[49:22] So I won't go into that. that there one
[49:25] thing that you as a board need to
[49:28] consider in whether or not to
[49:30] participate in this amicus brief and
[49:33] that may be just signing on to an amicus
[49:36] brief. It may be uh intervening as a
[49:40] party. It could be a number of things,
[49:43] but what the board needs to consider in
[49:46] each amicus uh request that comes in is
[49:51] various factors which include uh how
[49:56] broad and widespread this issue is and
[49:59] whether it affects or will affect all
[50:02] cities or most cities or is it just an
[50:05] isolated issue. uh the uniqueness of the
[50:08] issue um the likelihood that the
[50:12] league's position uh would be supported
[50:15] by uh the court uh bandwidth of that's
[50:20] being provided uh the facts of the case
[50:23] those types of things um and so we have
[50:27] provided those uh materials for you and
[50:32] uh I don't think that we're we're
[50:34] expecting any sort of decision decision
[50:37] today. But this gives you an a
[50:42] to be able to move forward uh be able to
[50:44] read this, go through this and decide as
[50:48] a board whether to either move forward
[50:51] with this amicus or choose to uh not
[50:55] move forward with it.
[50:56] >> We have to make that decision. Yes,
[51:02] » we have to make the decision to make
[51:03] because the uh the brief is due in June.
[51:08] So
[51:15] » yes, so the the question is what is the
[51:19] cost impact to the league? And right now
[51:22] we have been told that uh that UAC as
[51:27] well as a few other entities uh will
[51:30] likely be drafting an amicus brief that
[51:35] the league could choose to sign on to.
[51:38] uh like we did with the last uh amicus
[51:41] request that came in, we merely just had
[51:43] a paragraph that said we agree.
[51:46] It's more complicated, but essentially
[51:48] that we agree and uh signing it. So, it
[51:53] could be as simple as that. It could
[51:54] also be a little bit more where the
[51:58] league staff or another attorney that we
[52:01] go out and uh througha
[52:05] uh we solicit those
[52:07] drafting of the DM because so it could
[52:11] be nothing and it could be a lot more
[52:15] depending on what we do and how we
[52:19] whether we just sign on to the amus
[52:21] brief or whether we want to draft the
[52:24] brief
[52:26] um and have attorneys draft the brief
[52:32] » yes since it's already being drafted
[52:36] uh by by UAC and others. My
[52:39] recommendation would be just to sign on
[52:42] to that amicus brief.
[52:46] Now, that being said, I don't know what
[52:48] is in that amicus brief and what their
[52:51] position will be. So, um, we will know
[52:54] that, uh, I don't know when we'll know
[52:58] that, um, when that amicus brief will
[53:01] get done and that she'll have access to
[53:05] that. Um,
[53:09] what we need today is, yeah, to start
[53:11] the official process um, and get those
[53:15] documents to you.
[53:18] >> Any additional questions?
[53:21] >> Additional point. So thank you very much
[53:22] for bringing this up. Of course uh you
[53:25] know so much cities one in front but
[53:29] this infecties affects us all across the
[53:32] board and be any one of us being in our
[53:36] position at the same time and be
[53:38] supported here at the same time so
[53:41] broadly
[53:44] can't change because of things.
[53:49] » I think uh the position you outlined is
[53:51] a good one. I think having the
[53:53] possibility to sign it on is is good and perhaps the easiest approach. I
[53:58] don't mean that in a negative way, but
[53:59] like if somebody drafts one, we like it.
[54:02] I think signing our name to us is is
[54:03] certainly an easy way to do it and makes
[54:05] perfect sense. I think it is it's
[54:08] probably wise for us to consider
[54:10] something more. And I don't know what
[54:12] that is yet. I think it would be wise to
[54:14] see what is said, read it and see if it
[54:17] goes the direction or as far enough or
[54:22] down the direction we want to go or if
[54:24] there's an additional
[54:27] angle that we could take. This actually
[54:29] is a very important issue and uh it it
[54:33] is
[54:35] in fact these are extremely important
[54:37] for the development of all of the
[54:40] utility operations of our cities and uh
[54:44] to lose the ability to be I think nimble
[54:47] and
[54:49] updating of our impact fees
[54:53] contradicts the value of impact fees. We
[54:55] need to update these things. So I think
[54:57] this is a good approach and I think this
[55:00] is perhaps maybe just the starting point
[55:02] that that maybe there's another step we
[55:04] need to take and we need to be open to
[55:06] that depending on how that comes.
[55:12] » I I just unless there's anything that's
[55:15] a substantive change based on what we've
[55:17] read to a
[55:28] I got on this case. The broader
[55:32] principle on agreement is important is I
[55:34] think you have to analyze each case on
[55:39] I think clearly for
[55:42] this
[55:46] is just signing on to prepared by
[55:49] somebody else and that's it. That's
[55:51] fine. Um
[55:54] I I worry a little bit about and I say
[55:56] I'm really mixed on this issue because I
[55:58] think Mr. the capital city etc etc but I
[56:02] think we got to be careful about making
[56:04] sure we understand full fact counts in
[56:06] each case what
[56:09] how much was the discretionary actually
[56:11] the city how much involved in other
[56:14] issues before
[56:17] the final decision and I was the only
[56:19] one
[56:21] but the broader issue I'm total
[56:23] agreement with I just sort of I sort of
[56:25] throw that caution out me and others
[56:27] raise that same
[56:30] And we'll know more once we receive that
[56:33] anus brief.
[56:39] » You know, I I have no way of knowing
[56:43] that until we get it
[56:49] » process wise. just
[56:55] » the process wise for those who are new
[56:56] on the board, you need to affirmatively
[57:00] tell us yes start the process let's get
[57:03] started on it then we'll prioritize it
[57:05] internally accordingly and then come
[57:07] back to you for final approval before we
[57:10] sign off which is again based on the
[57:12] timing it's likely so that's what we
[57:14] need today is final approval there Jared
[57:16] said there's lots of documents in here
[57:17] that we invite you to share with your
[57:19] city staff. If you have follow
[57:21] questions, you can reach out to Jared.
[57:23] We'll do a lot of work over the next
[57:24] month. If you approve of us starting the
[57:26] process,
[57:30] there's a lot of confusion around it and
[57:32] this might be a good opportunity to
[57:33] bring some light.
[57:36] >> Well, light is coming on impact fees.
[57:38] This perfect
[57:40] and perfect segway.
[57:45] » You're clearly right by I can't turn
[57:47] around that far. Can you take 30 seconds
[57:49] and just reference the the legislative
[57:51] audit on impact fees because that's part
[57:52] of the context?
[57:54] >> Yeah, this u and this is part of the
[57:57] what's that?
[57:58] >> 15 seconds. There's an impact fee audit
[58:00] coming from the office of legislative
[58:01] research. No, the there is a there's an
[58:04] audit being done right now by the office
[58:06] of the office of legislative auditor
[58:08] general. Uh now this is important. The
[58:11] office of legislative auditor general is
[58:12] different than the state auditor. Um
[58:15] these ones these auditors work for the
[58:16] legislature. Uh they've done a lot of
[58:19] audits over the past few years. We've
[58:20] worked with them on a few audits. Uh
[58:22] audits around housing, around water
[58:24] transactions,
[58:25] things. Um the the less safe auditors
[58:29] are generally very fair in their audits.
[58:30] They they work with us closely. They
[58:32] take feedback from us. They reach out to
[58:34] cities in a good way. Um and they find
[58:36] things that we don't always agree with
[58:38] and they they may find it that we don't
[58:39] necessarily agree with, but they they do
[58:41] a fair job and they do a good job
[58:42] looking at things. We had some meetings
[58:44] with them during the session to start
[58:46] out uh this audit, but they're going to
[58:49] be looking at impact fees throughout the
[58:50] year and they're going to look at how
[58:52] they're used uh which means they'll be
[58:53] reaching out to cities at some point. Uh
[58:55] when we asked a question to the city
[58:57] managers earlier today, no one's hand in
[58:59] the room went up yet that they've been
[59:00] reached out to. Uh but we know they are
[59:02] going to be reaching out to cities and
[59:03] finding out how impact fees are being
[59:05] used. So between the court case uh
[59:07] between the audit there are there are
[59:10] going to be many moving pieces with
[59:11] impact fees over this next year and no
[59:14] question that whatever comes out of the
[59:16] court case and whatever comes out of the
[59:18] audit there will be recommendations made
[59:20] that the legislature will try to tackle
[59:22] and make some changes on. So this is not just a one-off should we
[59:27] weigh in on um you know on a court case.
[59:30] It's not just a one-off on the audit.
[59:31] This is going to be a larger
[59:32] conversation. uh the legislators are
[59:34] going to want to tackle. We had uh at
[59:36] least three I can't think more than
[59:38] that, but three different pieces of
[59:39] legislation dealing with impact fees.
[59:41] This last session, uh we were able to um
[59:44] get them all either bumped to next year
[59:46] uh with the with the um idea that we
[59:48] work with legislators on the with them
[59:50] during the interim or they just they
[59:52] kind of died in their own weight. But it is something on legislator's minds
[59:56] obviously something on on developers
[59:58] minds as we have court cases and
[1:00:00] legislative auditors looking at it now
[1:00:01] as well. So that was more than 30
[1:00:02] seconds on all that, but just want to
[1:00:04] create a bigger picture here that this
[1:00:06] is not a subject that's going to go
[1:00:08] quietly into the night. This is
[1:00:10] something that we're going to have to
[1:00:11] spend some time on and we'll almost
[1:00:13] certainly have some battles on next
[1:00:14] session.
[1:00:15] >> The good news is the legislator will
[1:00:17] make
[1:00:18] >> everyday time.
[1:00:20] >> But do we only have 24 hours to review
[1:00:25] or start something on our own?
[1:00:30] What would it need to
[1:00:33] your time?
[1:00:41] » Great question. I think that uh
[1:00:48] I think that it would be a fairly short
[1:00:50] amicus brief on our end. um the uh
[1:00:57] that's what I would anticipate and so
[1:01:00] the legal fees and the the the staff
[1:01:03] time would be
[1:01:05] somewhat considerable but I would uh
[1:01:10] feel a lot more comfortable for someone
[1:01:12] that writes amicus briefs on a regular
[1:01:14] basis or uh is involved in a pellet
[1:01:18] procedure to do that. And so if we're
[1:01:22] looking about writing our own brief,
[1:01:24] then I would recommend going out to
[1:01:26] outside counsel to do that. That means
[1:01:30] significant cost. So even if it's short,
[1:01:35] >> which we could right now today is simply
[1:01:37] start the process, look at all the
[1:01:40] options over the next few weeks and come
[1:01:42] back with the recommendation.
[1:01:44] >> Exactly.
[1:01:46] as you deeply
[1:01:50] react.
[1:01:52] >> Yeah.
[1:01:54] >> Okay. Do we feel like we've had enough
[1:01:55] discussion? Anyone have any additional
[1:01:56] questions?
[1:02:00] » Prepared to make a motion.
[1:02:14] » Second. Okay, there's a motion council.
[1:02:20] All in favor say I.
[1:02:23] >> Any opposed?
[1:02:25] >> See none looks like you got assignment
[1:02:30] session.
[1:02:33] >> All right. Now we are to our board
[1:02:35] strategy session. Cameron, you want to
[1:02:38] set up what you what you want us to do?
[1:02:41] >> Yep, I will. For those of you who are
[1:02:42] new, this is in my mind um the most
[1:02:46] exciting board meeting that we have all
[1:02:48] year. It's an opportunity for you to
[1:02:50] break into smaller groups and to have
[1:02:54] some open discussions to give some
[1:02:56] general direction to us. I want to thank
[1:02:59] particularly Nick Jarvis, Justin, Molly
[1:03:01] Wheeler because they'll be the three
[1:03:03] facilitators. Uh we have questions in
[1:03:06] each division operations advocacy and
[1:03:09] engagement and they've done a tremendous
[1:03:12] amount of work leading up to today and
[1:03:13] figure out what exactly we want to
[1:03:14] discuss. The overarching theme really is
[1:03:17] priorization. That's the framework here
[1:03:20] because our staff is fantastic and
[1:03:25] despite their fantasticness or maybe
[1:03:27] because of them we get asked to do a lot
[1:03:30] by members. So we are constantly in this
[1:03:33] tugof-war of what do we prioritize and
[1:03:36] what are we unable to do and so when we
[1:03:39] break into these strategic conversations
[1:03:41] each spring is to try to answer
[1:03:43] questions as during
[1:03:45] I'm not going to go into the background
[1:03:47] I'll leave that to Nick Justin and Molly
[1:03:51] but we really want to hear from board
[1:03:52] members and this is as much a reminder
[1:03:54] for me and our staff this conversation
[1:03:57] is about board members so lead staff is
[1:03:59] facilitating it we'll be taking notes on
[1:04:01] it. We'll answer questions and keep the
[1:04:03] dialogue going. But it's really more
[1:04:05] about us hearing from you, not the other
[1:04:08] way around, but we will answer questions
[1:04:10] and keep the dialogue going. But we want
[1:04:12] to hear from you. This will help inform
[1:04:15] the tended budget to next month as well
[1:04:17] as some other strategic things that are
[1:04:19] in progress. And so, please keep that
[1:04:22] focus on board members and the why and
[1:04:24] why we're doing these pieces. We have
[1:04:27] broken up into three different groups.
[1:04:29] And I mention we'll be keeping notes. So
[1:04:31] for purposes of minutes in the next
[1:04:33] meeting, we'll be able to come back and
[1:04:34] we'll summarize. Here's what each group
[1:04:36] said. You're not making any decisions in
[1:04:37] those groups. It's just an open
[1:04:40] discussion in each of each of those
[1:04:41] groups. Okay.
[1:04:44] So three groups of six people each based
[1:04:48] on who is here in the room. We'll have
[1:04:50] about 20 minutes in each station. I'll
[1:04:52] be floating staffers. give you like a
[1:04:55] 10-minute notice, five minute notice so
[1:04:57] that you can uh you can act accordingly.
[1:05:00] So, we'll start with Mayor Bradshaw's
[1:05:04] group.
[1:05:04] >> By the way, I love that he doesn't trust
[1:05:06] us to count ourselves off.
[1:05:09] In fact, if you look at my notes,
[1:05:12] identify based on different classes of
[1:05:14] cities,
[1:05:16] national
[1:05:17] try to make sure
[1:05:25] we can do
[1:05:29] So
[1:05:30] I don't want to be
[1:05:41] the last name. That's all it is.
[1:05:47] » But it's not.
[1:05:48] >> Stop. Just move on.
[1:05:51] This is why you don't ask questions and
[1:05:52] all the answers.
[1:05:53] >> Okay. So Mayor Bradshaw's group will
[1:05:55] start here. They will start on the
[1:05:57] advocacy question with Justin
[1:06:01] Mayor Bradshaw, Mayor Virgin, Council
[1:06:02] Member Edward, Mayor Van Wagner, Mayor
[1:06:05] Mickey right, and Seth. You'll start
[1:06:08] there. That's Justin's group.
[1:06:11] >> Then over over here, Council Member
[1:06:14] Hinton's group along with Mayor Walker,
[1:06:15] Council Member Dugen, Council Me, Mayor
[1:06:17] Shepard, and Council Member. So, you'll
[1:06:20] start over there with Nick.
[1:06:24] be back here start on the engagement
[1:06:26] questions with Mayor Palmer
[1:06:28] right Mayor Peterson Mayor Bruno
[1:06:33] so it's 3 3:16 we'll go about 20ish
[1:06:37] minutes each time we rotate around we'll
[1:06:39] take our chairs over there and then
[1:06:43] we have to carry
[1:06:44] >> no you leave
[1:06:48] Justin
[1:06:53] All right, great.
[1:06:55] >> We'll come back. That's why I turned
[1:06:57] down. We'll come back to the committee
[1:06:59] of the whole at the end just to finish
[1:07:02] up the meeting. We're not going to do
[1:07:03] any sort of big summaries because a lot
[1:07:05] of staff need time to review the notes
[1:07:06] and we'll bring those back to you in
[1:07:08] future. Are there any questions about
[1:07:10] the objectives? Nick, Molly, Justin, you
[1:07:12] guys want to add pictures before we
[1:07:17] start?
[1:07:20] No.
[1:07:22] Let's go.
[1:07:49] » Thank you, Mike.
[1:08:00] I'll be taking
[1:08:02] while you're
[1:08:19] waiting. snack
[1:08:28] discussion weekack.
[1:08:46] » Okay,
[1:08:47] >> this is an important question to start
[1:08:48] out with.
[1:08:49] This is not quite
[1:08:59] » okay. We have Mirror Walker joining us.
[1:09:14] » Um, great. Well, thanks for joining us.
[1:09:15] We're going to start offer
[1:09:25] agenda. We've got to question
[1:09:30] the first of which
[1:09:44] is a vegetable.
[1:09:47] Uh
[1:09:53] general
[1:09:58] definition.
[1:10:11] Oh man, we got my group.
[1:10:16] All right, so
[1:10:21] that's actually
[1:10:24] me outside.
[1:10:26] We talked about a little bit.
[1:10:31] info on that. Um, we used to back in the
[1:10:34] day, everyone who applied a brush
[1:10:36] interview
[1:10:38] the conference took up a huge chunk of
[1:10:40] time for them and those sitting on the
[1:10:42] committee. Um since then we took a watch
[1:10:46] time then since then we've had more
[1:10:48] people on the board than we had the
[1:10:51] executive officers
[1:10:55] not just giving all of that information
[1:10:58] to the nomination committee and then the
[1:11:00] nomination committee ranks people we
[1:11:02] look at where that ranking falls and
[1:11:04] then we've got 2/3 to half of the
[1:11:07] candidate being accepted
[1:11:10] and then half being The question is um and then one year we did all those
[1:11:20] people that we we've got LTC obviously
[1:11:22] we had about passion which is then we
[1:11:27] still even have more people joining
[1:11:31] you don't want to misuse
[1:11:34] so we online tour where we do virtual
[1:11:39] we're getting to conference Um and so
[1:11:43] that everyone gets a chance everyone can
[1:11:44] read that list virtual interview longer
[1:11:47] interviews for second vice president but
[1:11:49] still a virtual interview um and then so
[1:11:54] the conference is where we're meeting
[1:11:55] just
[1:11:57] that was the the last way we went about
[1:11:59] that you see that that very way of doing
[1:12:03] it all in
[1:12:09] by
[1:12:12] asking
[1:12:16] you to do something that becomes a
[1:12:17] problem in certain areas where we don't
[1:12:20] have as much participation
[1:12:24] in a lot of history and we've had good
[1:12:27] board members from that area and saying
[1:12:29] oh no let's just keep going now we have
[1:12:33] had folks um that have
[1:12:35] >> so that's kind of been on the board for
[1:12:37] two to three terms
[1:12:39] has that sort of term and I've explained
[1:12:43] to them
[1:12:46] more trouble than it's worth that sort
[1:12:48] of thing. Um the other change we made is
[1:12:51] it used to be very um very prescribed as
[1:12:54] to who
[1:12:56] was like a member from each area
[1:12:59] from each certain classifications first
[1:13:02] class that sort of thing. um in our
[1:13:06] conution update in 2018, we struggled
[1:13:10] that to say um pick a community with
[1:13:12] consideration of geographic and size
[1:13:15] diversity. Um and we've done a pretty
[1:13:17] good job of just making sure we got um
[1:13:20] we've also tested out mostly a volunteer
[1:13:23] basis.
[1:13:25] >> It starts as a volunteer basis of people
[1:13:27] saying, "Hey, I'd like to serve on the
[1:13:29] committee." And then it's a me going out
[1:13:30] and asking people if they'll serve on
[1:13:31] the committee because people come on Um,
[1:13:35] we had run into the point before where
[1:13:38] someone is a nominee for the board and
[1:13:40] someone from their city or town says,
[1:13:42] "Hey, I'd like to serve on the
[1:13:44] committee." And that kind of gave us two
[1:13:46] conflicting things of we want to accept
[1:13:48] volunteers, but we also don't want to
[1:13:50] pay that. So, at one point we said,
[1:13:52] "Okay, we'll say, yeah, we got someone
[1:13:54] from the same area, so we'll try and get
[1:13:56] someone from their city to be on the
[1:13:57] board to try and balance that out a
[1:13:59] little." Now we've shifted to more of a
[1:14:02] um hey if you've got someone on the
[1:14:03] nominations committee we don't or that's
[1:14:05] a nominee we don't want you for the
[1:14:08] same.
[1:14:10] So with all of that background um the
[1:14:13] question we want to ask you all is just
[1:14:15] to provide some feedback on the process
[1:14:18] from your perspective as a nominee
[1:14:22] or both for
[1:14:26] So there
[1:14:30] you go.
[1:14:35] You don't look at all that.
[1:14:39] >> It's the best part of being on the the
[1:14:42] executive committee, right?
[1:14:44] >> We always we started off hard that it's
[1:14:46] the second vice president has to has to
[1:14:48] make all the say the notes.
[1:14:55] only
[1:15:08] » and that that asks more timewise of the
[1:15:11] committee, less condensed and less in
[1:15:13] person, but we have to meet three times.
[1:15:15] We need uh to go through the survey
[1:15:17] results. So you as a as a committee
[1:15:19] member, you've got to read everyone's
[1:15:20] questionnaires and you've got to answer
[1:15:22] a survey on who you like the most based
[1:15:23] on those questionnaires. Then you got to
[1:15:25] meet and go through those results. Then
[1:15:27] you got to meet and interview virtually
[1:15:29] and then you got to meet the day. So
[1:15:31] what used to be one meeting is now
[1:15:32] three, but honestly the virtual nature
[1:15:35] of it makes it a lot easier than just
[1:15:36] like okay let's hammer down.
[1:15:52] You know what?
[1:16:08] » Feels like every year they tweak it too.
[1:16:10] Curious your thoughts on that. Um, I
[1:16:12] think it works well. You know, it came
[1:16:14] up one year while I was serving on the
[1:16:16] uh nominations committee. We didn't have
[1:16:22] and we kind of met that said, well,
[1:16:24] should we have reached out to somebody
[1:16:27] else? Should we have added somebody else
[1:16:29] to the nomics request? And I just think
[1:16:31] that's a thing to do. If somebody wants
[1:16:34] to be uh
[1:16:37] on the board, then they should apply to
[1:16:39] be on the board.
[1:16:50] and in that case it was it was a well
[1:16:54] here we are
[1:16:57] interviews
[1:17:08] terrible idea
[1:17:12] And that's where I I personally like
[1:17:16] where our bylaws are out where they
[1:17:18] where they're at. They provide us some
[1:17:20] guidelines. In that case, we like well
[1:17:22] we have deadlines here.
[1:17:25] You know, we have to rule but they're
[1:17:28] not too flexible and say, "Hey, why
[1:17:30] don't we try, you know, break it up in a
[1:17:33] rather than you guys
[1:17:36] about
[1:17:38] >> and then you
[1:17:48] I thought it was helpful.
[1:17:56] Did you say
[1:18:00] » no? We had no option. no interviews day
[1:18:03] of in person but we had an option and
[1:18:06] then the committee met after those
[1:18:08] interviews um and said okay is there
[1:18:10] anyone here we can do a second interview
[1:18:12] for there are there some people there
[1:18:14] same same area real close or we have we
[1:18:17] ask them to interview in person um so
[1:18:19] that leaves an option there for it and
[1:18:21] we tell nominees that there's an option
[1:18:22] for it
[1:18:25] we need let's be
[1:18:29] Yeah.
[1:18:35] » Uh, no. I don't I from a staff
[1:18:37] perspective, I don't think there's a
[1:18:39] problem with it. I think we've been able
[1:18:40] I guess the question is kind of like do
[1:18:43] we need to formalize in bylaws? Are our
[1:18:45] bylaws flexible enough that we can
[1:18:48] continue to evolve um along with them?
[1:18:52] We've also had we've also had folks who
[1:18:56] don't get on the board ask us what is
[1:18:58] this process like like how do you who's
[1:19:00] how do you pick this what are you doing
[1:19:01] you know we don't have people who got on
[1:19:03] the board really asking those questions
[1:19:04] people who don't get on the board
[1:19:05] sometimes I don't know how I feel about
[1:19:07] this process so we wanted to be able to
[1:19:09] come talk through people and on it be
[1:19:13] like is this fair and I really do like
[1:19:17] having
[1:19:18] perspective too
[1:19:21] we only know what we running around.
[1:19:24] It's that thing where like someone to
[1:19:25] say what you want to say
[1:19:28] and when
[1:19:31] they're questions like yes
[1:19:42] you walked up and had
[1:19:46] to make and then you went out then they
[1:19:49] went back
[1:19:51] on your fil and your three minute piece
[1:19:56] now
[1:19:58] you send it in
[1:20:01] >> works really well
[1:20:14] to their
[1:20:18] questions you really need you have three
[1:20:21] videos I don't need you explaining
[1:20:24] Why do they do you answer interview
[1:20:27] questions on that video or just
[1:20:30] show you want to put together enough
[1:20:32] video?
[1:20:32] >> Okay. And that's how we get
[1:20:34] >> No, it wouldn't it wouldn't be all the
[1:20:35] time. But I think I mean going to the
[1:20:37] diversity
[1:20:40] from a left perspective
[1:20:43] because it's not a you have that story
[1:20:54] is
[1:20:55] >> and it's an interview
[1:20:58] there's some pressure for that very
[1:21:00] different
[1:21:01] and to me that's
[1:21:04] because I think that president is can
[1:21:06] you stand in front of people
[1:21:11] » and it is very different sitting on your
[1:21:14] business up
[1:21:26] » I can say we've never done one like a
[1:21:28] stand
[1:21:30] >> I think we've done things I think great
[1:21:33] we've done that but yes we can do that
[1:21:35] really fast.
[1:21:48] » What do I do if I
[1:21:51] response
[1:21:55] something
[1:22:00] and I also like I know everybody
[1:22:03] in there.
[1:22:05] It's it's no it's an important thing and
[1:22:07] that's a good thing to remember as staff
[1:22:10] I can tell you
[1:22:12] we have said that kind of like we
[1:22:17] like you've talked to people before but
[1:22:19] talking to legislators is different
[1:22:20] because it's a different thing you know
[1:22:21] we're the players the dynamic was
[1:22:23] different that's an important thing for
[1:22:24] us to
[1:22:26] >> do in person you're counseling you're
[1:22:30] as comfortable as that legislative here
[1:22:34] it up
[1:22:35] >> because you're here for
[1:22:42] me
[1:22:47] at the same time.
[1:22:53] So any just final thoughts on the
[1:22:55] nomination process in general? You think
[1:22:57] we're on track of what we've been doing?
[1:23:01] would be reasonless
[1:23:09] I would be more than happy to take
[1:23:13] these are all
[1:23:14] I am quite help
[1:23:39] but I
[1:23:49] whatever
[1:23:51] I think we had just
[1:23:53] put that together.
[1:23:54] >> Yeah.
[1:23:58] Oh, we get two bills
[1:24:01] once we have bill numbers out there. So
[1:24:02] like January
[1:24:14] for second
[1:24:26] um most people, you know, it's kind of
[1:24:30] squeaky wheel kind of issue like Most
[1:24:32] people take it with grace. Um most
[1:24:34] people don't get in there first. Most
[1:24:37] board members have applied and been told
[1:24:39] sorry you know maybe next time and come
[1:24:41] back in. Um for the most part it it
[1:24:44] works and people still participate with
[1:24:46] the league and still have there is where
[1:24:49] it's like I want to know more about this
[1:24:51] process. Why isn't this the feeling that
[1:24:53] it may not be as open and transparent?
[1:24:58] Yeah.
[1:24:59] >> Um, so I do think explaining it to our
[1:25:01] membership a little better would really
[1:25:02] help with that.
[1:25:03] >> Okay.
[1:25:05] Now we're going to move on to
[1:25:07] budget and finance. We're going to going
[1:25:09] to try and hammer through these really
[1:25:10] quickly. Um, I'm going to there's going
[1:25:13] to be a little background so I'm going
[1:25:14] to skip three and then you talk a little
[1:25:18] bit through my budget presentation. Um,
[1:25:21] what are your current thoughts? What are
[1:25:24] your thoughts of the current unofficial
[1:25:26] bipartis
[1:25:33] by an external
[1:25:36] question
[1:25:42] from conversations
[1:25:46] management
[1:25:48] staff said you know what this technical
[1:25:52] assist
[1:25:55] or real value
[1:25:57] but it is not something that we've
[1:25:58] always planned funding technologies or
[1:26:01] funding uh
[1:26:02] event or
[1:26:05] let's keep these separate for the most
[1:26:07] part and money comes in. Great. we have
[1:26:10] a program that we can do
[1:26:14] our general
[1:26:20] ide
[1:26:36] so that's been our reasoning behind it.
[1:26:38] Are are we comfortable with that or is
[1:26:40] there a there's not a desire to
[1:26:53] well and that's why and we're glad we're
[1:26:54] happy we've got $380,000
[1:26:57] ongoing funding for LA now
[1:27:00] >> as ongoing as ongoing right at any point
[1:27:05] great I'll make I'll make a note about
[1:27:07] That was a very easy question.
[1:27:10] Um, and then finally, we did budget
[1:27:13] financing
[1:27:15] renovation and our ability to annual
[1:27:17] convention 2027 is unclear. We very well
[1:27:21] could be able to say that we don't know
[1:27:22] what their renovation is going to look
[1:27:23] like. Uh our venue options are a
[1:27:27] sufficiently sized exhibit hall are very
[1:27:29] limited and conferences are currently
[1:27:32] running
[1:27:38] and my favorite comments are like
[1:27:41] wait
[1:27:46] the last week and someone's like what
[1:27:48] about this talk about for 5 weeks
[1:27:53] very limited where we go. We want to
[1:27:54] maintain the same type of corporate
[1:27:57] 50% corporate fun.
[1:28:07] Um what are just our general thoughts on
[1:28:11] um on that show what it looks like?
[1:28:16] >> I mean I think we do it the right way.
[1:28:19] background
[1:28:28] on this venue with Probo.
[1:28:35] » And I that is completely fair. We we can
[1:28:37] look we can look we're going to look at
[1:28:40] King's been looking all over.
[1:28:44] >> When you're doing strategy, you can't
[1:28:45] say in the big room, right?
[1:28:47] But there are things that we can take
[1:28:49] away
[1:28:56] from
[1:28:59] driving.
[1:29:00] >> Well, that's
[1:29:06] at the same time. I'm going to do a
[1:29:08] little bit of video. There's never
[1:29:11] enough time to go after
[1:29:24] you
[1:29:30] as long as you know one or two
[1:29:34] and I think it's not going to be going
[1:29:39] And I'm like or even if we're out and
[1:29:42] looks at me like you're
[1:29:45] my
[1:29:48] one and that's all. Do you see
[1:29:53] then I walk out
[1:29:58] but it is a very small town.
[1:30:02] Yeah. When we live up there every day
[1:30:05] >> we're swimming in the water. We forget
[1:30:06] what it's like.
[1:30:23] because it'll be more expensive.
[1:30:25] >> 30 seconds.
[1:30:30] » Great new place.
[1:30:33] >> The hotel's a very
[1:30:35] >> It's not the best.
[1:30:44] lots of places. Are there
[1:30:49] » I want to know too. Just tell us.
[1:31:05] Time to move. Time to move.
[1:31:07] >> Okay, thank you guys.
[1:31:11] » That way clockwise. Yes.
[1:31:47] together.
[1:31:51] » Welcome
[1:32:02] people.
[1:32:04] We'll see what
[1:32:27] we talk about.
[1:32:32] Our
[1:32:43] city
[1:33:00] was
[1:33:05] 2
[1:33:11] right here for us.
[1:33:14] No. Okay.
[1:33:25] We're going to talk about two things.
[1:33:27] You've seen
[1:33:34] two budget
[1:33:38] last
[1:33:57] more time.
[1:34:15] » All right.
[1:34:16] talking.
[1:34:43] Um, so
[1:34:52] I know you're so not
[1:35:02] ran into any particularly
[1:35:17] but now we're talking about how we so we
[1:35:19] talk about the board each level first
[1:35:23] class second
[1:35:25] town every
[1:35:33] representative entirely but we're not
[1:35:36] trying to get members to serve on locked
[1:35:39] in
[1:35:41] those really
[1:35:43] by themselves the process itself. Oh,
[1:35:46] this is her
[1:35:48] going
[1:35:51] all in person. everyone who applied all
[1:35:59] that really
[1:36:05] » obviously as a board
[1:36:17] Um we still have a whole ton of people
[1:36:20] in
[1:36:22] basically talking
[1:36:24] for attend
[1:36:36] virtual interviews. We were able to
[1:36:37] record an interview and have video
[1:36:41] asking the same questions. It worked out
[1:36:42] really well.
[1:36:44] And then we do have the option to on the
[1:36:46] day of do any sort of second interviews
[1:36:49] there
[1:36:54] much smaller time frame and we're
[1:36:56] allowed to
[1:36:58] take longer.
[1:37:01] So you can see we've been able to shift
[1:37:03] and change the process without actually
[1:37:05] making hard changes.
[1:37:08] Um, with that background, I'd like to
[1:37:09] open it up to any uh sort of feedback.
[1:37:12] I'm either a nominee or a member of the
[1:37:14] committee any thoughts that you have on
[1:37:17] how well we're doing or any other
[1:37:20] organizations maybe you've been a part
[1:37:21] of that have a different type of process
[1:37:23] that you can maybe
[1:37:26] work
[1:37:35] There's no
[1:37:53] » quick conversations
[1:38:01] every single we allow for supplemental
[1:38:03] material.
[1:38:04] folks would like to attach a resume or a
[1:38:06] photo. We ask for that. I do recall
[1:38:08] exactly what you're talking about. And
[1:38:10] we got like a 40 page uh whole deal of
[1:38:13] everything you've ever done in your
[1:38:14] life. Yeah. Um which wasn't exactly
[1:38:19] helpful. Right. Right. Um but yeah, that
[1:38:23] that's still the way we have it opened
[1:38:24] up. That's still potential. Knowing what
[1:38:26] I know now, I might go back to that
[1:38:27] nominee and say, "Hey, they've got a lot
[1:38:30] of review. You might want to know he
[1:38:32] knows all the bills anyway. them all.
[1:38:34] Anyway,
[1:38:38] » well, he knows the important
[1:39:03] reason.
[1:39:25] » Yeah, I actually thought it was
[1:39:33] So I think
[1:39:35] >> I we the phrase the cam and I always say
[1:39:37] is it's a good problem. Um he talks to
[1:39:40] executive directors of other state
[1:39:41] leaders where they state leads are there
[1:39:43] just please they can't get um we I
[1:39:48] wouldn't say we have too many at this
[1:39:50] point that could be a problem. I think
[1:39:52] the the many that we've had coming in,
[1:39:54] we've adjusted our process and I think
[1:39:56] our process
[1:39:58] um and we we want to see that. We we
[1:40:01] want to see people, you know, they see
[1:40:03] value in the league and want to be on
[1:40:05] the board when we have to tell them,
[1:40:06] hey, sorry you didn't get it this time,
[1:40:08] but hey, make sure you're going to LPC.
[1:40:11] We want that level of engagement.
[1:40:14] We're not quite to the point where we
[1:40:15] want to
[1:40:15] >> listen to everything else, but listen
[1:40:16] really closely to this. you know, you're
[1:40:19] kind of still
[1:40:22] making
[1:40:31] pounding on the table.
[1:40:36] » Yeah, that's a good point.
[1:40:39] I've had enough fun and because all you
[1:40:41] really
[1:40:43] want to do is just ask and everyone's
[1:40:45] like hell down but I was I had the
[1:40:48] experience
[1:40:51] I just wanted
[1:40:55] >> I think it might be
[1:40:57] >> great any other thoughts
[1:41:01] » I'll also add like the reason we're kind
[1:41:03] of someone mentioned this in the last
[1:41:05] like
[1:41:07] is trying to fix something. Is there
[1:41:09] something broken? Um the answer really
[1:41:11] is no. I feel like we have the one
[1:41:13] question we wanted to really get to is
[1:41:16] >> are we good with keeping pretty good
[1:41:20] structure and general guidelines from
[1:41:22] the bylaws and being able to be flexible
[1:41:24] within those like the the changes that
[1:41:26] we made. We're doing everything out by
[1:41:30] um and then the reason we're doing this
[1:41:33] is because we had it's it's the
[1:41:35] exception of the rule. have folks not
[1:41:38] and being kind of upset about it and ask
[1:41:40] what is this process? How does music?
[1:41:43] What do you you know how does this live
[1:41:46] on the board? You don't hear that on the
[1:41:48] board and usually usually we don't most
[1:41:52] of the people who didn't get on the
[1:41:54] board
[1:41:57] and most people who were on the board
[1:41:59] don't
[1:42:01] most people multiple times get on the
[1:42:03] board. They understand they have a lot
[1:42:05] of great colleagues. That is the rule.
[1:42:07] The exception is we do have some people
[1:42:09] who say like when is this even
[1:42:12] What are you even doing there? Oh, what
[1:42:13] if the board picks their own? No, it's a
[1:42:15] separate entity. You know, like it's we
[1:42:17] do have board members on it, but we have
[1:42:18] non board members as well. And we just
[1:42:20] want to make sure that the board
[1:42:23] this process is a process. There are
[1:42:27] to let people know how we're doing it,
[1:42:30] but we want to be able to make those.
[1:42:33] Um, something brought up in the last
[1:42:34] group was just kind of explain the
[1:42:38] process a little better to the general
[1:42:40] maybe we showing
[1:42:45] here's how it works just so people know
[1:42:49] that
[1:42:52] nothing's going to change people
[1:43:05] It was really close.
[1:43:15] » Yeah. And I mean, we're a statewide
[1:43:16] organization.
[1:43:18] >> You know, I think not everyone can make
[1:43:20] it. It's a big state. And not only that,
[1:43:23] we understand that as board
[1:43:30] already
[1:43:38] » I say this
[1:43:40] really bad.
[1:43:44] » Hey, here's our day of interview. Oh my
[1:43:45] gosh, I can't make that day. probably we
[1:43:48] have over the years and really
[1:43:50] accelerated it saying like how can we
[1:43:52] make sure the schedule's been on?
[1:44:11] Well, yeah. If we had the officers and
[1:44:13] each officer, um, we have a packet that
[1:44:16] we send out saying, "Hey, here's what
[1:44:17] we're looking for." The other side of it
[1:44:19] is the nomination form fill out. Um, and
[1:44:22] then the one is just kind of very brief
[1:44:24] one page with very small margins. We
[1:44:26] tried to keep it all in one page of um
[1:44:29] here are the expectations of a board
[1:44:31] member. Um, I don't know how much of
[1:44:33] that is here's what we're looking for. I
[1:44:36] think it gets I think some of it gets
[1:44:38] across, but you could maybe emphasize
[1:44:40] that.
[1:44:41] what you're looking for.
[1:44:59] There's only one
[1:45:10] preliminary work. One of the things we
[1:45:11] don't necessarily have is we don't
[1:45:14] really have a list like a matrix.
[1:45:18] Yeah.
[1:45:21] or like connection like if it's real
[1:45:26] but I don't know two people
[1:45:30] and I don't know who and we have to have
[1:45:33] one
[1:45:33] >> over the years I get
[1:45:37] overlap so
[1:45:39] representative
[1:45:41] everyone else
[1:45:44] we don't
[1:45:45] know who I'm
[1:45:46] two area
[1:45:51] and that person is at large.
[1:45:55] So in our at large we have three people
[1:45:57] from area four
[1:46:00] >> actually.
[1:46:08] Okay, we're about halfway through our
[1:46:10] time throughout here. We've got two more
[1:46:12] questions related to budget finance my
[1:46:14] experience with the other group I guess
[1:46:17] on this
[1:46:19] last
[1:46:23] » we want you to testify on something
[1:46:26] >> we probably also need to spend some time
[1:46:27] with staff prepping you to testify and
[1:46:30] that's
[1:46:32] on the
[1:46:33] question
[1:46:35] you testify takes longer
[1:46:38] but the ROI is such
[1:46:41] That's absolutely worth it.
[1:46:51] » Oh yeah. ROI
[1:46:57] feels
[1:47:04] that we have on our nominations
[1:47:06] committee. they like to see people,
[1:47:14] you know, having someone who's just like
[1:47:38] We do not
[1:47:40] used to have
[1:47:44] we had certain areas where we had a
[1:47:46] great relationship willing to serve
[1:47:50] and no one else from the area.
[1:47:55] We have already
[1:47:57] question
[1:48:00] informal like we consider
[1:48:24] » that's a really
[1:48:27] I never thought about that but yeah
[1:48:34] that's great. So we have that
[1:48:40] » I know that has been the second vice
[1:48:42] president
[1:48:46] telling everyone they got on telling
[1:48:48] everyone about
[1:48:50] >> and I know that hasn't consider
[1:48:57] » okay we're going to move over to uh the
[1:49:00] budget and finance section which we've
[1:49:01] broken up into two and um I'm going to
[1:49:04] flip from the way we have it in the
[1:49:06] program. We're going to do question
[1:49:07] three question
[1:49:12] because I talked a little bit about it
[1:49:15] budget Q3 budget. Um so what are your
[1:49:19] thoughts on the current unofficial
[1:49:21] brieation of a core budget funded by
[1:49:24] general revenue and facilitating
[1:49:26] technical assistance funded by external
[1:49:30] servers
[1:49:39] that have had the opportunity to take
[1:49:40] these grants from the state and provide
[1:49:42] really valid
[1:49:44] >> well you vote on the budget so ideas out
[1:49:47] It's a circular thing there. Um, we do
[1:49:50] get to fund some of our core budget
[1:49:51] through that administrative fee.
[1:49:55] We also run into
[1:49:57] see what happens when the state decides,
[1:49:59] hey, never mind. We don't want
[1:50:06] to do a sense.
[1:50:08] Is that kind of a bifurcation? Are we on
[1:50:11] board?
[1:50:15] Um about that LA was under fire and just
[1:50:19] as a management decision that Cam and I
[1:50:21] made fun.
[1:50:29] That's just kind of something you made
[1:50:31] because you haven't fully set right now.
[1:50:34] Is this kind of by allocation something
[1:50:35] that you think we should do or do you
[1:50:38] think we should have we subsidizing some
[1:50:41] of these new programs with our own
[1:50:43] general revenue which ultimately would
[1:50:45] lead to probably having to increase
[1:50:47] revenue from dues and from sources. So
[1:50:50] thoughts on the separation of the poor
[1:50:52] budget and state
[1:51:00] But we give them story. So having that
[1:51:03] liability,
[1:51:15] » you know, that's actually really
[1:51:16] interesting because I I never thought
[1:51:19] about
[1:51:20] getting, you know, more local media
[1:51:22] sources because we talked
[1:51:26] to myself.
[1:51:30] » Sure. Yes.
[1:51:32] >> And that'd be an interesting thing.
[1:51:34] Yeah. I used to I mean when I was the
[1:51:36] spokesperson governor's office, you
[1:51:37] know, I talked to media all those
[1:51:38] things.
[1:51:39] >> But during the session, we talked to you
[1:51:41] know the big ones. Well, the way we have
[1:51:44] two minutes here. The way we do have it
[1:51:45] set up currently
[1:51:51] unless we found something. You just got
[1:51:54] to know when you are when you are
[1:52:00] a lot of these new wanting to do this,
[1:52:04] right? So, but that would be by not
[1:52:08] having our
[1:52:10] plugged into all of these programs and
[1:52:12] then all of these programs get
[1:52:20] finally last two minutes.
[1:52:25] You can see it
[1:52:27] under
[1:52:31] venues that we have that have an exhibit
[1:52:36] Yeah,
[1:52:38] what we show
[1:52:40] is just over,
[1:52:56] oh, let's pick this one or that one. Oh,
[1:52:57] this one's in my backyard. That sort of
[1:52:59] thing. But we do have a general question
[1:53:01] of should we continue a model that we
[1:53:05] currently have where it's about 50%
[1:53:07] funded by the corporate sector
[1:53:14] launches that we may have very well
[1:53:16] could stay
[1:53:18] in all or should we start
[1:53:22] we need to raise registration fees
[1:53:24] change the change what we're doing in a
[1:53:27] conference accommodate that what our
[1:53:30] sponsors
[1:53:33] or we just deal with the limited uh
[1:53:35] limited
[1:53:39] » right now.
[1:53:41] Well, I think the way we're doing it
[1:53:43] right now
[1:53:47] is 2027.
[1:53:53] So there's a few places there's one at
[1:53:55] one
[1:54:02] space. Um so we will just be limited in
[1:54:06] their renovation and say oh yes
[1:54:14] and it would be like
[1:54:23] really
[1:54:45] » used to come because maybe it was
[1:54:47] something
[1:54:49] you don't have Absolutely.
[1:54:54] Yeah. And we have it. We've kept those
[1:54:56] prices pretty consistent for the last
[1:54:58] five or so years. I don't know if we
[1:55:00] raised we haven't
[1:55:03] seen growth.
[1:55:19] General
[1:55:49] Excellent.
[1:55:51] All right. Thank you all.
[1:55:54] >> Let's go, guys.
[1:56:04] » Welcome to your last stop.
[1:56:11] » How do you have
[1:56:19] lay it right on here.
[1:56:27] » Go for it.
[1:56:36] All
[1:56:39] right.
[1:57:06] So,
[1:57:16] Everyone
[1:57:18] this is happening everyone
[1:57:32] in the world
[1:57:35] everywhere.
[1:57:49] Is that a face of my handwriting?
[1:58:01] » Serial killer.
[1:58:08] debate.
[1:58:09] >> All right, welcome to your last stop in
[1:58:11] this uh
[1:58:13] discussion uh with the most important
[1:58:16] discussion we have. So we don't get a
[1:58:18] lot of time
[1:58:23] today but we do want you guys
[1:58:29] number one.
[1:58:33] Um, everyone's been through it as a
[1:58:36] nominee. Um, and we've had a few serve
[1:58:39] on the committee. Uh, Kate has. Um,
[1:58:44] Jessica has, right?
[1:58:46] >> Been on the nominations committee. Yeah.
[1:58:48] Anyone else been on the nominations
[1:58:49] committee?
[1:58:50] >> Okay. Well, we want to get your input
[1:58:52] out of nominees. Right. Everyone has on
[1:58:55] the other side.
[1:58:57] >> Well, you told us to.
[1:59:00] >> You're here.
[1:59:01] Um, so
[1:59:03] >> we want to get your perspective as a
[1:59:05] nominee and for those who have served on
[1:59:06] the committee just kind of your
[1:59:08] experience as someone on the committee
[1:59:09] as well. Um, I'll give you the the quick
[1:59:11] background on it is that we uh have not
[1:59:15] made a lot of hard changes to our
[1:59:17] bylaws. There have been a couple changes
[1:59:18] to our nomination bylaws and those
[1:59:20] bylaws are in your board packet um that
[1:59:23] we made
[1:59:26] and the only changes there were
[1:59:28] nominated term limits
[1:59:31] back terms. We run into an issue there
[1:59:33] in a lot of the couple of areas have a
[1:59:36] little lower participation. We've got
[1:59:37] good board members um and we wanted to
[1:59:39] make sure that they could continue to
[1:59:40] serve if they wanted. Um and then we
[1:59:43] eliminated
[1:59:45] requirements of you needed one member
[1:59:47] from a person
[1:59:50] from area we changed that to say
[1:59:53] consider geographic size
[1:59:57] those are the only hard changes we made
[2:00:00] in the however
[2:00:04] changed quite a bit
[2:00:08] run as a full day event everyone who was
[2:00:12] nominated did an inerson interview uh in
[2:00:14] front of the nominations committee
[2:00:16] pretty much took up a full first day of
[2:00:18] the conference um and uh since then
[2:00:22] we've had more and more people applying
[2:00:24] so we've shifted into uh folks fill out
[2:00:27] a questionnaire they submit it all the
[2:00:29] nominations committee reviews those
[2:00:30] questionnaires ranks them cuts that down
[2:00:33] by half uh to 2/3 of that group goes on
[2:00:37] to an interview um then at one point we
[2:00:40] did all inerson interviews for those. We
[2:00:42] shifted that to do all virtual
[2:00:43] interviews for that whole group. Um and
[2:00:46] then potentially
[2:00:50] interview.
[2:00:53] So the nominations went through
[2:00:57] three different discussing after they've
[2:00:59] um discussing their survey results and
[2:01:01] going down a list doing virtual
[2:01:03] interviews and then one day at the um
[2:01:07] dedicated deliberation and voting. It's
[2:01:10] a local all of those things happen
[2:01:13] within the same framework. So the first
[2:01:15] question we kind of want to ask is
[2:01:18] >> do we think
[2:01:24] to adapt as the situation we ask
[2:01:28] do we want to ratchet down our bylaws to
[2:01:31] make sure we have everything
[2:01:33] flexibility.
[2:01:34] >> We like to hear that. Wow. We want we
[2:01:37] want to make sure first we want to make
[2:01:38] sure
[2:01:41] um Alexa we just want to hear overall
[2:01:43] experience
[2:01:45] we think
[2:01:48] we want to make sure we hang on to
[2:01:50] things
[2:01:59] that's definitely like definitely a
[2:02:01] snack very all right but what we're
[2:02:04] actually talking about um so See in the
[2:02:06] last board question we talked about are
[2:02:09] there things we can do more with the
[2:02:11] board to help
[2:02:15] um
[2:02:17] >> we have our first board meeting in the
[2:02:18] first session
[2:02:20] and then the board just sort of holds
[2:02:22] back
[2:02:26] we use the executive officers with them
[2:02:29] once or twice a week
[2:02:32] all the time
[2:02:34] instead of weekly meeting with the
[2:02:35] governor
[2:02:41] No offense,
[2:02:45] » but the question is are there things
[2:02:46] that we can do more? I want to be clear.
[2:02:48] We're not asking like aspirationally.
[2:02:51] Should you all come to the
[2:02:56] legitimately
[2:03:00] we can
[2:03:02] place all
[2:03:06] the day of
[2:03:12] » some of the feedback we've heard from
[2:03:13] folks who went through that process this
[2:03:15] year um
[2:03:18] like so for the virtual interviews we
[2:03:20] had time slots and they were live
[2:03:21] virtual interviews there were two or
[2:03:23] three folks who couldn't make that day
[2:03:25] work and so um Christa who was uh
[2:03:29] chairing it at the time and I did two
[2:03:32] meetings with them recorded them and
[2:03:33] essentially did a recorded interview
[2:03:35] that we could play.
[2:03:39] So we
[2:03:44] » and it wasn't the same
[2:03:46] person.
[2:03:50] » It felt a little more
[2:03:52] follow.
[2:04:00] Uh no I would say from a staff
[2:04:03] perspective
[2:04:05] >> yeah well for from a staff perspective
[2:04:07] we want to we want to affirm that we
[2:04:09] want to make sure that since we have
[2:04:11] shifted year over year that we are still
[2:04:13] going in a good direction. The other
[2:04:15] thing we want to ensure is there are
[2:04:18] this is the exception not the rule but
[2:04:21] sometimes folks don't get
[2:04:25] upset and really
[2:04:27] question
[2:04:37] » because I mean honestly like this
[2:04:39] serious
[2:04:43] but they've been staff ideas and staff
[2:04:48] and we don't want to get too far
[2:04:51] as
[2:05:05] the process I got
[2:05:09] behind how things are going down
[2:05:13] this you did this you did this but had I
[2:05:16] not been through it before
[2:05:27] society
[2:05:47] Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, one of
[2:05:49] the things I think about is the water
[2:05:51] meets like once a month. Um, and I, you
[2:05:54] know, I go to learn, but I never once
[2:05:56] thought, you know what, there's probably
[2:05:58] a board member listening to us. It's
[2:06:00] online and get up to speed on water.
[2:06:03] Never even cross my mind. So, I like
[2:06:05] that.
[2:06:16] I think
[2:06:24] we're talking
[2:06:44] ideas
[2:06:51] that
[2:06:54] you know
[2:07:04] were
[2:07:14] And one thing we try to folks is usually Cam follows up with everyone
[2:07:18] after and we think about that it's more
[2:07:21] like it would be much easier on the
[2:07:23] second vice president to assign it to me
[2:07:25] and tell everyone, right? But the
[2:07:27] message should be delivered by a peer,
[2:07:30] another elected official who is on the
[2:07:32] board.
[2:07:33] But then follows up.
[2:07:47] 10. You gave me 10 that time.
[2:07:50] >> I gave you a hard time. You gave me nine
[2:07:52] the last two time.
[2:07:54] >> But that is that is the exception. Not
[2:07:58] like there's this thing that you for
[2:08:00] every one negative comment you hear, you
[2:08:02] have to turn five positive comments in
[2:08:04] order.
[2:08:06] >> You know, we all different levels.
[2:08:08] >> Doesn't that confirm
[2:08:11] >> it does?
[2:08:13] I'm one that has no opinion about
[2:08:16] and I'm not
[2:08:18] >> I'm wondering do you
[2:08:24] identify that we've got two in Utah
[2:08:26] County we don't we don't want two more
[2:08:28] we can't have
[2:08:29] >> yeah I think that's we really don't have
[2:08:32] like a matrix anywhere that says you
[2:08:35] know mayor expertise or relationship you
[2:08:38] know like I don't know who good friends
[2:08:40] are in legislature if you
[2:08:42] But if if you're like, "Oh yeah, I guess
[2:08:45] so." So I went to college
[2:08:48] like why are you call
[2:08:53] that may
[2:09:01] » Yeah, absolutely. So that one. Yeah, I
[2:09:04] think we definitely need some kind of
[2:09:05] list. It's like if you're on the board,
[2:09:06] you know, areas of expertise, the
[2:09:08] relationships you have,
[2:09:12] Yeah.
[2:09:13] >> What do you want? What we could do to
[2:09:15] address that is to say
[2:09:18] more clearly what representation we need
[2:09:21] and what it looks like on so people
[2:09:24] understand.
[2:09:30] No, I'm sure
[2:09:32] >> I'm sure we have so much
[2:09:41] » three of them.
[2:09:55] We need to
[2:09:56] >> It's right here.
[2:10:08] Is there a photograph?
[2:10:22] » That's right. We got you.
[2:10:24] We didn't even hesitate. Yeah. So, I
[2:10:27] guess to that, are there things you wish
[2:10:30] we would have given you more? More
[2:10:31] training, more expertise, more to
[2:10:34] expect,
[2:10:36] >> but I'm not sure that's very
[2:10:39] >> And it is hard to explain as well
[2:10:43] because we need to have we have one from
[2:10:46] every area and we need to have town and
[2:10:49] town representative can also be in
[2:10:51] there. And then we need two folks from
[2:10:54] either the first
[2:10:57] not
[2:11:00] » but there is no hey you're in the area
[2:11:02] for representative someone else
[2:11:15] » I don't familiar
[2:11:27] for sure.
[2:11:29] >> But yeah, maybe we usually call you when
[2:11:31] it's a big deal like we really need you
[2:11:33] on this one. No pressure.
[2:11:43] We get up and we
[2:11:45] like football like I need to get up and
[2:11:48] do another
[2:11:56] check. But when you call this
[2:12:00] box
[2:12:02] you check your balance box here.
[2:12:05] So if one of you were to go, we would
[2:12:07] still have we have two
[2:12:10] and we also have two area sixes. So
[2:12:13] either one of one of you would go and
[2:12:15] our board representation still be
[2:12:18] >> but both of you or else we need it gets
[2:12:22] a little convoluted. Yeah. But we do
[2:12:24] want to know that someone
[2:12:28] too. I love that idea. I never thought
[2:12:31] of that. When we think, you know, and we
[2:12:34] need to get the press, you know, to go
[2:12:36] to, you know, the trip news and, you
[2:12:38] know, whatever Fox 13
[2:12:48] local
[2:12:52] is. Yeah. start some place and go
[2:12:54] somewhere else.
[2:12:55] >> Well, we don't have there is no method
[2:12:57] for
[2:12:58] which
[2:13:00] but but no I mean that is that is really
[2:13:02] a good way to put it because we can I
[2:13:04] don't know of a nomination committee
[2:13:06] that would say yeah let's with all of
[2:13:08] the people that we want in let's have
[2:13:09] two
[2:13:15] » times yeah they're looking at the
[2:13:17] stories right
[2:13:19] >> no I love that it's great I used to when
[2:13:21] I was in the
[2:13:25] Yeah, professional breach text you like
[2:13:26] every day and say I want to write
[2:13:27] something. What should I write about?
[2:13:29] And you're like seems like a weird
[2:13:30] question. I bet they do. They're looking
[2:13:32] for stories
[2:13:36] and I tried
[2:13:39] this year. So my summary
[2:13:46] process
[2:14:00] and the other thing I've got from folks
[2:14:02] is
[2:14:03] >> we can maybe explain it
[2:14:06] to explain the process process is good
[2:14:08] explain it a little better for folks but
[2:14:10] overall
[2:14:12] is in on the process
[2:14:14] >> cuz those changes that you're talking
[2:14:16] about would be constitutional changed
[2:14:22] to be a larger something the itself
[2:14:24] couldn't do but it's something that's
[2:14:31] » we want to look you want to look at
[2:14:32] everything right like are these the
[2:14:34] right areas we want to look at if you're
[2:14:36] going to make that level of change
[2:14:54] like
[2:14:59] we talked a little bit about this number
[2:15:01] looking at your agenda. I talked a
[2:15:03] little about this in my budget
[2:15:05] presentation is this idea of a core
[2:15:07] budget funded by dues uh registration
[2:15:10] fees general revenue and then this
[2:15:13] relatively new state funed tax
[2:15:15] assistance we have coming in um we had
[2:15:18] conversations with uh previous executive
[2:15:20] board about this kind of fiberation um
[2:15:23] and I decided internally everything
[2:15:26] makes sense we don't know what's going
[2:15:27] to be coming in and out of the state
[2:15:29] that's new
[2:15:31] it's a benefit is a huge benefit for a
[2:15:33] certain amount of members. Essentially,
[2:15:35] we don't want to do subsidizing these
[2:15:38] kind of new. Um, we just want to make
[2:15:40] sure they're on the right track
[2:15:47] and not necessarily
[2:15:52] specific programs. We are two minutes um
[2:15:56] and not subsidizing those like event
[2:15:59] revenue and that sort of thing. Are are
[2:16:00] we on the right track there or is there
[2:16:02] a desire to have fun?
[2:16:10] » What kind of resources we have? That's
[2:16:11] what we're trying to figure out. I'm
[2:16:13] committing to
[2:16:15] this me. We're gathering all the
[2:16:18] feedback and then I'll let you I'll tell
[2:16:20] you I mean I'll tell you the thing.
[2:16:22] >> The press angle I really like. We talk
[2:16:23] about this about getting stuff in the
[2:16:26] press. Um
[2:16:28] that volunteer.
[2:16:43] » We could drop that all the way up.
[2:16:57] Sorry.
[2:17:06] » Okay. Final question. Is we are going
[2:17:13] to look like
[2:17:19] we very well.
[2:17:22] Um but we very well be rooted out and be
[2:17:24] looking for other also mentioned in the
[2:17:27] Q3 budget report will
[2:17:30] event
[2:17:51] our whole
[2:17:52] corporate sponsorship funding about half
[2:17:54] of our events and the size of the event
[2:17:59] registration fees that um or do we
[2:18:03] expect that we are going to be a
[2:18:06] limitation
[2:18:11] that would
[2:18:13] coming back to stay
[2:18:30] as far as
[2:18:34] keep the model we have now where the
[2:18:36] corporate sector is funding a little
[2:18:38] over half of our events or we rethink
[2:18:41] that in order to expand.
[2:19:08] » I think what we need to do, what I hear
[2:19:10] is though
[2:19:15] because I do think that
[2:19:34] again
[2:19:44] I love that.
[2:19:45] >> Yeah. And we've done a few like we did
[2:19:49] a lot
[2:19:51] of
[2:19:57] » It was cool to see this
[2:20:01] was
[2:20:05] actually
[2:20:08] >> Okay, I think that's fine.
[2:20:16] I walked out of
[2:20:27] this. Great. Thank you so much. We're
[2:20:31] pulling it back together at the table.
[2:20:35] >> I think most of these can go right.
[2:20:38] I'm not sure.
[2:21:10] So much
[2:21:20] back.
[2:21:27] situation like this.
[2:21:34] » Okay, we're moving back for two minutes.
[2:21:36] Command hold. Please note this. Mayor
[2:21:39] Walker has moved his cat backwards,
[2:21:41] which means we really only have two
[2:21:42] minutes.
[2:21:46] » Okay, thank you everybody for that
[2:21:48] discussion. As I was meandering and me
[2:21:51] and listening,
[2:21:53] there were a lot of great perspectives
[2:21:54] that I hadn't considered before as I
[2:21:57] listen to the group. So, I'm really
[2:21:58] excited to hear the reports back from
[2:22:00] Nick, Justin, and Molly. Thanks to the
[2:22:02] three of them for their preparation and
[2:22:04] facilitating that discussion. We'll be
[2:22:06] going through all of the comments as
[2:22:08] staff and then that will help inform
[2:22:11] what we bring back to you. That could be
[2:22:12] bylaw changes that part of the budget
[2:22:15] and other pieces.
[2:22:17] inevitably whenever we do these small
[2:22:20] group meetings there are I every midyear
[2:22:23] conference I have a board member grab me
[2:22:24] in the hallway and say I just thought of
[2:22:26] this and that is great so in the next
[2:22:29] couple of days while you're immersed in
[2:22:31] city business and the league world if
[2:22:33] ideas come to you that you wish you
[2:22:35] brought up this
[2:22:37] afternoon u please tell the exact over
[2:22:40] the next couple weeks if ideas come
[2:22:42] email us text us this is why we do it
[2:22:46] Jared
[2:22:47] Did you come in? Great. Jared's got an
[2:22:48] update on the amicus stuff just from the
[2:22:52] last hour.
[2:22:59] » So, I talked to UAC. UAC uh has
[2:23:03] partnered with USIP uh the Utah
[2:23:06] Indemnity pool and they will be the ones
[2:23:09] that will be drafting uh the amicus. the
[2:23:13] um and they are waiting on the principal
[2:23:17] brief of uh Salt Lake City to be
[2:23:21] finished and filed before they that's
[2:23:23] just the process before they can
[2:23:25] actually file the amicus. So they are
[2:23:28] waiting on the principal brief to be
[2:23:30] filed before. So I I haven't informed
[2:23:33] them that we want time and if they want
[2:23:36] our sign on then they are going to have
[2:23:39] to get us uh that amus before the
[2:23:43] upcoming board meeting. So that's where
[2:23:44] we're at with that.
[2:23:47] >> Thank you for that update.
[2:23:49] >> Thank you chair for jumping on that way.
[2:23:52] Um okay couple just other other business
[2:23:56] items. We have at least 176 first time
[2:24:00] attendees as the module signed up that
[2:24:02] this was their first time, but who knows
[2:24:04] if that's actually the good what they're
[2:24:07] >> Yes, exactly. So, you just spent some
[2:24:10] time talking about your duties as board
[2:24:12] members. Here's my ask. Help everyone
[2:24:15] who comes through the conference feel
[2:24:17] welcome and
[2:24:19] >> even a hater,
[2:24:22] right?
[2:24:23] So, it's possible and they'll possible
[2:24:26] they'll have the the tag that says
[2:24:27] they're a first time attendee we're
[2:24:29] doing uh tomorrow morning at
[2:24:35] Thursday, right?
[2:24:37] >> Yeah. 7 Yes. 7 7:30 is the newly elected
[2:24:40] breakfast and several of us will be
[2:24:42] there um to answer questions and chat
[2:24:45] with them. But
[2:24:47] >> please make friends while you're here. I
[2:24:49] mean because even if they're not a
[2:24:51] first- time attendee, it's the first
[2:24:52] time you've talked to them, we want to
[2:24:53] make sure they feel welcome. And with
[2:24:55] you having tax and your board member,
[2:24:56] it's a great opportunity to make sure uh
[2:24:58] that they know that they're important
[2:25:00] and we appreciate them being here um at
[2:25:02] the conference. During the Thursday
[2:25:05] morning general session tomorrow, Mayor
[2:25:07] Brad want to acknowledge the board and
[2:25:08] have our members stand. So please make
[2:25:10] sure you're you're in there for that.
[2:25:12] That's the the Greg Jackson keynote. And
[2:25:14] then please make time to fill out the QR
[2:25:17] code about why you love America. We're
[2:25:20] going to be doing it as staff as well
[2:25:22] because we want people to follow our
[2:25:23] lead. Everybody's always anxious to be
[2:25:25] the first person to do it. But if they
[2:25:26] see that there already 20 comments in
[2:25:28] there, it's going to populate as it goes
[2:25:30] along. That'll be awesome. Then with
[2:25:32] some we can report back to the board
[2:25:33] membership over the next few weeks. With
[2:25:37] that,
[2:25:39] that's my executive director report.
[2:25:41] Thanks everybody for being here in St.
[2:25:42] George. And I'll let you announce. Do
[2:25:44] you want me to announce dinner?
[2:25:45] >> Cameron, can we get that QR code back
[2:25:48] up?
[2:25:48] >> Yes. Yeah, you pull the QR code back up.
[2:25:50] So, I'll announce dinner while we pull
[2:25:52] that back up. Dinner tonight begins at
[2:25:54] 5:30 at the Cliffside Restaurant, which
[2:25:57] is up on Tech Ridge here in St. George.
[2:25:59] Again, that's at 5:30. Now, we know that
[2:26:01] some of you have dinners with your
[2:26:03] council or with other people, and that's
[2:26:04] great. All we want to make sure that
[2:26:06] every board member has somewhere to be.
[2:26:08] We ask if you can to at least stop by to
[2:26:11] say hi to folks in the board dinner if
[2:26:13] you can eat two dinners or at least bump
[2:26:16] in, mingle for a little bit and then go
[2:26:18] visit with your counselors because
[2:26:19] ultimately we want you to have a
[2:26:20] wonderful time while you're down here.
[2:26:21] Thank you for your time. Thank you for
[2:26:23] taking time away from families and work
[2:26:25] and city life and jobs and everything
[2:26:27] else to join us. Let's have a great
[2:26:29] couple of days.
[2:26:31] >> Mayor Palmer, it's a Lord of the Rings
[2:26:33] thing to have two mills. It's a Hobbit
[2:26:35] thing. So, so I know that has been
[2:26:37] something you've been still learning
[2:26:38] about this year. So,
[2:26:39] >> second breakfast.
[2:26:40] This is second
[2:26:44] >> I'm going to have two.
[2:26:48] It's never going to end. I can sure.
[2:26:53] By the way, we're going to excuse
[2:26:54] Council Member Hinton. Um, Santa Clara
[2:26:56] has city council meeting tonight, so
[2:26:58] that's where she heads off to. Um, so
[2:27:00] with that, uh, hopefully we will see
[2:27:03] y'all for at least a short time, if not
[2:27:06] the full time at the dinner at 5:30 and
[2:27:09] then bright and early tomorrow morning
[2:27:12] wearing our hats.
[2:27:13] >> Yes.
[2:27:14] >> Okay. Uh, we have a motion to adjurnn.
[2:27:17] Move
[2:27:17] >> to adjourn. Have a motion to second. All
[2:27:20] in favor, please say I.
[2:27:21] >> I. That's