[0:07] Welcome everyone to our uh August board
[0:11] meeting. Um I was going to say it feels
[0:15] like we haven't been together except for
[0:16] we all spent so much time in July
[0:18] together.
[0:20] It's like instead of having live break
[0:22] that we were all we were all together a
[0:25] lot especially through um multiple
[0:30] vacations of week staff that we spent on
[0:32] emergency meetings and officers. So
[0:35] thank you for everyone putting in all
[0:37] that extra time um for the month of
[0:40] July. Um, I do have a would you rather,
[0:43] but before we get to the would you
[0:45] rather, um, we do have a new staffer,
[0:50] um, uh, John. And I'm gonna actually
[0:52] turn to Cameron to introduce John and then we'll get into our, uh, would
[0:58] you rather?
[0:59] >> Perfect. Thank you, Mayor Bradshaw.
[1:00] Thank you everybody for joining us in
[1:02] person online today. The last time we
[1:04] met was in city hall and it is a little
[1:08] bizarre to think back to the end of that
[1:09] meeting where we did a fireworks update
[1:12] for Mayor W three minutes because you
[1:14] had asked about me can we talk fireworks
[1:16] on the agendas. Yep. Here's the quick
[1:18] update. Little did we know what was
[1:20] coming over the the next couple weeks
[1:21] and we'll talk more about that later in
[1:23] the agenda today. We also told you in
[1:25] June that because of the election and
[1:28] just some of weirdness this spring,
[1:30] things hadn't really picked up at the
[1:32] Capitol and I assure you that since the
[1:35] election and since the July holidays,
[1:37] things have picked up at the capital.
[1:38] So, we hope you had a great summer and
[1:40] had a chance to spend time with friends
[1:43] and family and August is already faster
[1:46] paced than July was and just up and
[1:49] accelerate between and session. So, I
[1:52] have a lot to get through today, but
[1:53] before we get into the substance, I want
[1:55] to welcome uh John, you as a board
[1:57] authorized the creation of this position
[2:00] a couple of board meetings ago and we
[2:04] went through the process and and
[2:06] identified John as the perfect candidate
[2:08] at the perfect time. So, John, I'm going
[2:10] to turn it to you for just a moment to
[2:11] introduce yourself and tell everybody
[2:13] your background and why you're excited
[2:15] to be here.
[2:15] >> Yeah, for sure. Um, yeah, so my name is
[2:17] John. Uh I graduated with from UVU with
[2:20] a degree in PR and so you know a lot of
[2:23] work I've been doing here is um a lot
[2:25] with communication side. So a lot of
[2:27] communications I get sent out um
[2:30] that um and I mean yeah I'm just really
[2:34] excited to be here and be able to you
[2:36] know help out and be a part of the work
[2:38] that that that you all do. So I'm
[2:40] excited. So yeah,
[2:42] >> what do you do for fun?
[2:44] >> Uh for fun I'm a big soccer guy. So I
[2:46] love playing. Yeah.
[2:49] So I love playing coach a little
[2:51] bit and watch all things soccer. So
[2:55] >> who your team?
[2:56] >> Yeah. Which which team effectively and
[2:59] then which team did you want to win the
[3:01] world cup?
[3:02] >> Um I I did want but I have a Japanese
[3:05] background so I did want Japan.
[3:07] Unfortunately that wasn't meant to be.
[3:09] Um, but in terms of kids that I like,
[3:12] um, definitely ourselves, um, team, uh,
[3:15] in the Premier League, I'm a big Crystal
[3:16] Palace fan. So, yeah. Yeah. Excited for
[3:21] the [laughter]
[3:30] » This group is not short of opinion.
[3:34] >> That's the problem. I mean,
[3:37] city ban at any time.
[3:40] city.
[3:41] >> Oh, wow.
[3:47] » That's okay.
[3:50] I can handle um
[3:57] » No, I guess we'll see what happens when
[4:00] Well, John, welcome to the team. This is
[4:03] a, you know, a great team to be a part
[4:04] of. Um I'm a big fan and a huge fan of
[4:08] building staff in general.
[4:11] So
[4:13] great to have you.
[4:15] >> Okay. So now we will turn especially now
[4:17] that Seth's here um to
[4:21] our would you rather question.
[4:30] » Give everyone a moment to launch.
[4:34] of Raido. So, uh, this question
[4:39] comes to you courtesy
[4:42] of, uh, what I was just talking about. I
[4:45] spent a chunk of my, uh, weekend with
[4:49] nieces and nephews getting ready for
[4:50] school. My husband's a school teacher
[4:52] and he's back this week. So, I am really
[4:56] curious. Would you rather have summer
[4:59] weather last all year or are you over
[5:05] it? Um, and would you rather have fall
[5:07] weather last all year?
[5:17] » It's the whole thing.
[5:19] I mean the summer you get, you know,
[5:21] late summer nights, you know, sun up in
[5:24] the morning, but it's super hot with
[5:26] fall, shorter days,
[5:28] >> crisp, it could it could be windy, it
[5:30] could be raining. I don't know.
[5:36] » Did the tree like just cycle through all
[5:38] year round?
[5:40] >> No, in in city it depending what you all
[5:43] decide. Um but yeah, the the leaves will
[5:46] just stay either green or orange.
[5:50] >> Oh, that changes the game.
[5:55] » I feel like this group is is uh looking
[5:57] forward to some
[6:02] » Yeah. So,
[6:05] >> we weren't giving anyone references.
[6:07] Nobody.
[6:08] >> Okay. I did. We have some commentary
[6:10] from Mayor Walker.
[6:13] So, it sounded like a side.
[6:17] » Okay. Uh, well, this group is pretty
[6:20] decisive. I actually thought that some
[6:21] of you would be like, "No, I want the
[6:23] murder last forever." Uh, thank you for
[6:26] indulging my love of fathers.
[6:29] >> Yeah.
[6:33] » So, okay, we'll move on in our agenda to
[6:36] our more serious topics. Uh the first of
[6:40] our um more serious topics is has anyone
[6:44] had a chance to uh review the minutes
[6:47] from our last meeting and is anyone
[6:48] prepared to make a motion on the
[6:50] minutes?
[6:52] >> I'll move to approve the minutes.
[6:53] Second.
[6:54] >> The motion from Mayor Shepard, second
[6:56] from council member Dugan to approve the
[6:57] minutes. All in favor of approving the
[6:59] minutes, please say I.
[7:00] >> I.
[7:03] >> Any opposed?
[7:06] Looks like our minutes are approved
[7:08] unanimously. Uh the second uh item under
[7:11] that section is a um a call for any
[7:13] updates to the conflicts of disclosure.
[7:16] Uh does anyone have an updated form or
[7:18] any conflict they need to disclose for
[7:21] this meeting?
[7:26] Okay, seeing none, we will move on from
[7:29] those two items and move over to our
[7:32] ULCT boards and commissions um report.
[7:36] and we will turn to Alexa for that item
[7:40] to update us. Looks like she's got a lot
[7:41] of items.
[7:44] >> I'll try to be quick. Happy August,
[7:46] everyone. So, my first item is just an
[7:48] update on the Utah Communications
[7:50] Authority Board. You might remember from
[7:52] our last meeting. You told us that you
[7:54] would like to see your representation on
[7:56] that board be composed of individuals
[7:58] that are actively involved in the inner
[8:00] workings of a city. So, we've been
[8:02] having discussions with city staff
[8:04] members and elected officials all over
[8:06] the state to engage interest in those
[8:07] roles and we want to make sure that we
[8:09] pick someone that's a great example of
[8:11] all the parameters that you set for us.
[8:14] Uh, so we're going to plan to continue
[8:16] having those conversations between now
[8:18] and our next board meeting in September
[8:19] and come back to you with
[8:20] recommendations in September. Justin,
[8:22] anything you not? I know you've been
[8:23] having most of those conversations.
[8:26] Yeah, just to add on to that, um had a
[8:28] lot of conversations with several
[8:29] different cities about UCA and um
[8:32] concerns that have come up with UCA, um
[8:34] things that people would like to see
[8:36] maybe changed up a little bit. And so,
[8:39] um because we haven't met with the LBC
[8:41] in a minute, we didn't ever we sort of
[8:43] asked the question, our last LBC, just
[8:45] we didn't really even ask a question. We
[8:46] just sort of briefly mentioned it UCA
[8:49] and a lot of people reached out to me
[8:50] and said, "Hey, this is not really what
[8:51] you asked. I have things I want to tell
[8:52] you." Which was fascinating. Um, but we
[8:55] haven't really broadly asked the
[8:56] membership
[8:58] if you're interested in actually filling
[9:00] those positions. So, we want to make
[9:01] sure that we do our due diligence on
[9:02] that one and ask it broadly at LBC next
[9:05] week so we can come back next uh next
[9:07] time to board meeting and make a a
[9:09] recommendation there. The next time the
[9:11] UCA meets is in October. Um, that's kind
[9:14] of their big organizing conference. So,
[9:15] we have a minute before um we have to
[9:17] have someone in that spot, but that
[9:19] that's where everything's at. Um, so I
[9:21] will put the ask out here before we ask
[9:23] a wisely LPC. Um, if if someone in this
[9:26] room or someone in your city is
[9:28] interested in serving on that UC board,
[9:30] uh, let me know. Um, it can't be someone
[9:32] who works in the dispatch center or is
[9:35] directly over a dispatch center. So like
[9:36] a fire chief or a police chief would not
[9:38] be, uh, someone that could do it. Um,
[9:41] city manager, city attorney, electives,
[9:44] those are all on the table. Um, so
[9:46] that's that's where we're going with
[9:47] that. Um, if you have any questions,
[9:49] feel free to reach out to me. I have a
[9:51] chunk of my week um, really set aside to
[9:54] talk about UCA at this point. So, if
[9:56] anyone wants to let me know.
[9:58] >> I'm going to offer just one piece of
[9:59] commentary because it's something, but
[10:02] um,
[10:04] uh, my city operates a dispatch center
[10:06] for the southern half of Davis County
[10:09] and we had asked for additional console.
[10:12] We weren't able to get the additional
[10:13] console. Um during our two July
[10:16] holidays, we've learned
[10:19] to go out in either our sisters cities
[10:21] or our fire districts to do DUI extra
[10:24] pick up extra DUI shifts during the
[10:27] holiday season where that's higher
[10:29] activity
[10:30] um because of the limitations.
[10:34] So I continue to be just a little bit
[10:36] concerned that we're not maybe meeting
[10:39] or understanding municipal
[10:42] needs on the front lines. So, I hope
[10:45] that as we continue to discuss how this
[10:48] board functions and operates that we are
[10:50] thoughtful about putting some people in
[10:52] place that will be aware of some of
[10:54] those concerns, looking at a entity for
[10:56] when we dispatch it over here at
[10:58] Farmington. Um, and so I look forward to
[11:03] the LPC discussion coming up.
[11:08] >> Perfect. I'll move on to the next item.
[11:09] So you as a board are responsible for
[11:12] appointing a representative to the Utah
[11:14] Cyber Security Commission. This group
[11:16] gets together a couple of times a year
[11:17] and makes recommendations to the
[11:19] legislature in terms of legislation
[11:21] related to cyber security. Um our
[11:24] current representative on the board, member Caseville and Caseville
[11:27] Mayor Tammy Tran, her um her appointment
[11:30] on the board is ending or actually ended
[11:32] already at June 30th. So, we are
[11:35] recommending that you appoint Hideout
[11:37] Mayor Ralph Seabberini to serve on the
[11:39] cyber security commission um on behalf
[11:41] of cities and towns. Mayor Seberini has
[11:43] a professional background in the
[11:44] technology sector that we think would
[11:46] make him very well suited to serve in
[11:48] this role and he's really really excited
[11:50] about the opportunity. Um next, joint
[11:53] highway committee. So, I updated you on
[11:55] this as of our last board meeting. Um,
[11:58] as a reminder, ULCT has 15 regional and
[12:00] at large representatives on the JHC
[12:03] after the last JHC meeting, which um,
[12:06] >> welcome. Hello.
[12:08] >> My security
[12:11] got to happen.
[12:12] >> This is
[12:14] how you feel about security.
[12:17] >> Welcome. Um, at our last at our midter
[12:20] conference, so JHD meets every year at
[12:22] UT Mor conference and annual convention.
[12:25] Um we discovered thanks to the help of
[12:27] council member Shway that there are six
[12:29] unfilled seats on the joey highway
[12:31] committee um six unfilled city seats. So
[12:34] since then we have gone through and
[12:35] solicited members or people to fill all
[12:39] six of those appointments. So I will
[12:41] read off to you those individuals that
[12:43] we are recommending to fill those
[12:44] vacancies. So first Murray City Engineer
[12:47] Chris Zawaspach as a region 2
[12:49] representative Vernal public works
[12:51] director Keith Despane as a region three
[12:54] representative. Cedar City Engineer Kent
[12:56] Bugle as a region four southwest
[12:58] representative, Manti City Manager Jason
[13:00] Brown as a region four central
[13:02] representative, Blanding City Manager
[13:04] Pratt Redd as a region four southeast
[13:06] representative and Mapleton public works
[13:08] director, city engineer Rob Hunter as an
[13:11] representative. Thank you council member
[13:12] Edwards for that recommendation. Um so
[13:14] we're excited to get these roles filled
[13:16] for the JHC's next meeting on September
[13:18] 10th. Um, next, you might remember that
[13:21] back in our March meeting, we appointed
[13:23] board member and Clearfield Mayor Mark
[13:25] Shepard to the private activity bar
[13:27] review board. He now is a member of that
[13:29] board. UCT
[13:32] has three representatives on the PAB
[13:34] review board and one of those is North
[13:36] Salt Lake finance director Heidi
[13:38] Bjckers. Um, her term is about to come
[13:41] to an end on the PAB review board. So,
[13:43] we're recommending that you nominate
[13:44] Heidi Bordeckers for reappointment to
[13:46] the PAB review board. We think she's
[13:48] done a great job on behalf of cities and
[13:50] towns on the KB review board and she's
[13:52] excited to continue serving. And then
[13:54] finally, before I review everything that
[13:56] I did an action item on, I'll pass it to
[13:58] Cam to talk about Federalism Commission.
[14:00] >> Perfect. Thank you, Alexa. The Federal
[14:02] Federalism Commission is a state
[14:04] legislative committee,
[14:06] but we have an opportunity as of a few
[14:09] days ago to have a league representative
[14:12] in a non voting way participate in this
[14:15] federal commission. Here's the quick
[14:17] backstory that's reference to the memo.
[14:19] I was invited by the co-chairs of the
[14:21] federalism commission, Representative
[14:22] Ken Ivory and Senator Kevin Stratton to
[14:24] speak at their federalism summit last
[14:27] week. And then after that presentation,
[14:30] they said we really want to have local
[14:32] government voices on the federalism
[14:34] commission, which again is a legislative
[14:35] commission. So they can't be they can't
[14:37] be voting members but but not voting
[14:39] members. And in my presentation, I spoke
[14:42] about the role of local government, why
[14:44] that matters versus the role of state
[14:46] government federal government. Talk
[14:47] about the legend decision and how Utah's
[14:50] not home rule. It's not a dealing rule.
[14:52] It's it's our own unique spot. We had
[14:54] legislators there from all over the
[14:55] country and I encourage those
[14:57] legislators to partner with their state
[14:59] leagues in the federalism conversation.
[15:01] Speaker Schultz gave a keynote address
[15:04] there. So what we're seeing is a there
[15:06] were 10 and 10 Utah legislators there
[15:08] and quite a few were invited to said a
[15:11] bigger focus from legislator from a
[15:13] speaker on in this federalism space. I
[15:16] think it's opportunity for us to talk
[15:18] about how federalism relates to local
[15:21] decision- making at city hall. So they
[15:25] extended this in I spoke on Wednesday,
[15:27] they followed up on Thursday and said we
[15:28] really want the league involved and this
[15:31] is a monthly meeting and is meeting
[15:33] again this Thursday.
[15:35] So I told them we would move as fast as
[15:37] we could. So if there's anybody on the
[15:39] board who's interested in being part of
[15:40] the federalism commission, we could talk
[15:42] about that now. If people want to think
[15:44] about it or want to go through our
[15:46] normal process, we can reference the LPC
[15:48] next week and then shoot to to join the
[15:51] Federalism Commission in September. So
[15:53] any any questions about the federalism
[15:55] commission? Is there anybody who's who's
[15:57] interested in in participating in
[16:00] federalism commission with
[16:01] representative Ira Stratton or people
[16:04] want to kind of give us a second to
[16:06] breathe on it. Look for volunteers at
[16:08] LBC and then bring it back to the board
[16:10] next month.
[16:11] >> I would be interested. I'm not available
[16:13] Thursday.
[16:17] » I'm curious.
[16:19] So much of their federalism commission
[16:21] work up at the capital has kind of
[16:25] focused on a friction point between
[16:27] state and federal,
[16:29] >> right?
[16:30] >> Um now sometimes we sit at that
[16:32] intersection too. Many of us have
[16:34] federal lands. We want
[16:37] projects for working
[16:40] friends. Sometimes maybe we think our
[16:43] federal friends are more
[16:46] than the state friends. Um, but it seems
[16:49] to me this one gets a little highly
[16:51] political because of that
[16:53] >> federal tension between the state. So,
[16:56] how do you see how do you see our role
[16:58] being used? I I'm just curious if we're
[17:00] going to end up being
[17:04] monkey in the middle.
[17:07] Based on last week's experience, I think
[17:12] legislators
[17:14] had their eyes opened about the conflict
[17:16] point in the federalism under the
[17:18] federalism between state and locals as
[17:20] well because part of the conversation
[17:23] last week was who's responsible for what
[17:25] role. So I in my presentation,
[17:28] Congressman Kennedy was on one side of
[17:29] me, Derek Brown, attorney general was on
[17:31] the other. We were all talking about who
[17:33] has what role in government. So I talked
[17:35] about public safety space, there's role
[17:38] for the federal government, there's role
[17:39] for state government, there's role for
[17:41] city government. So as we talk about
[17:42] federalism and who does what, they need
[17:46] to have
[17:48] the local government voice as well
[17:50] talking about who's responsible for for
[17:52] what obligation. That's why afterward
[17:55] they said we'd really like you to be
[17:56] part you and they're going to have the
[17:58] same invitation association to bring
[18:01] that additional perspective. So yes, I
[18:03] think inevitably most of the focus is
[18:05] going to be on attention between state
[18:06] and federal government. I think this
[18:09] gives us just another avenue that hasn't
[18:11] existed before to bring that additional
[18:13] perspective.
[18:17] » Always good to be
[18:22] » what time is the meeting on Thursday? So
[18:23] the federalism commission meets every
[18:26] that's why I say the legislative
[18:27] committee legis interim meetings are
[18:30] Tuesday Wednesday and then the
[18:31] federalism commission meets Thursday
[18:32] every month is part of inter
[18:35] legislators committee they already
[18:37] currently have a list of non voting
[18:39] members um
[18:42] that they have to get permission from
[18:44] the legislative management committee
[18:45] which is leadership of the house and
[18:47] senate to modify the committee and
[18:49] they've always ask there was no belief
[18:51] about how the conversation went say
[18:53] they've already made that ask even
[18:54] before we've come back to this board.
[18:56] They've asked the speaker and the
[18:58] president to increase the number of
[18:59] members.
[19:02] >> So that would be something they take up
[19:05] during the session and a billip.
[19:09] » Yeah. The legislative management during
[19:12] interim this week will officially
[19:13] consider that request. So that's why
[19:16] yes, the federal federalism commission
[19:19] meets this Thursday, but they'll meet
[19:20] every month like this. This actually
[19:22] interesting with all the boards and
[19:23] commissions we do this one will actually
[19:25] have the biggest time commitments
[19:26] because some of these other boards they
[19:28] meet quarterly. This will be every
[19:30] interim and they meet during the session
[19:32] and the legislation comes through the
[19:33] federalism commission. So again it's a unique opportunity and I wanted
[19:37] to give that context today and you'll
[19:39] notice we didn't bring a recommendation
[19:41] because this happened really quickly
[19:43] last week. So if we want if we want
[19:46] we've had a few people have expressed
[19:48] some interest in it. If we want to just
[19:50] run through our process then let us
[19:52] announce it at LPC and Friday back bring
[19:54] back the recommendations that's fine.
[19:57] We wanted just to give you all the all
[19:59] the details now. And if we wanted to if
[20:01] we wanted to advance name today then we
[20:04] could potentially get it ready for this
[20:06] Thursday. You may know how things work
[20:08] with the capital may not work for this
[20:11] Thursday anyway.
[20:13] clean it up.
[20:15] >> Um, let's open this up for discussion.
[20:17] I'm going to, you know, prerogative of
[20:19] the chair here by saying, you know, I
[20:21] think there could this would be a very
[20:23] interesting role for us to play. Um, and
[20:27] there's, I think, a lot of value in any table we're invited to be an actual
[20:32] partner at. Um let's open it up for for
[20:36] discussion on how the board continues to
[20:39] seize this.
[20:44] » So that was around in my prior life and
[20:46] prior career when the federalism
[20:48] commission was created. It was clearly
[20:50] around public lands and complex
[20:53] that conflict and the collaborations
[20:55] goes back and forth between the state
[20:57] defense. I think it's it's it has always
[21:00] struck me in the conflict of
[21:03] local state as well and how it conflicts
[21:06] with the goals and desires of federal
[21:08] commission. I think this is a really
[21:09] good opportunity for us to have pretty
[21:10] key voice. I think it could really help
[21:12] a rural uh local elected as well.
[21:15] >> Um because I'm sure that public lands
[21:17] element does not go away. I think that's
[21:19] the the bulk of the of the conversation.
[21:22] So if there's someone in in a rural
[21:24] community, I think that be a good fit.
[21:28] Mayor piggybacking what mayorski said,
[21:30] representative Alrech was at the meeting
[21:33] and the question he asked Congressman
[21:35] Kennedy in the night as well was that
[21:39] Representative Alrech who lives in
[21:41] Richfield represents central Utah said
[21:43] he viewed it as a failure of federalism
[21:46] that over the course of the last three
[21:48] years his house district has basically
[21:50] burned to the ground because of all the
[21:53] fires that have sparked have been
[21:56] sparked on federal land in the mountain
[21:58] ranges in central Utah. So yes, the
[22:01] public lands piece will be a component
[22:04] of it. But it was also interesting how
[22:06] much we talked about other angles like
[22:08] we actually spent almost as much time
[22:10] talking policy in this overall
[22:14] discussion as we did public lands. and
[22:17] Representative Ivory and Senator Quan,
[22:19] Republican and Democrat, talked about uh
[22:22] coming together to raise federalism
[22:25] concerns about how the federal
[22:27] government has been acting on
[22:29] immigration policy and what that means
[22:31] for local governments. So, I think
[22:34] public lands will always be one of the
[22:35] key issues, but it was a bigger
[22:37] conversation last night.
[22:40] >> Any other feedback from the board?
[22:44] And we're looking for a board member or
[22:48] a elected official.
[22:49] >> We are up for discussion. So this is up
[22:52] for feedback. So it
[22:53] >> could be a a city staff person also.
[22:56] Possibly.
[22:56] >> It could possibly be. I'm going to tell
[22:59] you that I think based on the fact that
[23:00] the others are all elected that probably
[23:03] where we
[23:04] >> Okay, that's that was
[23:05] >> I would tend to agree. I think the board
[23:07] of elected would carry them away.
[23:08] >> Yeah, that's I was thinking that was but
[23:10] I wasn't quite sure. And if there's no
[23:13] it doesn't need to be me. I would like
[23:15] to anyway if the representative
[23:19] might be for that much time. I don't
[23:21] have federal lands in Western but there
[23:23] are other federal polic
[23:37] but I do have an interest to how the
[23:39] federal government interacts with local
[23:42] government as you were mentioning. We
[23:44] have the FBI that comes into West
[23:46] Jordan. We don't even know they're
[23:48] coming. They do all their stuff. Then
[23:49] they go and they say, "Oh, by the way,
[23:51] we did this your city." It's like, "You
[23:53] know what? We'd love to work with you.
[23:55] Why don't you talk to us before you
[23:56] come?
[23:57] >> I think we all have that." And so it's
[24:01] not, as Cameron mentioned, it's not just
[24:03] the federal aspect. There's a big deal.
[24:06] And then Representative Ivory, he will
[24:08] be the next reelected. So he'll continue
[24:11] sort of in that position.
[24:13] >> I think there's also a lot of housing
[24:15] overlap. You know, I know Mayor Shepard
[24:17] with his role with uh the National
[24:19] League of Cities, you know, our our
[24:21] housing component with, you know, what
[24:23] the feds are sending us there. That's
[24:24] got a federalism overlap that the state
[24:26] may not see in the same way we do. The
[24:28] public lands, I think, is clear. Um the
[24:31] interaction on law enforcement, not just
[24:32] FBI, but ICE, is something obviously we
[24:34] we've all uh experienced. And then
[24:38] there's um you know, a significant
[24:39] amount of grants and appropriations
[24:41] we're all interfacing with the feds on.
[24:44] So, to me, this one strikes me as being
[24:46] a one we should probably take pretty
[24:47] seriously.
[24:49] >> Um, would everyone be comfortable if we
[24:51] put this maybe through our normal
[24:52] process and we ask for people to to
[24:55] apply and then we can take it up. We'll
[24:57] probably miss
[24:59] >> we'll miss we'll miss Thursday in active
[25:01] participation, but we can send staff. We
[25:04] usually have staff following that
[25:05] commission anyway, but especially in
[25:08] light of the conversation this
[25:09] immediately sparked. I think it
[25:12] validates it validates taking it
[25:14] seriously and running it through the
[25:16] normal process. Get the right pool of
[25:18] candidates and then you can
[25:20] make
[25:21] >> one I have one more question. So we
[25:23] talked about federal lands but what
[25:24] about environmental policies? So are
[25:26] they talking about water? Are they
[25:27] talking about air quality um all those
[25:30] sorts of things as well?
[25:32] >> That this this commission has covered
[25:35] it's been a little more I will say a
[25:36] little more maybe rural public lands.
[25:40] um environmental
[25:42] engagement focused. I don't know if
[25:44] they've thought deeply about the law
[25:46] enforcement angle or the housing angle
[25:48] or some of those others based on my
[25:50] experience of the capital with them. Um
[25:54] but that might be
[25:56] again if they're now if their eyes are
[25:58] now a little bit open to the role we
[26:00] play um
[26:03] then perhaps um this will be one.
[26:06] transportation would be another another
[26:09] topic that they spent a lot of time
[26:11] talking about. So
[26:13] >> So Mary, here's here's what I'm gonna
[26:15] recommend based on this conversation.
[26:16] One, we'll run through the normal
[26:18] process. Two,
[26:20] we'll send out to the board a link to
[26:22] the federal commission. Um, I've got
[26:25] more info here, but due to time, I think
[26:27] since we're not making decision today,
[26:28] we'll send it out so you can just
[26:30] familiarize yourself with who's off
[26:32] legislators and what issues they've
[26:34] looking at, and then you can decide, is
[26:36] it somebody in this room or there's
[26:37] somebody you want to recommend that
[26:39] would make the most sense. You also know
[26:41] they currently do have some non- voting
[26:44] people on the commission, most of whom
[26:46] are not elected, but they are there on
[26:49] behalf of of their bosses. So, like Lisa
[26:53] Rossi is there. Congress anymore.
[26:55] Interestingly, one of the current non
[26:57] voting members is Ben Gat. So, I don't
[26:58] know how that will change to our
[27:01] election results later this year, but
[27:03] we'll send out we'll send out more
[27:05] information and context here. We'll
[27:07] solicit feedback at LPC next week and
[27:09] then bring back a recommendation. So, I
[27:12] think that works. Everyone comfortable
[27:14] with that process? Okay. So, that'll
[27:16] return us back to um the list of people
[27:19] that Alexa ran through that we do need
[27:22] motions for um uh on the cyber security
[27:26] commission, the jointway commission, the
[27:28] private and the private activity on the
[27:32] board. Uh Mayor TR since you joined us,
[27:34] thank you for your service on the cyber
[27:36] security commission. um that you feel
[27:40] like you have to leave us.
[27:44] Uh we're going to replace you.
[27:52] [clears throat]
[27:52] >> Well, we're like happy sad for you.
[27:56] >> Thanks, Mayor Bradshaw. Yeah.
[27:59] Is there anyone who's prepared to make a
[28:00] motion uh on the individuals that have
[28:04] been proposed for those three different
[28:07] areas?
[28:08] >> I move to approve the recommendations
[28:11] for the cyber security commission. I'll
[28:13] have to join highway committee and a few
[28:18] motion from you. We have second council
[28:19] member Edwards. Any further discussion?
[28:24] Seeing none, we call the vote. All in
[28:26] favor, please say I. Any
[28:28] oppos? Passes unanimously.
[28:36] » I'll make sure that. Okay.
[28:39] >> And uh
[28:42] Tran, if if um you know, I look at this
[28:46] the mayor and pout. I want to see Silver
[28:48] Streamy. I know that's
[28:51] >> um Seberini.
[28:53] Um perhaps there's a connection that
[28:56] could be made to do a you know a dump
[28:59] handoff and facilitate that.
[29:09] [laughter]
[29:12] » All right. Thank you for that. And then
[29:14] uh for those that are interested in the
[29:16] federalism commission um you know stay
[29:18] tuned for LPC and then keep an eye out
[29:20] for uh an alert from the staff to um be
[29:23] ready to send it
[29:27] resume
[29:29] your support letter.
[29:33] Uh so let's move on to our fiscal year
[29:35] 20 2026 year end budget report and our
[29:39] Q4 check registry. Nick, I'm going to
[29:42] turn this over to you.
[29:43] >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, we are running a
[29:45] little behind, so I will want to go
[29:47] through this in my usual brief fashion
[29:50] for you. Uh, this year or last year, FY
[29:53] 2026,
[29:55] uh, we operated at an $18,145
[30:00] loss. Now, while that may sound uh
[30:02] scary, that is completely planned with
[30:04] the use of our reserve funds. In fact,
[30:06] we did not use all of the reserve funds
[30:08] that we were planning on using. So that
[30:10] is where we sit at the end of the year.
[30:12] As a reminder, our policy is for our
[30:13] reserves to remain between 25 and 50% of
[30:17] previous budget year. Um we also have
[30:19] reserves budgeted in this year because
[30:21] our projection showed us that we would
[30:23] not hit that exact mark. So uh we will
[30:25] plan on that for FY27 as well.
[30:30] Um, in general revenue, we collected a
[30:32] little over $70,000 more than budgeted,
[30:35] mostly due to higher than expected in
[30:38] interest uh revenue that came in. Our
[30:40] membership dues are 70% of annual
[30:44] general general revenue, about 64% of
[30:46] our core budget and those were 99.9%
[30:49] collected at the end of the fiscal year.
[30:51] Sponsor donation is 10% of an annual
[30:54] general revenue and we had 102% of that
[30:57] collected. Registration fees are 13.5%
[31:00] of general revenue and we had just over
[31:02] 100% collected there. Uh exhibit space
[31:05] as well together with our event revenue
[31:07] was at 106.1%
[31:10] at the end of the fiscal year.
[31:13] Um
[31:17] so most of that those as I mentioned the
[31:19] uh unrestricted reserves that we use
[31:21] most of that was uh funded that most of
[31:23] that was used to fund some special
[31:24] projects like our making sense of
[31:26] dollars update our powers and duties
[31:28] update our uh property tax videos those
[31:31] were all special projects. It's
[31:33] important to remember that when you see
[31:35] the revenue, both our unrestricted and
[31:37] our restricted reserves, they're
[31:39] budgeted in, but we never actually see
[31:41] that revenue on the budget because we've
[31:42] already collected it. And that's where
[31:44] that negative comes from. Uh we funded
[31:46] the LAA program through restricted
[31:49] reserves um in most of through FY26. We
[31:53] also received some additional funding
[31:54] from the office of the property rights
[31:56] on budsman to give scholarships for LAA
[32:00] qualifying communities to come attend
[32:02] our conferences. Uh so that's why you'll
[32:03] see a small amount of LA revenue
[32:06] actually coming in. We also had
[32:07] additional state funed technical
[32:09] assistance uh from the office of data
[32:12] privacy and the department of workforce
[32:13] services. The department of workforce
[32:15] services grant was a three-year grant.
[32:18] Uh when we first budgeted the amount, we
[32:20] did not have a final contract with them.
[32:22] So we budgeted the full amount of the
[32:23] grant in this year. That's actually
[32:25] going to be stretched over 13 or three
[32:27] years, but that's why you see a small
[32:28] amount left.
[32:31] Uh expenditures overall we uh hit 82.4%
[32:36] uh of our total budget with 82% of
[32:39] actual revenue collected. So that's why
[32:40] we have that that negative amount.
[32:43] Personnel accounts for a little over
[32:45] half of our core budget and it was 97.2%
[32:49] expended at the end of the year.
[32:51] Operating and program expenses uh
[32:53] account for just under 17% of core
[32:56] budget and we spent 88.4%
[32:59] of that. But then expenditures a quarter
[33:01] of our core budget and they were 89%
[33:04] expended at the end of the year. Grant
[33:06] and special projects account for 7% of
[33:08] our core budget and they were just under
[33:10] 76%
[33:11] expended at the end of this fiscal year.
[33:13] And state funed technical assistance in
[33:16] this year accounted for 19% of our total
[33:19] budgeted expenditure. know, keep in mind
[33:21] that is that large 700,000, so it's not
[33:24] really 19% of our total budget. Uh, and
[33:26] those were only 40% expended at the end
[33:29] of the fiscal year. Um, this report
[33:33] gives us a good idea of what actually
[33:35] came in and out of this fiscal year. It
[33:36] has our cash on there. It does it is not
[33:39] the equivalent of our audited financial
[33:41] statements that we'll receive and review
[33:43] in December. It does not include
[33:45] non-cash items like depreciation,
[33:47] capitalization of our equipment uh that
[33:49] we have in organizational modernization
[33:52] and the RS pension liability uh gazby 68
[33:55] figure. All of that will be included in
[33:57] our audited financial statements. But I
[33:59] think this gives a better idea of what
[34:01] actual cash flow is happening in the
[34:02] fiscal year. Ultimately, we are in uh
[34:06] good fiscal footing. Finances are in
[34:08] good shape. Uh and we're working with uh
[34:10] Dave Sanderson, our financial oversight
[34:12] consultant, to prepare uh our uh
[34:14] year-end stuff for the auditing firms.
[34:16] You'll have an audit in December to
[34:18] review. At this point, we would ask the
[34:20] board to approve the year-end financial
[34:22] report and the attached check register
[34:25] uh nine pages at the end of this report
[34:29] that are all the checks that we cut in
[34:31] the Q4. If you have any questions about
[34:33] any particulars on this register, we
[34:36] have the documentation in the office.
[34:41] >> Any questions, comments, feedback for
[34:45] Nick on the information he's presented
[34:47] on the the budget.
[34:53] I am not
[34:55] hearing any from those in the room and
[34:58] I'm assuming that if there was a hand up
[34:59] in the chat, you would alert us.
[35:04] Okay. So then that means that at this
[35:06] point uh we need we would be looking for
[35:09] a motion to approve the year end
[35:11] financial report and then to approve the
[35:13] April and June April through June check
[35:17] register.
[35:19] >> I'm happy to make that motion that we
[35:21] approve the year end financial report
[35:24] and check
[35:27] motion.
[35:31] Um, seeing no further discussion, we'll
[35:33] call for vote. All in favor of the
[35:35] approval of the year and financial
[35:36] report and the April check register,
[35:39] please say I.
[35:41] >> I
[35:44] opposed
[35:47] hearing none. That passes unanimously.
[35:50] Thank you, Nick, to you and your team. I
[35:54] um
[35:55] uh enjoy your reports and um that you
[35:59] put in the percentages so that I don't
[36:01] have to wonder about the math.
[36:05] >> Absolutely.
[36:07] >> Okay. Um
[36:10] we're not quite caught up on time, but
[36:11] we're doing a little better. Uh so our
[36:13] engagement report um Molly we're going
[36:15] to turn time over to you to do the
[36:17] engagement report and update us on the
[36:20] annual convention and the other
[36:21] programs.
[36:24] We'll do what we can to get caught up on
[36:25] time. So the start of EMS 206
[36:30] on that October 26 through 28 at the
[36:33] Salt House. Um we are in negotiations
[36:37] right now with uh Frank Abigail our
[36:40] keynote speaker. Um he is the
[36:44] inspiration
[36:54] if you can.
[37:02] Um so we're working on that. We're
[37:04] really looking forward to it. Um, since
[37:07] this will be our last time in Salt Lake
[37:09] for a while, we've really been working
[37:11] with the city to identify some good
[37:13] local tours. We are expanding the mobile
[37:15] tour framework. We're going to pull that
[37:17] outside of the traditional two-day
[37:19] footprints. We'll either do it the day
[37:20] before or the day after. Um, and we're
[37:22] really excited about those three mobile
[37:25] tours that we're going to be able to
[37:26] offer with a bit of an extended
[37:27] footprint, including Salt Lake airport.
[37:30] Um, the nine line, which is going to
[37:32] include like a bike ride with green
[37:34] bikes, and then the
[37:37] point. Um we'll once again be doing the
[37:40] additional conflict training with dog
[37:43] warning the person following that was
[37:44] really successful last year. Um we're
[37:47] working on final workshops now. Um some
[37:51] key themes we're planning on for our
[37:52] general sessions include data centers AI
[37:55] land use as always um and our standard
[37:57] kind of fair within that. And then for
[38:00] caucuses, um we've had a lot of success
[38:02] with the last two conferences pulling um
[38:05] caucuses out having them dispersed
[38:07] throughout the conference footprint with
[38:09] specific topic. And um unfortunately,
[38:12] it's a grill this year, but we're
[38:14] looking into a disaster response for
[38:16] that this year
[38:19] for everyone. Um and Katie, I'll hand it
[38:22] over to you to talk about the
[38:23] contracting for 27th venue.
[38:25] >> Yep. So we are still planning on
[38:27] September 28th to
[38:31] September 30th at Mountain America Expo
[38:33] Center. If all goes well, we should be
[38:35] able to go to contract August 28th. They
[38:37] are very specific to the date for that.
[38:40] And then if our backup plan is Utah
[38:43] Valley Convention Center for October
[38:46] for like October
[38:49] exactly
[38:51] um and that's based on the board
[38:52] direction gave us last month. So make
[38:54] sure that feedback probably posted by
[38:58] our next board meeting as to what that
[38:59] looks like 2027.
[39:02] As far as our LA program update, it's a
[39:04] quick one. Um, before we jump to LA, any thoughts or feedback about the
[39:10] caucus plan on the dis disaster
[39:13] response? We thought we're g we're going
[39:15] to invite some of the mayors who've been
[39:17] on the front lines unfortunately this
[39:18] year to maybe go caucus to caucus talk
[39:20] about their experience and facilitate
[39:22] discussion various caucuses of lessons
[39:25] learned and what people can take from
[39:26] it.
[39:28] >> Why don't you get the cop names right?
[39:33] » Will you have like a component of
[39:35] emergency management going forward?
[39:38] That's like the biggest topic we're
[39:39] having. I don't know how we had this
[39:41] wildfire in some county, but that's what
[39:43] our residents want to talk about like
[39:44] what is your first plan? What is happen
[39:51] » and to that suggestions and we've
[39:55] unfortunately there are a lot of mayors
[39:57] and council members and chief who have
[40:00] had some experiences this year. So we
[40:02] have no shortage of potential people to
[40:04] get up the top. So if you have
[40:06] suggestions that could talk about that
[40:09] and anyone who has experience you know
[40:11] with planning open summ
[40:15] had these numbers um and we want to
[40:18] honor that but we also want to make sure
[40:19] that we can spread
[40:21] >> I think I don't know sorry
[40:25] um for those that don't know Park City
[40:27] had this notification go out last Sunday
[40:29] that was false so the whole entire Soma
[40:32] and Wasach County got in an evacuation
[40:34] notice We were in the middle of the
[40:36] Kimble Arts Festival with like 3,000
[40:37] people on the street who weren't
[40:38] driving. It was very fascinating to
[40:40] watch how many people were just like and
[40:43] like just
[40:45] like and I knew that it was wrong
[40:47] because I was like this isn't right. But
[40:49] um it was it was pretty interesting you
[40:51] know now going through with the county
[40:53] and the state of what went wrong and
[40:56] what do we do when there is actually a
[40:58] real emergency and only Peniper was
[41:00] supposed to evacuate not you know
[41:02] 100,000 people. So, it was a little
[41:04] chaotic. [laughter]
[41:06] So, we're uh working with the aftermath
[41:08] of that um at the county and the city
[41:09] level right now. So, that's a decent
[41:12] thing to to consider having someone talk
[41:15] about how those communications work. We
[41:17] had something happen earlier in Daves
[41:18] County where West Bountiful had a
[41:20] dynamite situation they were
[41:22] >> dealing with and I think the entire
[41:24] state got the the potential blast alert.
[41:28] And so to me it seems like there's some training that everyone
[41:32] needs to have when you're going to use
[41:34] that system that might be really
[41:35] helpful.
[41:35] >> And then we were told because we
[41:37] immediately said have you know the chief
[41:39] of police and the chief of fire say you
[41:41] need to reverse it. And so everyone
[41:43] knows and they said no it's not an
[41:44] emergency to reverse it because then maybe the people in won't leave and
[41:49] so that even caused more problems
[41:51] because there were people evacuating. So, it was quite it's been a
[41:56] quite fascinating week.
[42:02] » I was just going to say that um American
[42:04] Public Power uh put it on a Zoom
[42:08] training on crisis communication about
[42:11] two months ago. It was excellent. So,
[42:13] I'll get that information that would the
[42:16] individual that did that they contracted
[42:18] with the person that
[42:20] >> is excellent. I know the focus here is
[42:23] all on the fire side. We've seen a lot
[42:25] of uh earthquakes across the globe.
[42:28] Yeah.
[42:28] >> And some high levels and you know we're
[42:32] are prone for that here on the whole
[42:34] front. Now it's a different disaster. Uh
[42:37] one could take a look for this happen
[42:40] immediately. So the focus I know is on
[42:43] fires here but we also should probably
[42:46] make sure that
[42:46] >> there's disaster response.
[42:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's good.
[42:50] >> Fire is the most common.
[42:52] But
[42:54] um I mean with mayor right online like
[42:58] there's been
[42:59] >> okay
[43:00] >> a strange awful things.
[43:04] Yeah.
[43:06] >> Yeah. And and that I mean it's a caucus
[43:07] meeting so I would spend
[43:10] management. So if you have thoughts
[43:12] about you know I mean caucus is 45 to 60
[43:14] minutes you know we want to leave the
[43:17] ship. Well so um if there if there are
[43:20] thoughts about you know what we should
[43:21] cover yeah people we should have cover
[43:23] that. But yeah we I mean we want to talk
[43:25] about flooding earthquake fire meteor
[43:27] showers whatever it is.
[43:31] » Yeah.
[43:33] And then just one other note related to
[43:34] annual part of the reason we're working
[43:37] with Frank is yes he has an interesting
[43:40] story and several people reacted to that
[43:43] but because we were looking at the big
[43:45] themes that Molly mentioned about data
[43:47] center cyber security AI two months ago
[43:50] nobody was talking about flock and now
[43:52] there's a different headline every day
[43:54] about flock we'll talk about next week
[43:56] and so
[43:58] in his professional career has made a
[44:00] career working in cyber security space.
[44:03] So, we thought it would be a nice way to
[44:04] kick off those bigger conversations to
[44:06] have
[44:09] an interesting story
[44:10] >> and it's a great movie to watch when
[44:12] you're flying on.
[44:15] >> It's not a
[44:19] [laughter]
[44:22] » excellent. So, anything else within
[44:25] annual this year? If we're gonna keep
[44:28] dancing around Tom Hanks, we're gonna be
[44:30] over Tom Hanks.
[44:33] I will [clears throat] not
[44:39] have some strong
[44:42] revenue budget
[44:46] [laughter]
[44:55] brought up. That's been a real big deal.
[45:01] Flatters out there
[45:04] and there's no good source of
[45:07] information to put out to the public.
[45:09] the information I'm giving to him is
[45:11] well this is what we can tell you from
[45:13] our city's house you know so I said well
[45:15] now I have to trust the city is there
[45:17] another source another place of
[45:19] information we can put out to the public
[45:21] >> I think
[45:23] for the most part
[45:25] so far behind
[45:26] >> I just wonder if this would be a good
[45:27] topic for
[45:29] >> this is going to come up in legislation
[45:31] this set so I would suggest it's
[45:34] probably more like an LPC is going to
[45:36] need to work through this throughout the
[45:38] fall because We're going to be dealing
[45:39] with bills that impact what our law
[45:43] enforcement agencies can do, how we
[45:44] interface with state public safety,
[45:48] you know, where the state is choosing to
[45:49] put them in our cities that we don't
[45:51] control, how the work. So, I may need to
[45:56] do some training after the fact, but I
[45:57] expect our landscape is going to shift
[46:00] in January of 27
[46:02] >> and so we might just have to be reacting
[46:05] more real time in LPC. But I agree with
[46:08] you,
[46:09] Joe Hamps, who has received emails about
[46:11] block counsel.
[46:14] >> Maybe what we really just need is a um
[46:16] counseling support session.
[46:18] >> Have any of you have any of you had
[46:20] people show up at your council meetings?
[46:23] >> Yes.
[46:25] this question
[46:30] because one of the things
[46:33] what it looks like and I think we just
[46:34] got the representative sample of what
[46:35] our answers are going to look like next
[46:37] week. Yeah. Trying to get a handle on
[46:39] that and I've heard from several mayors
[46:41] like I didn't even know about much. It
[46:42] turns out we got them in our city. So
[46:45] that's something we're all trying to get
[46:46] our hand. Um, and then just noting that
[46:49] uh, Mayor Wright said for an idea that
[46:52] Wayne County had some serious issues
[46:54] when they had um, awful murders that
[46:57] took place and how they communicated as
[46:58] well. So, communication is clearly a hot
[47:01] topic. Keep in mind, okay, Molly, uh,
[47:04] LAA program. So, I'll be quick. Um, our
[47:07] funding was restored, but we're
[47:08] negotiating that GOP contract now. Um,
[47:11] everything else we can chat about next
[47:13] month. Um, as far as the engagement
[47:16] report goes, I want to make sure there's
[47:17] some time for that. Um, we looked
[47:19] through our membership engagement for
[47:22] the last fiscal year, including email,
[47:25] our annual year annual, um, LTC or
[47:29] webinars and participation of the LA
[47:31] program. Um, and we found that we really
[47:35] have strong membership engagement
[47:36] overall. Um, as this group will
[47:39] remember, you gave us two broad
[47:42] priorities. um within uh the engagement
[47:45] team and one is to engage with league
[47:47] members to strengthen their connection
[47:48] to the organization and tackle their
[47:50] ongoing challenges. The second to
[47:53] provide league resources and events that
[47:54] meet the varied needs of our membership.
[47:58] So within that when we were going
[48:01] through those numbers we found that
[48:02] email uh is definitely the strongest way
[48:04] we communicate with members. Um we have
[48:06] over 145 communities that have at least
[48:10] one person opening each uh
[48:13] Friday email each week. Um and then even
[48:16] for our bottom portile participants um
[48:21] someone from that community.
[48:24] Um so it's really strong engagement. I
[48:27] think it's really a process that we need
[48:29] to make sure
[48:31] that email
[48:33] of it. Um, we'll get into this a bit
[48:35] with kind of John coming on the team and
[48:38] the expansion are there, but we're
[48:39] really hoping that we can better
[48:40] leverage audience segmentation so that
[48:43] folks are content that directly applies
[48:45] to them. Um, in addition to kind of the
[48:48] general pieces um, additionally then we
[48:52] look at our inerson stuff that obviously
[48:54] is going to be more variable. um that's
[48:56] I think based on geography and then also
[48:59] just based on kind of barriers to access
[49:02] um and not necessarily like the cost of
[49:04] the annual convention per se but also a
[49:06] lot of people are working during the day
[49:08] and so they have the flexibility to
[49:10] attend for example um and so I think
[49:15] we've been seeing that you know a lack
[49:18] of inerson attendance isn't necessarily
[49:20] a lack of interest um but really a lack
[49:23] of resources able to make
[49:26] Um, so really trying to think through
[49:28] how we can better leverage that. Um, and
[49:31] I think we also saw that our response
[49:33] regional events, we don't have the
[49:35] actual participation numbers for all of
[49:37] those this year, but they're really
[49:39] important because it does
[49:42] in the evenings or the lunch hour. We
[49:46] are going
[49:48] to ease
[49:51] way for them to interact with us. Um, We
[49:55] are we doing that really well this year.
[49:57] We've already uh collaborated with the
[50:00] basin um and R six for their um state
[50:03] regional events. We've done sub regional
[50:05] events in Washington County, Castle,
[50:09] um North Logan, and then we've also been
[50:11] really active with a lot of the comps
[50:14] throughout their meetings on
[50:16] particularly cross-section, but also
[50:18] throughout the state. Um and then this
[50:20] fall, we'll be doing more events with
[50:24] county with Serta and BRA. Um so we kind
[50:28] of ticked off all the big regions of the
[50:30] state to have those regional and sub
[50:32] regional events and making sure we're
[50:33] going out and interacting with members.
[50:37] Um beyond that um of those that didn't
[50:42] really attend anything um in person with
[50:44] the league or attend LPC, we identified
[50:46] 34 communities
[50:54] So really making sure that we are uh
[50:57] capitalizing on what we're doing for
[50:59] Friday facts um and making that the best
[51:02] weekly email it can be. Um and then also
[51:06] continuing to improve our our engagement
[51:08] measurements. So right now like I said
[51:09] we don't have the data necessarily for
[51:12] who attended each all of our regional
[51:14] and subregional events. get a good idea
[51:16] of it, but making sure that we are
[51:18] better capturing that and when it's a
[51:20] partner organizing it, making sure we're
[51:22] getting that data from them. So,
[51:24] overall, I would say the the engagement
[51:26] amongst our members is very strong. Um,
[51:29] huge kudos to our team, I would say, on
[51:32] all the work that it takes to do that.
[51:33] Everyone is pretty darn busy and, uh,
[51:36] also is taking the time to go on the
[51:39] road and get all over the state and
[51:40] making sure we're connecting with folks.
[51:43] happy to answer any questions on that.
[51:45] Um, and then yeah, I'll just say, you
[51:47] know, we introed John at the beginning,
[51:50] but he's been here for about five weeks
[51:52] now. He's done a great job learning
[51:54] everything, helping us clean up um our
[51:56] website, helping us with our webinars,
[51:58] and really helping to expand the
[52:00] capacity we have to be more intentional
[52:03] within engagement. Um, and we're really
[52:05] grateful to have him on the team.
[52:09] any engagement with important questions?
[52:12] >> I've enjoyed um eating out to some of
[52:16] your cogs uh and comms. Um and I know
[52:20] that our Palmer will get out to a few as
[52:23] well that I think may that were longer
[52:26] trips. So yeah, it's it's always fun to
[52:30] get out and you know see your places and
[52:34] hear those special events.
[52:37] Great. Thank you for helping us get out.
[52:40] >> And yeah, if there's something we can do
[52:41] in your area, if you want to, you know,
[52:43] make sure you're getting out and meeting
[52:44] folks, we're happy to do that. Um, final
[52:47] piece in engagement is the making sense
[52:48] of dollars update. That is our budget
[52:50] and finance book. Um, we are in the
[52:54] final stretch of getting that book
[52:56] completed. We should have that published
[52:58] and ready to go by annual. Um,
[53:00] >> no, we're good. My head is less flame.
[53:04] So, for those that are online, we we've just had a little Zoom computer
[53:09] glitch. So, we are pivoting and they've
[53:12] set up new speakers. Hopefully, you can
[53:13] hear us. Okay. If if you're online, can
[53:16] you just give us a quick thumbs up or
[53:18] something in the chat to let us know
[53:20] that you're receiving? Okay.
[53:28] » Thank you, Bruno.
[53:32] » Okay. Now that we've appropriately
[53:34] adjusted Jared's mood lighting,
[53:38] best potential presentation
[53:48] is
[53:49] >> okay. Um, well, I wanted to bring up uh
[53:52] just kind of a background before we dive
[53:55] into where we're at with uh the Salt
[53:58] Lake City uh case. So in the past uh
[54:03] there have been many members that uh or
[54:07] few members that have asked for the lead
[54:09] certification in litigation whether that
[54:12] be uh drafting our own uh amus brief and
[54:18] filing that or signing on. Do you
[54:21] remember
[54:23] in the last year the league board
[54:25] decided to sign on to uh case supporting
[54:31] the MOAP
[54:36] you
[54:39] okay?
[54:41] Um, and so we uh we're now Salt Lake
[54:46] City on a on a case called Stanley Hay
[54:50] uh the Salt Lake City case uh regarding
[54:53] fees has requested the the board
[54:56] consider whether to participate in
[55:00] mitigation in
[55:02] some ways.
[55:04] Um
[55:06] with that the board has passed
[55:10] uh brief policy or litigation
[55:13] participation policy that guides uh
[55:17] whether that that gives consideration as
[55:20] to uh what the board may consider in
[55:24] determining whether uh to sign on to an
[55:28] uh those there's a list of 10 or 12
[55:33] different considerations Just for an
[55:35] example, some of those considerations,
[55:38] the number of municipalities affected by
[55:40] the issue being litigated,
[55:43] uh the um bandwidth to provide the
[55:47] support requested, uh the level impact
[55:50] that the policy issue has on
[55:52] municipalities generally, uh those types
[55:55] of uh considerations.
[56:00] So with that, um you may remember in the
[56:04] past two board meetings we've brought uh
[56:06] this to your uh attention and uh and
[56:11] direction um and seeking direction. In
[56:15] the past, uh we did not have a
[56:19] uh a
[56:21] brief uh final amas brief from Provo
[56:25] City uh or the international mental uh
[56:31] attorneys association
[56:33] um or lawyers association. And um and we
[56:38] do not have a final brief that we know
[56:42] will or will not be filed. uh that's
[56:45] anticipated to be filed by Provo uh
[56:49] tomorrow. Uh we uh and so we have been
[56:53] given by Provos's legal council the
[56:57] principles that uh they intend to put
[57:01] within their brief. Um and we'll see
[57:04] that final brief uh
[57:07] possibly later today uh if not tomorrow
[57:10] morning early. Um, and so I wanted to
[57:14] give the uh the the board those key
[57:19] principles uh that are intended to be
[57:22] within that provo.
[57:25] Um and just as a background when I say
[57:31] section 602 that that that is the
[57:34] section about expenditure impact fees
[57:37] and whether uh when a city can use and
[57:41] spend those impact fees and on what. So
[57:45] in that uh provision section 602 it says
[57:49] that impact fees may be expended uh
[57:54] on the same facility type and must be
[57:58] included within the impact facility
[58:01] time. Those are the two uh
[58:06] that that is what section 602 says. Um
[58:11] the so the I guess the real issue the
[58:15] issue behind the Salt Lake City case uh
[58:18] is whether a city under the law can use
[58:21] impact fees on system improvements
[58:25] for projects that were only included in
[58:28] a prior impact fee facility plan and
[58:32] using those those uh impact fees that
[58:36] were collected under a prior impact fee.
[58:39] facility plan on projects that were only
[58:42] included on a subsequent impact fee
[58:45] facility plan. So using impact feed
[58:50] funds for a project
[58:54] uh that is in the new impact feed
[58:56] facility plan but that was not in the
[59:00] old impact fee facility plan. So that is
[59:03] the issue. Um the uh the five points that Provos
[59:10] Amika's brief uh intends to put into
[59:14] their brief is section 602's text limits
[59:18] expenditures by facility type and
[59:21] operative plan identification
[59:25] not by a collection date project list.
[59:28] Now collection date project list is the
[59:30] argument from the other side saying look
[59:32] you can only use it on whatever was in
[59:35] the original impact facility plan when
[59:38] those funds were collected.
[59:41] So that's what that collection date
[59:43] project list is a frozen date by which
[59:46] those projects you can use impact visa
[59:49] would have to go back. Uh the second
[59:52] point is that the act's integrated
[59:54] structure confirms that updated plans
[59:56] govern expenditures for the same
[59:58] facility type. In other words, if it was
[1:00:02] in a transportation,
[1:00:04] it's used for transportation.
[1:00:07] uh whether it's in this impact fee
[1:00:09] facility plan so long as it's within the
[1:00:12] same facility type transportation and
[1:00:14] transportification park and park um
[1:00:18] sewer sewer water water um that so long
[1:00:22] as it's facility type you should be able
[1:00:24] to still use that even though it may be
[1:00:27] a different project uh that is within
[1:00:31] this new impact.
[1:00:33] The third is real world implications and
[1:00:36] practical consequences strongly favor
[1:00:38] Salt Lake City's interpretation.
[1:00:41] Uh the fourth is Stanley's which is the
[1:00:45] other side frozen project list rule
[1:00:48] would destabilize municipal finance and
[1:00:51] infrastructure planning statewide. And
[1:00:54] then the fifth is felting city's
[1:00:56] interpretation synthesizes the act's
[1:00:58] purpose and support sound public policy.
[1:01:02] So those are the five key points that
[1:01:04] provos uh intends to uh to put into
[1:01:09] their brief. Uh it is anticipated that
[1:01:15] uh UAP as well as HILA will be signing
[1:01:18] and maybe other entities may be signed
[1:01:22] on to
[1:01:23] uh Provos Amikas.
[1:01:27] Um, our recommendation to the board at
[1:01:30] this time is that the board uh uh
[1:01:35] approved signing on to Provos Mikaspur
[1:01:38] with the uh caveat that the uh the
[1:01:44] executive team uh is given authority to
[1:01:48] once we receive that uh breathe. So long
[1:01:52] as those principles are the same as what
[1:01:54] we see that we feel comfortable moving
[1:01:57] forward with that. Um so that would be
[1:02:00] our recommendation that we move forward
[1:02:02] with signing on brief um with with uh
[1:02:08] not knowing what provos brief actually
[1:02:11] specifically says. These are the the
[1:02:14] five principles that will be. So that's
[1:02:16] where we're at with the recommendations.
[1:02:18] >> So it's a qualified approval.
[1:02:20] Um, it's an approval.
[1:02:23] >> It's a trust verified.
[1:02:27] » Um,
[1:02:29] we just we just haven't seen the final
[1:02:31] brief yet. And that's really what it
[1:02:33] comes down to. We anticipate
[1:02:35] >> but we actually
[1:02:41] and I I do not see any changes being
[1:02:48] substantial or different than what uh
[1:02:52] legal counsel and provo has has told us.
[1:02:56] And so I anticipate it will be those
[1:02:58] five points. Um and I think you can rely
[1:03:01] on that that being the case. so that
[1:03:04] your decision is based off what we
[1:03:06] believe provo uh will have in there. I
[1:03:10] can say as as an attorney you you you
[1:03:14] use every bit of time that you have in
[1:03:18] drafting a brief even though it it can
[1:03:20] always be better. And so I think that
[1:03:22] that's where Provo is is at the legal
[1:03:25] council is they're using every bit of
[1:03:28] time to get to to get that
[1:03:33] in line. And um there's been a lot of
[1:03:35] things come up in Provo City's
[1:03:37] attorney's office that have uh been
[1:03:40] difficult time wise as well. Some
[1:03:43] internal things that health issues.
[1:03:47] So uh so I think that's why we haven't
[1:03:51] seen the break.
[1:03:55] Um
[1:03:57] before I think before I think it's part
[1:04:00] of that discussion. So, so I'm going to
[1:04:03] put that on the table and then we'll
[1:04:05] come back to circle back to if it's okay
[1:04:08] with you uh Mayor Bradshot that we we
[1:04:12] table that and come back to it because I
[1:04:14] think it's just so you know um one of
[1:04:17] the things that
[1:04:20] is important to consider is that Salt
[1:04:22] Lake City's case with impact fees is
[1:04:26] just one item in what you will see with
[1:04:30] the legislature.
[1:04:32] uh both during the interim as well as uh
[1:04:36] during the session as Justin mentioned
[1:04:38] uh there's the audit that will be uh the conclusions we would have to meet
[1:04:45] with them uh and there there uh may be
[1:04:49] questions that come down from that uh in
[1:04:53] some certain fashion and that we'll need
[1:04:56] to consider and along with that there
[1:04:58] their board principles and may have
[1:05:02] noticed and we that that have been given
[1:05:04] to the LPC housing advisory group that
[1:05:08] have looked at that and it it's those
[1:05:11] are not in your packet that the agenda
[1:05:13] is and if you don't have those happy to distribute those but those are still
[1:05:18] in a work in progress. uh we've already
[1:05:21] received feedback from some of our
[1:05:22] members saying hey we need to change
[1:05:24] this tweak this and so it's a it's an
[1:05:27] evolving process and a further
[1:05:29] discussion down the road but that I just
[1:05:32] wanted to give you that feedback but you
[1:05:34] know in the past typically when we do an
[1:05:38] brief in the past it's here's our
[1:05:40] immediate brief we signed on to whatever
[1:05:42] happens
[1:05:44] there you go uh this one I think the
[1:05:47] issues definitely will come back up uh
[1:05:51] after the audit after as a discussion
[1:05:55] with board on the key principles that
[1:05:57] our members feel comfortable signing on
[1:06:00] to. Um it's a full discussion. So um can
[1:06:05] I just add one last piece? Sure. Again,
[1:06:07] we're recommending that we sign on. Just
[1:06:09] want to add a little color what Jared
[1:06:10] just mentioned about the audit Justin
[1:06:17] state law. We cannot share The details
[1:06:20] of what they shared with us
[1:06:22] beyond what they authorized us. What
[1:06:24] they authorized us to share with the
[1:06:26] board today is they are looking at
[1:06:28] friction points around impact fee law
[1:06:31] and policy and implementation and those
[1:06:34] include
[1:06:35] definition around nexus and rough rough
[1:06:38] proportionality the policy
[1:06:40] considerations on service areas which is
[1:06:42] part of this amicus before you impact on
[1:06:45] affordability and the like. They're
[1:06:47] looking at all those pieces. We will
[1:06:49] know by midepptember whether the audit
[1:06:51] will be released in October or November.
[1:06:54] And then we as league staff will have
[1:06:56] the opportunity to hit on that before it
[1:06:58] goes public similar to what we've done
[1:07:00] to audits in the past. And then once
[1:07:02] that audit goes live, we assure you
[1:07:04] there will be some, as Jared said, some difficult questions for us to
[1:07:09] consider and there will be a lot of
[1:07:10] attention from the legislature comes
[1:07:11] next.
[1:07:13] >> Okay. So [clears throat] right now we
[1:07:16] have a recommendation
[1:07:18] um to sign on with a caveat that the
[1:07:23] final decision based on the draft will
[1:07:25] be uh left to the executive committee
[1:07:28] but we're holding on that till we get to
[1:07:31] the rest of the discussion. Well that
[1:07:33] was the rest of the presentation give
[1:07:36] you that context after we made that
[1:07:37] recommendation and this process wise has
[1:07:40] to be filed by tomorrow. Jared is tired
[1:07:42] of me asking him for updates from all
[1:07:44] the different pieces because some were
[1:07:46] going to participate then they backed
[1:07:47] out and they're going to participate and
[1:07:48] they back down a lot of moving pieces
[1:07:51] over the last few weeks. But once we get
[1:07:53] it today, lead staff's going to review
[1:07:55] it and then we'll notify the officers of
[1:07:57] like, yes, this is consistent with what
[1:07:59] we presented at board meeting where no
[1:08:00] one's negative want and then
[1:08:04] >> it's provoke. Uh I would make a
[1:08:07] suggestion that we send them caffeine,
[1:08:08] but knowing that there's some
[1:08:10] restrictions there, maybe we can send
[1:08:11] them some
[1:08:19] draft in a timely fashion. This is I
[1:08:21] think a very uh key and important issue.
[1:08:24] Um
[1:08:27] I I I'm particularly worried about
[1:08:30] walking us into a time. Our cities
[1:08:33] aren't
[1:08:33] >> snowblowed.
[1:08:35] Um you know, we're dynamic. We're
[1:08:37] moving. Um and
[1:08:41] so
[1:08:42] that this lawsuit would restrict us to a
[1:08:46] particular time when the impact fees
[1:08:50] were there but you know we've since
[1:08:51] evolved or we've since had issues or we
[1:08:53] had to meet new standards I think
[1:08:57] >> and you're welcome to use that snow.
[1:09:02] » Okay. Anyone have any additional
[1:09:04] commentary?
[1:09:06] >> Thank you very much for the
[1:09:07] presentation.
[1:09:08] deliberation on this whole process
[1:09:10] because this has been a big issue
[1:09:11] because this is not one city and one
[1:09:13] program. since it's statewide and impact
[1:09:16] all of us as you all see that you know
[1:09:18] if you abide by do not believe uh
[1:09:23] IFFP going forward why would you ever
[1:09:26] change your now you're always
[1:09:30] so this is statewide uh and impacts all
[1:09:33] of us and when the IMLA [clears throat]
[1:09:35] takes a stand on something that's big
[1:09:38] national concern then they also realize
[1:09:40] that it's not just one small uh side by.
[1:09:45] So I appreciate your conversation and I
[1:09:47] appreciate five principles that you laid
[1:09:49] out there from Provo. That was nice and
[1:09:51] clear which is all all of our concerns
[1:09:53] that we have. I think majority of the
[1:09:55] other students have probably the same
[1:09:56] concern.
[1:09:57] >> So thank you very much and uh I looking
[1:10:01] forward to probably not changing theirs
[1:10:03] by any stretch of the imagination. So
[1:10:05] and that's
[1:10:09] » any other feedback couple questions. Um,
[1:10:12] do you want a motion to accept this
[1:10:14] recommendation?
[1:10:15] >> Okay.
[1:10:16] >> Move that we accept this uh
[1:10:20] motion to uh sign on to propos.
[1:10:25] >> So the
[1:10:27] committee will
[1:10:28] >> Yes.
[1:10:28] >> through once we've seen it.
[1:10:29] >> Yeah.
[1:10:31] >> So motion from council number two. We
[1:10:32] have a second from Mayor Shepard. Any
[1:10:35] further discussion?
[1:10:38] All in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Any
[1:10:42] opposed?
[1:10:47] Okay, looks like do you have your
[1:10:49] direction and on action there?
[1:10:55] » We'll move on to the spark.
[1:10:58] >> Yeah,
[1:11:00] those are each. So, res and carb on the
[1:11:04] road and spark
[1:11:06] like
[1:11:07] that.
[1:11:16] Justin
[1:11:19] Parker grant some of you now mentioned a
[1:11:22] couple times but we applied last uh last
[1:11:24] winter we applied for and received a
[1:11:27] grant from the National League of Cities
[1:11:28] to study the cost of complying with new
[1:11:30] requirements. Um as you all know every
[1:11:33] time there's new law proposed there's a
[1:11:35] fiscal note sometimes there the direct
[1:11:38] cost. with cities or put taxations
[1:11:42] direct cost on cities. Those are easy to
[1:11:44] quantify. They're probably harder to
[1:11:46] quantify to the many bills that pass
[1:11:50] requirement. Sometimes it's a small
[1:11:51] requirement, sometimes it's major
[1:11:53] general plan requirement, some
[1:11:55] additional staff time, additional
[1:11:56] consulting time uh for cities by state
[1:12:00] law. Now, we've heard a lot of we've
[1:12:03] heard a lot of other entities like
[1:12:04] certain districts, counties bring
[1:12:06] concerns legislature about this. uh
[1:12:08] those have largers.
[1:12:11] So we're trying to generate approach and
[1:12:14] we're trying to quantify
[1:12:16] that.
[1:12:19] So we're working with Foundation.
[1:12:22] They're going to be a third party
[1:12:24] control group manage the survey, run the
[1:12:26] survey, perform the analysis. So it's
[1:12:28] all independent. Um hopefully
[1:12:32] provides more trust to the process. But
[1:12:35] um we'll basically be serving term
[1:12:37] depends on uh how much is how much staff
[1:12:41] time how much time
[1:12:44] six different requirements it's a mix of
[1:12:47] federal and state requirements that we
[1:12:50] supported some things we proposed but we
[1:12:52] want it to be kind of a combination of
[1:12:54] different different elements I won't go
[1:12:57] too much the details methodology but
[1:12:59] we'll be working with city managers
[1:13:01] first other other folks separately uh to
[1:13:05] try to get as many respondents as
[1:13:07] possible. So, we'll we'll let you know
[1:13:10] once the survey is ready hopefully next
[1:13:13] uh this week or next week and then we'll
[1:13:15] keep you posted on results as they come
[1:13:17] in. But, we think it's a cool
[1:13:18] opportunity to get that the
[1:13:20] nationalities uh is helping fund or
[1:13:23] we'll be able to get a pretty good
[1:13:25] understand what that kind of impact is
[1:13:27] that I
[1:13:32] members. So, putting a number that will
[1:13:34] help discussion
[1:13:36] hopefully help us get to a better point
[1:13:38] with communication with the legislature
[1:13:40] about even bills that we might support
[1:13:43] or we're neutral on. There's still some
[1:13:45] cost there. How can we work with them to
[1:13:47] either define those requirements a
[1:13:50] little bit more or spread
[1:13:53] so it's not just updating every year
[1:13:59] there? Are there any questions?
[1:14:04] Looks like we don't have any questions.
[1:14:07] Feels like great feedback.
[1:14:14] Um Okay. All right. Uh traveling LBC. So
[1:14:17] last time we met, uh we pitched the idea
[1:14:19] of traveling LBC around the state and
[1:14:21] you all said we should do that. So we're
[1:14:22] going to um here's the here's the
[1:14:25] schedule. Here's where we're going. Next
[1:14:26] week we're going to be in Saratoga
[1:14:27] Springs. And before I think well I'll do
[1:14:30] the schedule when I come back. Yeah.
[1:14:31] Next week in Saratoga Springs in
[1:14:33] September, we will be back at the trust.
[1:14:35] Uh we will be doubling up meeting with
[1:14:36] that one on the 21st of September. In
[1:14:40] October, uh we're going to head down to
[1:14:42] Manti. So, thank you, Mary, uh Mayor
[1:14:45] Winch for having us down there. Excited
[1:14:47] to come down here neck woods. Um and
[1:14:49] then in November, we're going all the
[1:14:51] way down to Santa Clara to council
[1:14:53] member Hinton's neck of the wood.
[1:14:55] >> Best part of the state in November.
[1:14:56] >> Yeah, I know it was rough in November.
[1:14:58] That was a tough sale. Um but but that's
[1:15:01] where Heming soil works. We're excited
[1:15:02] to see how this works. I do want to
[1:15:04] thank some of you reached out offered up
[1:15:06] your cities as well. Um we had more
[1:15:08] offers than we had we had space for. Um
[1:15:10] and so depending how this goes this
[1:15:13] fall. Um we we may be back for this next
[1:15:15] year. Um and I I'm assuming we will be
[1:15:18] because I think it's going to go well.
[1:15:19] But our hope out of this is really to
[1:15:21] get uh some different faces in the room
[1:15:22] in some places and maybe different faces
[1:15:24] on Zoom. Um but excited about that.
[1:15:27] That's where we're going. Um any any
[1:15:29] comments or questions?
[1:15:32] >> What's that?
[1:15:34] >> That's
[1:15:36] the league will not be reimbured.
[1:15:44] » Okay.
[1:15:45] Well, so yeah, I'm excited for
[1:15:47] that. That should be that should be a
[1:15:49] good opportunity to get out there. Like
[1:15:51] I said, change change up. Um, also as
[1:15:53] we're going out in these areas, um, you
[1:15:55] know, we may look at setting up some
[1:15:56] other some other meetings in those
[1:15:58] communities. Um, you know, we want to do
[1:16:01] Q&A, we just want to meet with people.
[1:16:02] We want to invite legislators from those
[1:16:04] areas. We think there's a lot of
[1:16:05] benefits as well.
[1:16:07] will be will be boring to start
[1:16:09] traveling out there for
[1:16:12] >> well that will be certainly exciting for
[1:16:14] um us to be in different places and I
[1:16:19] know that will be very exciting council
[1:16:21] to be able to
[1:16:23] host as presidents in her city so
[1:16:27] president
[1:16:30] and I did
[1:16:35] just coming out of co people were
[1:16:36] starting to meet in person again and
[1:16:38] starting to you know gather and but not
[1:16:42] come clear here if they weren't from
[1:16:44] here you know whatever we we did this
[1:16:47] and and we went and we visited each
[1:16:50] region we tried to meet with folks from
[1:16:52] every city possible around the state
[1:16:54] where they're at and was awesome I think
[1:16:59] it was really awesome very effective
[1:17:02] with the engagement especially so weird
[1:17:06] going um I mean we were out of co enough
[1:17:09] that people were meeting again things
[1:17:11] that went that long but also really
[1:17:14] helpful and so I could not and I think
[1:17:17] we will see the goal the objective
[1:17:19] behind this I think will be accomplished
[1:17:21] I think it
[1:17:22] >> I think it's a great idea
[1:17:24] >> yeah I there was lots of positive
[1:17:25] feedback from when you when you did that
[1:17:28] um road trip in your year as president
[1:17:31] so I think it's
[1:17:34] >> and next up multi
[1:17:38] >> for the sake of time the mitigation task
[1:17:40] force is meeting um from this group we
[1:17:43] have mayors adult Bradshaw and Bruno um
[1:17:47] we also have mayors Ben Hall Manzion
[1:17:52] um
[1:17:56] and that's it right
[1:18:01] thank you mayor wood meeting um to again
[1:18:04] think through try to make the mitigation
[1:18:06] fund work in a better long-term way so
[1:18:08] that we don't have to talk about it
[1:18:10] every single year. Um, and make make it
[1:18:13] better for all contributing cities as
[1:18:15] well as recipient cities. So, um, I
[1:18:17] would say we're going to talk about it.
[1:18:19] If you have questions about it, grab one
[1:18:21] of the happy to update you, but I think
[1:18:24] we can leave it there for now.
[1:18:29] » Right.
[1:18:34] person in Detroit. [laughter]
[1:18:37] >> Speaking of solving issues, fireworks
[1:18:43] that issues,
[1:18:46] >> I'm going to borrow this memo from what
[1:18:48] I did during my summer break.
[1:18:52] In your packet, you have a memo that
[1:18:54] summarizes the survey results from the
[1:18:57] two surveys we sent after in
[1:19:00] just
[1:19:01] do a quick overview and then we're going
[1:19:03] to ask this board a question about our
[1:19:04] next steps. Quick overview is this.
[1:19:07] When we
[1:19:11] went into those series of really intense
[1:19:14] discussions leading up to the 4th of
[1:19:15] July, we were anxious about what the
[1:19:19] political response would be at the
[1:19:21] capital. We were trying to get the legal
[1:19:22] pieces right. We're trying to help you
[1:19:24] communicate with your residents and we
[1:19:26] were trying to keep public safety and
[1:19:28] options for cities as the north star.
[1:19:31] And I think as I look back on the month,
[1:19:34] I think we actually were able to achieve
[1:19:35] all of those pieces.
[1:19:37] Uh so my my hats off and and major
[1:19:42] kudos to all of you for how you
[1:19:44] communicated with your residents during
[1:19:45] a really tricky time.
[1:19:48] The data is really insightful and part
[1:19:51] of the question we're going to ask you
[1:19:52] here in a moment is like what else do
[1:19:53] you want to learn from the members as we
[1:19:55] get ahead as we look ahead to 2027. So a
[1:19:57] couple just quick highlights for you.
[1:20:00] Number one,
[1:20:02] Jamie Barnes is fantastic. She was a
[1:20:05] state forester and notice I say was
[1:20:07] because she's now been promoted. She'll
[1:20:09] now be running the department of natural
[1:20:11] resources but in two weeks.
[1:20:15] >> Okay.
[1:20:16] That's right. Join. She was incredibly
[1:20:20] collaborative. I know many of you were
[1:20:21] on the the web
[1:20:23] short notice that I think it's I think
[1:20:26] it's really important to acknowledge
[1:20:28] that with everything she had going on
[1:20:31] that she and her team set aside the time
[1:20:33] to meet directly with us and between
[1:20:36] those two webinars we had over 750
[1:20:39] people signed on to the webinar let
[1:20:42] alone however many people were in the
[1:20:43] room watching the screen. So that's
[1:20:45] really incredible engagement and
[1:20:47] collaboration from her and from and from
[1:20:49] her team. Second thing uh interesting
[1:20:52] response from the membership when we
[1:20:54] sent a survey after independence day we
[1:20:56] had 115 responses. When we sent it after
[1:20:58] pioneer day we had 31 responses. So it's
[1:21:01] hard to rely on a survey of 31 responses
[1:21:05] because in that survey we asked for
[1:21:07] feedback of what should our next steps
[1:21:09] be and what level of priority should
[1:21:10] this be in in 2027. And we as staff are
[1:21:14] anxious to base a recommendation today
[1:21:16] on a survey result from 31, especially
[1:21:19] compared to 115 just a couple weeks
[1:21:21] earlier. Uh number three key takeaway
[1:21:24] when the governor approached
[1:21:27] Independence Day with a ban and then you
[1:21:29] could opt out. We had 213 of the 257
[1:21:33] cities and towns that decided to stay
[1:21:36] with the ban. So 83% of our
[1:21:39] municipalities stuck with the ban.
[1:21:43] for pioneer day when we changed the
[1:21:45] legal framework to there was no
[1:21:48] statewide ban but the forester would use
[1:21:51] her authority upon request we only had a
[1:21:54] third of the cities who requested her
[1:21:57] authority to ban citywide then the memo
[1:22:00] goes into some of the additional nuance
[1:22:01] but I think that's important for us to
[1:22:03] keep in mind and there are variety of
[1:22:05] reasons for that that the survey
[1:22:06] demonstrated some communities said well
[1:22:08] we feel like because the monsunal
[1:22:10] weather certainly in central Central
[1:22:11] Utah, the floods were terrible on
[1:22:13] central Utah in southern Utah. And so
[1:22:16] it's hard to talk about a fireworks band
[1:22:18] when you have water running through the
[1:22:19] streets. So different different monsunal
[1:22:23] activity, but that did not affect
[1:22:25] northern Utah was still incredibly dry
[1:22:27] up north and and then communication with
[1:22:30] the public and push back from the public
[1:22:31] about the the first band. So there's
[1:22:33] lots of reasons why those numbers are
[1:22:34] different, but I think it's important
[1:22:35] for you all to know how different they
[1:22:37] were independent day versus my year.
[1:22:40] Okay.
[1:22:41] >> [clears throat]
[1:22:41] >> So with that, there's a lot more to tell
[1:22:42] in the memo, but Carson's going to pull
[1:22:44] up a side question here. And the
[1:22:46] question we're asking you as a board
[1:22:48] because we have LPC next week is what
[1:22:51] else do you want to know from LPC that
[1:22:53] will help us prioritize where we go
[1:22:55] session? We included a link to the
[1:22:57] fireworks resolution from a decade ago.
[1:22:59] And just quick institutional background
[1:23:02] for those who weren't in office a decade
[1:23:03] ago,
[1:23:05] we made some pretty significant changes
[1:23:08] to farmworks law policy a decade ago and
[1:23:10] then made some additional changes in
[1:23:12] 2021
[1:23:14] uh which was the last time we had the
[1:23:15] severe drought conditions that we have
[1:23:17] now. Represent Dunigan was involved in
[1:23:19] both of those ran the bills both times
[1:23:22] and from a staff perspective we feel
[1:23:24] like that resolution still generally
[1:23:26] spells out our core principles here. I
[1:23:29] think the what we want to know from you
[1:23:31] and what we want to know from the
[1:23:32] membership is just what should the
[1:23:35] priorities be if any going into 2027
[1:23:37] session beyond what we already have that resolution ideal world all these
[1:23:41] decisions are made at city hall the
[1:23:43] legal framework in Utah's not quite that
[1:23:45] is it worth the heavy political lift to
[1:23:48] try to reverse that entirely or is it
[1:23:50] better to focus on some of the lessons
[1:23:52] we've learned this summer like for
[1:23:54] example state for a different
[1:23:56] environmental standard that she uses
[1:23:57] than your firec use. So two different
[1:24:00] sections of the code, the two different
[1:24:01] environmental standards. I didn't
[1:24:03] realize that until the deep dive over
[1:24:05] the last few weeks that they your fire
[1:24:07] chief and the state forester are using
[1:24:08] different that seems like something we
[1:24:11] should look at, right? So slide
[1:24:13] questions open, but uh any thoughts that
[1:24:16] people want to bring up while we're all
[1:24:17] together?
[1:24:19] >> I think it would be fascinating to know
[1:24:22] how many fires have actually started
[1:24:24] from fireworks.
[1:24:26] Um and then as you know as again we were
[1:24:30] probably one of the most conservative on
[1:24:32] fireworks in New York City starting you
[1:24:34] know in May. Um but we talked about this
[1:24:37] on the call was fire doesn't know
[1:24:39] boundaries. So if some so we we were
[1:24:41] thinking if he didn't do it and it came
[1:24:43] over the mountain and so this one is
[1:24:45] kind of a hard one for me because I it's
[1:24:48] not municipal boundaries. It's literally
[1:24:50] your entire firewall but all the all the
[1:24:53] surrounding of your cities. Um, so if
[1:24:55] one city doesn't do it and the other
[1:24:57] city does, then I don't know. This one's
[1:24:59] hard.
[1:25:00] >> Um,
[1:25:01] >> I agree. There's some really interesting
[1:25:03] regional.
[1:25:04] >> Also, someone tell me why fireworks are
[1:25:05] patriotic.
[1:25:08] >> Like it's so it's like so ingrained in
[1:25:10] people and I don't know. There's a
[1:25:12] letter that John Adams wrote to Abigail
[1:25:13] Adams that talks about how the 4th of
[1:25:15] July should be celebrated going forward
[1:25:17] and he specifically mentions fireworks.
[1:25:19] Okay. I actually sent it to my chief and
[1:25:22] other chief were like why why
[1:25:25] >> never know and I'm like why
[1:25:28] don't make me anymore
[1:25:36] » maybe bring back
[1:25:43] I just have never understood the
[1:25:45] correlation between the two it's it's
[1:25:47] one that I I have often seen sited is
[1:25:49] about like here here one of our key
[1:25:52] founding fathers told us how to
[1:25:53] celebrate it. How can you possibly screw
[1:25:55] up his checklist?
[1:25:58] So
[1:25:59] the winter
[1:26:03] fireworks all winter. Um, one of the
[1:26:06] things I think that would be interesting
[1:26:07] for us to talk about at LBC is there's
[1:26:10] definitely
[1:26:12] some in the uh the retail community that
[1:26:16] um I think we're we're willing to be
[1:26:18] very collaborative players with the hope
[1:26:21] that um we might support a oneoff late
[1:26:25] fall
[1:26:26] makeup celebration when when conditions
[1:26:30] might be better. So I would be curious
[1:26:33] for us to get a gauge on on
[1:26:38] >> I have heard about air quality
[1:26:41] primary concern if we do that on Monday.
[1:26:44] Not like we don't do it already.
[1:26:47] >> But I agree. I think
[1:26:50] >> it would be helpful to know where
[1:26:55] » I would say that it could actually this
[1:26:57] goes back to the chiefs and
[1:27:00] that could actually be a time when
[1:27:02] you're even drier
[1:27:06] if you don't get that paint. So now
[1:27:08] you're putting your cars down. You have
[1:27:12] [clears throat] bad time. So I'm not
[1:27:13] sure if our fire season has a time frame
[1:27:17] anymore. It used to be like summer
[1:27:19] months. Now it's almost year round. I
[1:27:21] think that could be a dangerous thing to
[1:27:23] say, oh we're going to have a fire
[1:27:26] fireworks in the fall when we haven't
[1:27:28] had rain for two months since that time.
[1:27:31] So, and I this this goes back when
[1:27:34] obvious we made the decisions on the 2nd
[1:27:37] of July and on the 22nd of July and is
[1:27:42] there a way to make that decision so
[1:27:44] that neighbors and cities are not so
[1:27:47] confused maybe extended so that's too
[1:27:50] weakened but
[1:27:52] >> do conditions change on short notice?
[1:27:55] >> They [clears throat] do change on short
[1:27:56] notice. Yes, life changes on short
[1:27:58] notice but uh in this case I think it's
[1:28:02] we we spun around quite fast and quick
[1:28:05] and then and their cities are also and
[1:28:08] you also have to deal with teenagers
[1:28:09] they don't so I think of making a
[1:28:12] decision a little bit earlier and maybe
[1:28:14] extend it that was my only take so I
[1:28:17] think as a person who was involved in
[1:28:19] the daily conversations and and then
[1:28:22] officers I want to thank them prior to
[1:28:26] the webinars and the emails you were all
[1:28:28] getting as league members and league
[1:28:29] members in general. We were in daily
[1:28:31] communication as I was updating them on
[1:28:33] the governor and forester were
[1:28:34] considering we sent them a memo in
[1:28:37] between the holidays laying out here are
[1:28:39] our recommendations as we get to pioneer
[1:28:42] and then what kept coming back from the
[1:28:45] governor's office and I and you can
[1:28:47] judge good, better and different. I
[1:28:48] think this was a fair consideration on
[1:28:50] their part was they said we see these
[1:28:53] weather patterns and we want to be fair
[1:28:56] to what we said leading forth that we
[1:28:58] are going to make a decision based on
[1:28:59] the environmental conditions and so they
[1:29:02] waited until the last possible minute to
[1:29:03] get the most accurate environmental
[1:29:05] conditions. The drawback of course was
[1:29:07] communication and the execution
[1:29:08] everything else but that was that was
[1:29:09] the trade-off. Now again the legal
[1:29:11] framework we're operating under right
[1:29:12] now is that that decision is made by the
[1:29:15] governor. He gave power to the forester
[1:29:18] and then we used her authority over
[1:29:20] finer day and over independence day
[1:29:24] completely changing that legal framework
[1:29:26] to where the decisions back entirely
[1:29:29] enhance local government would be easier
[1:29:31] from a local government perspective I
[1:29:33] think would it would take an incredible
[1:29:36] amount of political capital um if it's
[1:29:38] even possible to move that forward at
[1:29:40] the capital today is not the day to make
[1:29:42] that decision what we're hoping through
[1:29:44] this slido question and that just over
[1:29:46] the next few days as you're thinking
[1:29:47] about next week and you're looking at
[1:29:49] the survey data we've already gathered.
[1:29:50] What else do we want to know from our
[1:29:52] members so that we can prioritize the
[1:29:54] next steps?
[1:29:56] Um I I would love to know if if cities
[1:29:59] reflected and feel like they made the
[1:30:01] right decisions and why how are they
[1:30:02] quantifying that they made the right
[1:30:04] submitted um and then I have about zero
[1:30:06] interest in a bonus blow things up
[1:30:08] today. Mapleton blows stuff up already.
[1:30:10] We we tightened our boundaries up but the idea of expending resources and
[1:30:16] potential risk for one other day to
[1:30:19] compensate for a retail crisis is not
[1:30:22] well we haven't asked the question
[1:30:24] broadly and I'm curious how many would
[1:30:25] be in your thought process versus others
[1:30:28] I've heard who said oh that would be a
[1:30:30] great idea but we just don't know and so
[1:30:32] we haven't said anything in detail to
[1:30:34] the to the legislature yet about that
[1:30:37] one thing on the feedback from residents
[1:30:41] the survey results after the fourth
[1:30:43] which you get with 115 response versus
[1:30:45] 31 response. We asked you to tell us
[1:30:49] what the general feedback was from
[1:30:50] residents on a scale of very supportive
[1:30:53] to to very opposed seven point scale.
[1:30:57] 41% of you reported the public was very
[1:31:00] supportive of what the city did. 36%
[1:31:02] reported supportive. 7% reported
[1:31:04] slightly supportive. So those three on
[1:31:06] the supportive scale were 83%.
[1:31:09] And then another 7% said neither
[1:31:11] supportive or opposed. So only 10% said
[1:31:15] our our residents were opposed to what
[1:31:17] we did. Now you'll notice I didn't frame
[1:31:19] the question of
[1:31:21] >> which one did you
[1:31:24] took action. Did your resident support
[1:31:26] you? And it was overwhelming. Yes. We
[1:31:27] asked that same question after pioneer
[1:31:30] day but the survey result or the survey
[1:31:32] sample size is just a little bit
[1:31:33] smaller. Can you split those out to us
[1:31:35] so we can understand the decision that
[1:31:37] was made and where the support
[1:31:39] >> because I mean I think about our
[1:31:40] situation we constrained a little bit
[1:31:42] but still laugh
[1:31:43] >> and we had citizens saying you're
[1:31:46] willing to burn down all our houses for
[1:31:48] fireworks or America let's blow stuff
[1:31:51] up. So like it was it was a little bit
[1:31:54] so I'm curious.
[1:31:56] >> Yeah. So yes, our our data does we can
[1:31:59] separate it to say which you may add and
[1:32:02] then again in independent days case 83%
[1:32:05] of cities just use the full band 17%
[1:32:08] either didn't use the ban or used it
[1:32:09] partially then that completely flipped
[1:32:12] for pioneer day but we don't have the
[1:32:14] same robust data set so that'll be part
[1:32:17] of the goal LPC is try to fill up the
[1:32:20] data set so we can sort of
[1:32:23] the long need for fireworks in that fall
[1:32:27] time. Come up to West Point. It's Yeah,
[1:32:30] they have their illumination event. It's
[1:32:31] like Disney levels.
[1:32:34] Okay.
[1:32:35] >> Um
[1:32:37] we do have New Year's and I I expect
[1:32:41] there were some people in our community,
[1:32:43] even though they could, they chose not
[1:32:44] to. And I don't think they're going to
[1:32:46] give the fireworks back. So, I'm
[1:32:48] expecting that New Year's will be real.
[1:32:51] >> Honestly, we probably don't want to
[1:32:52] store, right?
[1:32:55] There's not only New Year's, there's
[1:32:56] also Chinese New Year's
[1:32:58] >> that happens in a similar time frame
[1:33:01] kind of winter time frame.
[1:33:03] >> Um,
[1:33:05] so I guess to the ULCTAC team, you feel
[1:33:08] like this is going to get you what you
[1:33:10] need to inform LPC. I think there's
[1:33:14] going to be what would we like to talk
[1:33:16] about and then there's going to be what
[1:33:18] the legislature will tell us that they
[1:33:21] would like us to talk about. that I'm
[1:33:23] willing to talk about and and there may be overlap in that ven diagram
[1:33:27] or the circles may be
[1:33:30] >> very far which is why we're trying to
[1:33:32] make sure we know what what our members
[1:33:35] would like to see accomplished here so
[1:33:37] that as we get into sausage making maybe
[1:33:39] we say these three things are really
[1:33:42] important to us but we can live with the
[1:33:43] change over here
[1:33:45] that's what we're trying to gather now
[1:33:47] before we're meeting the credit I'm
[1:33:49] doing and I chatted late in July
[1:33:52] And I told him, "We've learned some
[1:33:54] interesting lessons like I mentioned the
[1:33:55] environmental definition." He said, "I
[1:33:58] didn't know that." And I said, "I'd like
[1:34:00] to sit down with you and just walk
[1:34:02] through some of these lessons learned
[1:34:04] because legislators supported him in
[1:34:06] this space and he agreed to do so." So
[1:34:07] that's why we're trying to gather the
[1:34:08] information and take back forth those
[1:34:11] conversations. So
[1:34:13] Doug is a very thoughtful lot that he's
[1:34:16] going to be doing some of these efforts.
[1:34:18] Um,
[1:34:20] I think it's important not to have
[1:34:22] explosive personalities.
[1:34:31] » So, this question
[1:34:33] come up next few days, let us know so we
[1:34:35] can figure out the right questions to
[1:34:36] ask at LPC. It'll be a very heavy slide
[1:34:38] at LPC. Uh, just because a lot of broken
[1:34:41] pieces. Um, next in the property tax
[1:34:44] space in your in your packet you have
[1:34:48] Alexa's phenomenal research about what's
[1:34:51] been going on in the property tax space.
[1:34:52] So Alexa, can you just take a moment to
[1:34:55] give a high level overview of what
[1:34:57] you've done over the last few months
[1:34:59] tracking what's happening in the
[1:35:00] property tax world?
[1:35:01] >> Yeah, absolutely. I will be quick for
[1:35:04] time sake, but in bountiful I told you
[1:35:06] all that we had been working on
[1:35:07] collecting property tax impact schedules
[1:35:10] from every city increasing proposing to
[1:35:12] increase property taxes as of late May.
[1:35:15] This memo was built off of that data,
[1:35:17] those property tax impact schedules from
[1:35:19] May. Since then, we have collected data
[1:35:22] from data on increase amounts from the
[1:35:24] June 22nd levy deadline, the July
[1:35:26] notices, and then we also will collect
[1:35:29] data on the increase amounts like when
[1:35:31] all is said and done after the choose
[1:35:33] and taxation hearing. So, our goal with
[1:35:35] collecting all of this data is to be
[1:35:37] able to, of course, say how many cities
[1:35:38] are proposing to increase property
[1:35:40] taxes, what those proposed increases are
[1:35:43] for, and if we've seen the changes made
[1:35:47] from these past legislative session, if
[1:35:49] those changes have resulted in the
[1:35:51] objectives that the legislature wanted
[1:35:53] to see, which is bringing the public
[1:35:54] into the process as early as possible
[1:35:57] and thus the city being more responsive
[1:35:59] to public feedback about property tax
[1:36:01] increases. So, you have the memo in
[1:36:03] front of you, so I won't spend too much
[1:36:04] time on these points. And again, I'm
[1:36:06] planning on updating all of this with
[1:36:08] that new data from June, July, and
[1:36:10] August. But first, we found that there's
[1:36:12] 52 there's 78 total entities proposing
[1:36:14] to increase property taxes in 52 of
[1:36:17] these are cities. The median increase is
[1:36:19] 15% or 28,43.
[1:36:23] We found that public safety accounted
[1:36:24] for the biggest variation in those
[1:36:26] increase amounts. So, cities that are
[1:36:28] increasing property taxes in part are
[1:36:30] all to cover public safety expenses are
[1:36:33] have a median increase of $465,000,
[1:36:36] which is about $489% higher than the
[1:36:39] median increase for those cities that
[1:36:41] are increasing property taxes for
[1:36:42] reasons other than public safety
[1:36:44] expenses. Um, similarly, we found that
[1:36:46] 63% of cities um that are increasing
[1:36:50] property taxes are doing so because of
[1:36:51] public safety. And for 30% of those
[1:36:54] municipalities or 30% of the total
[1:36:56] municipalities going through truth and
[1:36:58] taxation, 100% of the increase is going
[1:37:00] to be used for public safety. We also
[1:37:02] looked into cities such as Mayor Burton
[1:37:04] that have opted to do more regular
[1:37:06] increases at a lower amount more so to
[1:37:09] keep in line with rising costs costs as
[1:37:12] opposed to maybe providing like
[1:37:14] extensive enhanced services. And we
[1:37:16] found that those communities on average
[1:37:18] have a 55% lower median proposed
[1:37:21] increase as opposed to cities that are
[1:37:22] increasing property taxes to provide
[1:37:24] enhanced services. We looked at other
[1:37:26] reasons for why cities are proposing
[1:37:28] increases for their property taxes. So,
[1:37:30] new employees, capital improvement
[1:37:32] projects, and infrastructure repairs and
[1:37:34] maintenance, parks and recreation costs,
[1:37:36] and employee cost of living adjustments
[1:37:38] and merit increases. So, we've taken
[1:37:40] note of all of that. And then we also
[1:37:42] looked into cities that originally
[1:37:43] proposed to increase property taxes but
[1:37:46] since then have decided to back out and
[1:37:48] not do an increase this year. So we
[1:37:49] think that a lot of that that though
[1:37:51] that's 14 different municipalities. And
[1:37:53] we think a lot of that is accounted for
[1:37:55] because cities heard from residents
[1:37:57] earlier in the process that said, hey,
[1:37:58] there's other ways that we could work
[1:38:00] this out. There's other ways we could do
[1:38:02] the budget. We can hold off an increase
[1:38:03] for this year. And cities were
[1:38:04] responsive to that and decided not to go
[1:38:07] property tax increase. So please review.
[1:38:09] I ask you that you review this memo and
[1:38:11] as I'm putting together research from
[1:38:13] June, July, and August, if there's other
[1:38:15] data points that you think would be
[1:38:16] valuable for us to share with legislator
[1:38:18] legislators, please let me know. Um, and
[1:38:21] yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions
[1:38:22] that
[1:38:24] I think we have a good story to tell.
[1:38:29] » Go ahead.
[1:38:33] Every now and then we have to do
[1:38:35] [clears throat] that because my basic
[1:38:37] point there are over a thousand entities
[1:38:39] that could have raised property taxes in
[1:38:41] the state. We ended up with about 78.
[1:38:45] We've got two out
[1:38:48] 260 cities about the same percentage
[1:38:52] including number held off from last year
[1:38:55] or had their uh increases canled.
[1:38:59] all the evidence that they made an
[1:39:01] enormous effort of the legislature
[1:39:03] involved while there's some tough
[1:39:06] circumstances well make it work made it
[1:39:09] work so I mean I would say to all of us
[1:39:11] here very good job our cities on the
[1:39:14] whole there's a good story
[1:39:17] >> now on that note on a story to tell we
[1:39:20] have shared some of this preliminary
[1:39:21] data with representative Peterson who's
[1:39:23] leaving the legislature through the year
[1:39:25] but as the one who spearheaded house
[1:39:27] bill 236 we've been bringing this back
[1:39:29] to her and about her feedback of what
[1:39:31] would be helpful for her colleagues to
[1:39:32] learn. Uh I spoke with Speaker Schultz
[1:39:35] about this, so he's expecting us to come
[1:39:37] to a presentation to show what cities
[1:39:39] did in the property tax space, but the
[1:39:42] storm clouds are as dark as ever on
[1:39:45] property tax around the country and and
[1:39:48] locally. So, just some situational
[1:39:50] awareness for you. Molly and I were at
[1:39:52] National League of Cities event a couple
[1:39:53] of weeks ago. The Florida League
[1:39:55] presented on Next Battle. Uh they have a governor-led constitutional amendment
[1:40:02] on the ballot in November that long
[1:40:04] story short phases out municipal
[1:40:07] property tax keeps property tax for
[1:40:09] schools phases out municipal and county
[1:40:11] property tax.
[1:40:14] Sorry,
[1:40:15] >> what are they replacing it with?
[1:40:16] >> Nothing.
[1:40:17] >> And in the aggregate it would be a $6
[1:40:20] billion
[1:40:21] shortfall for local governments.
[1:40:25] Florida.
[1:40:26] >> Okay. But what happens in Florida
[1:40:28] doesn't stay in Florida. Ohio has a
[1:40:30] similar constitutional amendment.
[1:40:33] >> I have here from one of our summer
[1:40:36] conferences. This is the essential
[1:40:37] policy solutions from Alec. This is a
[1:40:40] conference that a lot of legislative
[1:40:42] attend. I've got several [clears throat]
[1:40:44] materials I brought back from our team
[1:40:46] that I attended. Interestingly,
[1:40:49] Alec, if you read the property tax
[1:40:50] reform section here, highlights Utah's
[1:40:53] truth and taxation model as a national
[1:40:56] model and saying states should follow
[1:40:58] this. So, we've had a lot of questions
[1:41:00] from state leagues around the country
[1:41:02] like tell us more about your truth and
[1:41:03] taxation approach. Molly and I are
[1:41:06] participating with other state leagues
[1:41:08] through the National League of Cities on
[1:41:10] the property tax and the videos that we
[1:41:13] put together this spring that many of
[1:41:14] your cities used. We shared at our
[1:41:16] National League of Cities conference a
[1:41:17] couple weeks ago that Florida's going to
[1:41:19] use them as as well as other states and
[1:41:21] how to explain property tax to
[1:41:23] residents.
[1:41:25] So, I should take it as a good sign that
[1:41:27] ALEC is holding up our model, but we've
[1:41:30] heard from multiple legislators who are
[1:41:33] still frustrated that Utah doesn't have
[1:41:35] property tax caps and that Utah doesn't
[1:41:37] have more restrictions on property tax.
[1:41:40] And then we've been following the con
[1:41:42] the localized controversies around the
[1:41:44] state and there are several cities where
[1:41:46] we anticipate referendums and in one
[1:41:49] particular city's case the state senator
[1:41:51] who represents that city is one of the
[1:41:53] co-sponsors of the referendum.
[1:41:55] >> So it just gives you a sense of the
[1:41:57] political dynamic around property tax.
[1:41:59] So this is why Alexexas been doing all
[1:42:01] this research about what cities are
[1:42:03] doing so we can take that back to
[1:42:05] legislators and say last year's bill to
[1:42:07] increase transparency and increase
[1:42:09] dialogue with the public and show our
[1:42:10] work. Here's how it worked. Okay, that
[1:42:14] being said, we've got another slide of
[1:42:15] question of your in anticipation of LPC
[1:42:18] next week. What else do you want to
[1:42:19] learn from the members to inform our
[1:42:21] next steps on property tax? Because we
[1:42:23] want to bring back together our advisory
[1:42:25] group on property tax in the midl last
[1:42:27] year. We've made a list and Alexa has
[1:42:29] been the keeper of the list. Just
[1:42:31] technical issues that have arisen.
[1:42:34] Everyone's paying attention to every
[1:42:35] detail. So from Draper to Salt Lake and
[1:42:38] others, we keep getting messages from
[1:42:40] city saying, "Oh, you know, this term is incorrect. Grand Fork highlighted one
[1:42:45] back in May that was not part of last
[1:42:47] year's bills. It's just been in law for
[1:42:49] a while, but it was an inconsistency
[1:42:50] that we caught this year for the first
[1:42:53] time. So that's on our technical list."
[1:42:54] Okay. And then there's also just the
[1:42:57] politics and the communication side. So
[1:42:59] if there's anything else that you want
[1:43:00] to make sure we learn from our
[1:43:01] membership next week and beyond,
[1:43:04] politics are going to heat up. And oh,
[1:43:06] one other thing in the Florida case, the
[1:43:08] Florida governor created a uh a doge for
[1:43:12] local governments. And in that doge for
[1:43:15] local governments, they created a a
[1:43:17] formula where they said anything above
[1:43:19] this formula is by definition local
[1:43:21] government waste. And then they went on
[1:43:23] a road show around the state. I'm not
[1:43:25] making any of this up. While he was
[1:43:26] there, too. And he's been going around
[1:43:29] the state doing video blogs and other
[1:43:31] things pointing out all the waste in
[1:43:33] local governments. And interestingly,
[1:43:35] some of the exact same language that we
[1:43:38] saw from Florida two weeks ago, we are
[1:43:40] now seeing pop up in some of the
[1:43:43] referendum organizers and some of the
[1:43:45] people have been pushing back on local
[1:43:46] properties in Utah. Word for word, the
[1:43:49] same language. The other thing that
[1:43:50] we've been seeing is watching the trends
[1:43:52] in the last few weeks is a lot more push
[1:43:54] back on cities around property tax
[1:43:56] increases. If your city has engaged in
[1:43:58] tax income financing or if you've done a
[1:44:01] pin and saying if you had not done tax
[1:44:03] income and financing, you wouldn't be
[1:44:04] raising my property tax now. So all
[1:44:07] these pieces are are moving around
[1:44:11] longer context than that to be able to
[1:44:14] >> how we were mandated to do that. We were
[1:44:16] told to do it. It was put into law. We
[1:44:17] have to do it because we have to get the
[1:44:19] development built. This is the answer.
[1:44:21] is public financing. This
[1:44:23] way,
[1:44:26] >> so this is why this is why we have the
[1:44:28] open like you as a board between now and
[1:44:31] when we meet in September. What else do
[1:44:32] you want to learn from the members so
[1:44:35] that as we get in the fall, we're
[1:44:36] prioritizing our our political approach
[1:44:39] on property tax. What else do you want
[1:44:41] to know? Because the issue is not going
[1:44:42] away. I think we have a good story to
[1:44:44] tell. Thanks to Alexa and research team
[1:44:46] for everything they've done over the
[1:44:47] last few months, but what else do you
[1:44:49] want to know?
[1:44:53] » Um, while I was at the House Majority
[1:44:56] Caucus fundraiser last week, um,
[1:45:01] the speaker
[1:45:03] uh asked me what my city had done with
[1:45:06] taxation. We we did not have one this
[1:45:08] year. Um, but I talked to him about some
[1:45:11] of the boards I'm on with special
[1:45:12] service districts that did and I talked
[1:45:14] about how helpful I thought the tax
[1:45:16] impact statement was. Um, he had an
[1:45:18] interesting comment uh and feedback
[1:45:21] which I'll just share. He he said he
[1:45:24] really hopes cities will consider doing
[1:45:27] annual small increases. Um, and I let
[1:45:33] him know that we would be having some
[1:45:34] data to share. So I um in add
[1:45:46] both of them last week and so be setting
[1:45:48] an appointment once truth and taxation
[1:45:50] season was over. But there's still enough hearings this week
[1:45:53] and next week. We want to wait till
[1:45:55] season's over and we know the lay of the
[1:45:57] land and then we can bring the full
[1:45:59] data. But that's why this is your
[1:46:00] window. There's other things you want us
[1:46:01] to to gather. You may need to know now
[1:46:04] so we can maximize the next couple
[1:46:06] weeks.
[1:46:06] >> It was worth had our hearings already.
[1:46:08] We had two people show up and only one
[1:46:14] » hearings. That's that's the key word.
[1:46:16] Like
[1:46:17] >> hearings and then the hearings are the
[1:46:18] hearings of the hearings of the
[1:46:20] hearings.
[1:46:21] >> We did one of the technical cleanup
[1:46:22] pieces.
[1:46:24] >> Yeah.
[1:46:26] reinforcing
[1:46:29] question attendance at the hearing.
[1:46:33] [clears throat]
[1:46:33] >> How many people showed up?
[1:46:37] >> We might have maybe not including
[1:46:46] » we had le staff go to quite a few
[1:46:48] taxation hearings so we could watch
[1:46:49] them. But if Representative Karen
[1:46:50] Peterson were here, she would say the
[1:46:52] whole purpose of her bill was to not
[1:46:55] increase the turnout in August. It was
[1:46:56] to increase the turnout in May. But the
[1:46:58] point is it work.
[1:46:59] >> Yeah. And I I think again just based on
[1:47:01] feedback we had more people show up in B
[1:47:03] otherwise. But that would be a good data
[1:47:05] point actually to ask next week is did
[1:47:07] you see an increase in participation in
[1:47:09] May?
[1:47:09] >> So let's let's add that. Okay.
[1:47:12] >> I'm putting it in the slides so that you
[1:47:13] guys won't remember it.
[1:47:17] >> Okay. We're going to keep going. um
[1:47:21] on the proper tax project. So Justin, do
[1:47:24] you want to ask a quick question on the
[1:47:25] process piece and then I'll give an
[1:47:26] update on the two advisory committees
[1:47:28] and then finish up?
[1:47:29] >> Thank you. And this is uh we'll do this
[1:47:31] quick this is sort of the start of a
[1:47:32] discussion not
[1:47:34] um we haven't we haven't passed a
[1:47:37] resolution um for about three years at
[1:47:40] our annual conference. Uh we used to do
[1:47:42] a lot more resolutions. Um, for some of
[1:47:44] you, you may have never actually gone
[1:47:46] through the resolution process, and some
[1:47:48] of you have fond or less fond memories
[1:47:50] of certain resolutions, depending on
[1:47:53] what that looks like. Um, many other
[1:47:55] leagues around the country um, bifurcate
[1:47:59] the resolution process and policy
[1:48:01] process. We don't really have anything
[1:48:03] that is a standard policy platform right
[1:48:06] now. Um, and so that's all by way of
[1:48:08] background. The other thing that we do
[1:48:10] that many other leagues around the
[1:48:11] country don't do is we check in with our
[1:48:13] members all the time during session we
[1:48:16] meet every week in LBC uh we meet you
[1:48:19] know almost monthly during the offseason
[1:48:22] um we're meeting with you as a board
[1:48:24] talk about policy issues so from a
[1:48:26] policy platform or resolutions
[1:48:28] perspective we almost have de direct
[1:48:30] democracy here where you get away on
[1:48:33] pretty much everything we do and so all
[1:48:36] of that background is to sort of pose a
[1:48:38] question as we go forward and this is
[1:48:40] something I want you to think about. We
[1:48:41] can come back and talk about it next
[1:48:42] month um as we come back in the board.
[1:48:45] But what should our resolution policy
[1:48:47] platform process look like? Um we've got
[1:48:50] a lot of old resolutions that are
[1:48:53] somewhat informative. Some of them help
[1:48:54] us. We look back and we say, "Yeah,
[1:48:56] that's correct." But we haven't had a
[1:48:58] resolution in years where we haven't
[1:48:59] also turned around to LBC and said,
[1:49:01] "Here's what a resolution says, but now
[1:49:04] we've got a bill. So what do we want to
[1:49:06] do with that?" um do we follow the
[1:49:08] resolution or we have a negotiation of
[1:49:10] reason that we're not going to quite
[1:49:11] follow the resolution? Um doing our
[1:49:13] resolutions at annual in the fall is
[1:49:16] months away from session um when we
[1:49:19] actually get around to debating the
[1:49:20] actual bills. Um so that's again a lot
[1:49:24] of background um and we get some quick
[1:49:26] feedback now kind of plant in your mind
[1:49:29] going forward. Um what should this look
[1:49:32] like? Are resolutions something that we
[1:49:34] should be done with or are the
[1:49:35] resolutions we should use as at a
[1:49:38] different time? For example, do we have
[1:49:40] resolutions that are by the board? Um,
[1:49:43] you know, more around local officials
[1:49:45] face. So, the first of the session we
[1:49:47] say, all right, now we kind of know what
[1:49:49] the f looks like this year. Um, do we
[1:49:52] have a policy platform that sort of lays
[1:49:54] out, you know, here's where we are on
[1:49:56] both issues and it's a little bit more
[1:49:57] vague, but it gives us some guidance
[1:49:59] going forward. The other thing um is
[1:50:02] we've had some pretty stable leadership
[1:50:04] at the league. Um so we have some
[1:50:06] institutional memory. Heaven forbid if
[1:50:08] we got to a place where we're switching
[1:50:09] over on the regular with staff, then
[1:50:12] maybe resolution matter more because
[1:50:14] that formula. So I throw all of that out
[1:50:16] there um to ask the question without
[1:50:19] expecting an answer right now, but for
[1:50:21] you to all go back and think about this
[1:50:24] is well what should our process look
[1:50:25] like as far as setting some policies? Do
[1:50:28] we make a multiple platform? Should we
[1:50:29] change what resolutions look like? Do we
[1:50:31] just talk to you so dar often it really
[1:50:33] doesn't matter what those resolutions
[1:50:34] say anyway? Um but what what should that
[1:50:37] look like? So throw it out there. You
[1:50:39] can give me some gut reaction here um in
[1:50:42] the two minutes we have left. We still
[1:50:44] have to answer some other things, but
[1:50:45] really want to plant
[1:50:47] >> plant that question. So any any initial
[1:50:49] thoughts or um
[1:50:52] >> yeah, let's make a resolution on
[1:50:54] resolutions [laughter]
[1:50:57] » just for the sake of time. How about
[1:50:59] everyone puts it in the slido or if the
[1:51:01] slido closes we we can email staff um on
[1:51:06] this question
[1:51:09] and Jared mentioned that we have an
[1:51:11] impact fee resolution draft resolution
[1:51:13] that we brought to the LPC subgroup and
[1:51:16] the reason we're doing that as staff is
[1:51:18] we're trying to align all of us on the
[1:51:20] core principles around impact fees so
[1:51:22] it's less about bills more about those
[1:51:23] core principles so that gets back to
[1:51:25] what Justin was just saying of what role
[1:51:27] is of the board and obviously what we've
[1:51:30] done successfully the last few years and
[1:51:33] Molly's case in point on this is we had
[1:51:36] the board adopt principles on
[1:51:37] homelessness and that you as a board
[1:51:40] adopted those principles and then she's
[1:51:42] put them in action subgroup and over the
[1:51:44] last few years so instead of going all
[1:51:47] the way back to the membership which is
[1:51:49] what we're designed to do we flip it and
[1:51:51] it comes to the board but just indicated
[1:51:53] some things have started doing that with
[1:51:54] some success
[1:51:56] so anyway these open questions and
[1:52:01] whether you fill it out now or think
[1:52:03] about it later, we we welcome feedback.
[1:52:06] We'll have one other slido question
[1:52:07] after this which gets to what Mayor
[1:52:09] Burton was saying earlier about flock.
[1:52:11] Um Justin mentioned water. There's there
[1:52:14] are a lot of big issues that when we met
[1:52:18] in June hadn't really started yet and
[1:52:19] are now starting up. So the last final
[1:52:22] question that you can just advance to is
[1:52:24] if there's anything out there that
[1:52:25] you're hearing from your colleagues or
[1:52:26] your city that you want to make sure is
[1:52:28] on our radar, let us know because
[1:52:30] that'll help us build out the uh the
[1:52:31] next few LPC agendas and the work groups
[1:52:34] and the like. So just anything else
[1:52:37] um on the advocacy front?
[1:52:40] >> The the only other thing I'll add is and
[1:52:42] already we we are fortunate in that we
[1:52:44] do check in with our members very often.
[1:52:46] opportunity.
[1:52:48] We really don't have to guess um very
[1:52:50] often where we're at on things. Um
[1:52:53] during the session, I mean, the officers
[1:52:54] know this. I mean, we have multiple
[1:52:56] calls a week, if not every day um when
[1:52:58] we're checking in on things. So, like I
[1:53:01] say, we we have almost a direct
[1:53:02] democracy here. We're not having to
[1:53:04] guest a lot. So, there's not necessarily
[1:53:06] anything broken with the system, but we
[1:53:08] do want to make sure that we're we're
[1:53:10] capturing things correctly and that um
[1:53:12] that we're getting input the right way.
[1:53:14] uh whatever is the best way to to help
[1:53:16] you know you as board members and our
[1:53:17] larger membership feel like that they
[1:53:19] have input want to make sure that that
[1:53:21] is there to show this isn't a something
[1:53:22] is broken we need to fix it is a is
[1:53:25] there a way we can do this that it works
[1:53:26] better
[1:53:31] as you fill out these last two slid
[1:53:32] questions here's just a quick update on
[1:53:34] the LPC economic development advisory
[1:53:36] subgroup and housing land use advisory
[1:53:38] subgroup several of you are on those
[1:53:40] subgroups because you as a board told us
[1:53:42] you wanted to make sure you individually
[1:53:44] we're each at that subgroup level rather
[1:53:47] than waiting for things to come back to
[1:53:48] you. So we have a good number of board
[1:53:50] members on housing land use and a couple
[1:53:52] on economic development
[1:53:55] coming back from my summer travels. I
[1:53:57] have Alex uh state artificial
[1:54:00] intelligence policy toolkit and I have
[1:54:03] the unleash prosperity boomsday not
[1:54:05] doomsday AI will make us richer happier
[1:54:06] and healthier if anybody wants to take a
[1:54:08] look at these because the primary focus
[1:54:11] of that conference was AI data centers
[1:54:13] and the like and they were very familiar
[1:54:15] with our Boxelder County back pattern um
[1:54:17] in Utah and that was what I spent a lot
[1:54:20] of time talking to our legislators with
[1:54:21] that about and I think there's some
[1:54:23] interesting lessons learned and um from
[1:54:26] that and we got some good feedback from
[1:54:27] our economic development group around
[1:54:29] the bud for test on tax financing pits
[1:54:32] and and data center. So if if you're not
[1:54:36] involved in the economic development
[1:54:38] work group or want to be or want to have
[1:54:39] somebody from your city, that's what
[1:54:40] they're talking about. That's why we
[1:54:41] make sure you head on to the agenda in
[1:54:43] the housing and land use space also from
[1:54:46] my summer conferences. This is one of
[1:54:48] many handouts I picked up around
[1:54:50] housing. This is from George Mason
[1:54:52] University. Cutting zoning down size
[1:54:55] reducing minimum lot size requirements
[1:54:57] can unleash attainable housing. And this
[1:55:01] could have come from any number of
[1:55:02] legislators
[1:55:04] here as well. We've got some interesting
[1:55:06] case studies from some Utah cities that
[1:55:09] are doing some interesting things to
[1:55:10] zoning that we're going to be bringing
[1:55:12] forward internally over the next over
[1:55:14] the next few weeks. We received a copy
[1:55:16] of draft legislation from Representative
[1:55:18] Ward and from Senator Filillmore. Uh
[1:55:20] both of those bills would basically
[1:55:22] erode zoning authority. So unfortunately
[1:55:25] not a surprise based on battles that
[1:55:26] we've had in recent years with
[1:55:28] legislation that they've both sponsored,
[1:55:30] but we're meeting with both of them
[1:55:31] later this week. So we may bring that to
[1:55:33] LPC next week or we may run it through
[1:55:35] the advisory group first. Uh but just
[1:55:37] know that that those bills are out
[1:55:39] there. Uh and there's
[1:55:42] we we are gathering data. Carson did a
[1:55:44] great job looking through data that we
[1:55:46] already have about how cities have zoned
[1:55:48] for smaller lots and what's happening on
[1:55:50] those smaller lots. And then if there
[1:55:52] are cities that are not zoning for
[1:55:53] smaller lots, um that's a helpful data
[1:55:55] point. Also, Alexa and Carson have done
[1:55:59] some outreach to other places in the
[1:56:01] country. So Alexa did some outreach
[1:56:03] based on discussion at the board level
[1:56:05] and the advisory group about the use of
[1:56:06] AI and plan review and some really
[1:56:09] interesting stuff from from our
[1:56:11] counterparts of cities in Wyoming. And
[1:56:12] then Carson and Alexa did some outreach
[1:56:15] to our counterparts in Michigan who have
[1:56:17] implemented a free approved process and
[1:56:20] a toolkit based on the feedback we got
[1:56:23] from that project. So we'll be reporting
[1:56:25] that back, but just wanted to give you
[1:56:26] that overview and thanks again to our
[1:56:27] research team that have been top-notch
[1:56:29] this summer following up on feedback. So
[1:56:32] if there's anything we're missing that
[1:56:34] it's not yet on the radar that Carson
[1:56:36] would just go about make the last slide
[1:56:38] question just put it in and make sure
[1:56:41] we've got it so we can build out LBC
[1:56:43] agenda and other potential work groups.
[1:56:46] Okay with that Mayor Bradshaw I'm just
[1:56:48] going to hit the executive director
[1:56:49] report just anything else in the space.
[1:56:52] Okay. All right. Uh last thing national
[1:56:56] report we actually hit that previously.
[1:56:59] board of directors nominations process
[1:57:01] and time frame. In the packet, Nick has
[1:57:03] the list of those of you whose board
[1:57:05] terms are ending. You can nominate
[1:57:08] yourself. You can apply somebody else
[1:57:10] nominate you, but just about the end of
[1:57:11] the month is the deadline. And
[1:57:13] currently, we have 14 nominations for
[1:57:16] board spots, uh, which is about twice
[1:57:19] the amount of spots we have available.
[1:57:20] And we have five nominations currently
[1:57:22] for second vice president for that one
[1:57:24] spot. Again, the deadline is the end of
[1:57:26] the month. And then based on the
[1:57:28] feedback you gave us spring in St.
[1:57:29] George, we'll continue with our process
[1:57:31] of building out a nominations committee
[1:57:33] that does not have somebody on it from a
[1:57:35] city who's applying. So if Herman City
[1:57:38] is
[1:57:40] you're on the nonpr
[1:57:45] if somebody from Bountiful was buying to
[1:57:47] be on board, we would not have somebody
[1:57:48] from bountiful on the outpatient screen.
[1:57:51] And so we'll be building that out in the
[1:57:52] next couple weeks. We just want to make
[1:57:54] sure you remember the deadline for both
[1:57:55] the board and the tailor service award.
[1:57:58] Um last year we had 20 somewhat
[1:57:59] applications for Taylor service award
[1:58:01] and and hope to have more of those. Uh
[1:58:04] we also have had the resort community
[1:58:05] caucus has been meeting quarterly which
[1:58:07] has been great and then we'll have our annual summer meeting of the mayor's
[1:58:12] cities first and second class that will
[1:58:14] be in early September. also with related
[1:58:17] to National League of Cities is we sent
[1:58:18] three staffers to National League staff
[1:58:20] workshop and then William the director's
[1:58:22] workshop and then we have Shepard who
[1:58:24] represents us on the National League
[1:58:26] board and I'm just really proud of what
[1:58:29] we do as a small staff and what we
[1:58:32] deliver on behalf of our members. I
[1:58:34] think Mayor Shepard hopefully you feel
[1:58:35] this as well elected official side but
[1:58:37] other state leagues really do look to
[1:58:39] our league as a leader in a lot of these
[1:58:41] spaces. Is that the sense you get as
[1:58:42] well?
[1:58:43] >> Yeah, absolutely. It was good. in our
[1:58:44] last uh meeting this couple weeks ago DC
[1:58:47] to actually sit on a panel joint thing
[1:58:51] with Chris Gambulis which
[1:58:53] [clears throat] was a little bit
[1:58:54] surprising for the whole group that was
[1:58:56] there made up of the realtors and the cities and the planners and the
[1:59:00] homebuilders and to have the cities and
[1:59:02] the home builders come together on a
[1:59:03] panel um was pretty good.
[1:59:06] >> I agree. I agree. So, thank you for
[1:59:09] being there. Last last thing I'll note
[1:59:10] just other news from league membership.
[1:59:12] I don't know if Mayor Peterson from
[1:59:14] North Logan is still on but one of her
[1:59:16] colleague and former league board member
[1:59:19] Mayor Brian Cox, Mayor Pip Park who's
[1:59:21] been in city government for as long as
[1:59:24] I've been at the league is resigning for
[1:59:27] health reasons. So just want to pass
[1:59:30] that person.
[1:59:33] >> He's been terrific. A former league
[1:59:35] board member. So he's he has to focus on
[1:59:39] his health and and I'll certainly miss
[1:59:40] him that his wife is very active in in a
[1:59:43] week. So I just want to acknowledge
[1:59:45] Peterson anything you want to add from
[1:59:46] up north
[1:59:47] >> just that he he's in the currently at in
[1:59:51] the hospital in Murray and we're it's
[1:59:54] been it's we keep hoping that having a
[1:59:57] lighter load will improve his health and
[1:59:59] that's just not been the case. So we he
[2:00:02] does have his replacement officially and
[2:00:05] um she'll be really great too. But yeah,
[2:00:08] it's been it's been hard to see him go.
[2:00:10] He's a good friend.
[2:00:13] >> Thank you very he's awesome. So keep him
[2:00:16] in your thoughts and prayers and his
[2:00:17] family as well.
[2:00:20] That was a sad uh update and yeah, maybe we can have some friends visit.
[2:00:31] » I had agreed to just a few weeks ago.
[2:00:34] You wanted me to pass along was just how
[2:00:36] valuable his time in the league has been
[2:00:39] personally his wife that he will miss.
[2:00:47] Yeah, maybe we can find him as well.
[2:00:51] Nick, one thing on the board of
[2:00:54] directors. Um, we will have a new
[2:00:58] past president for Walker.
[2:01:01] >> Yes.
[2:01:01] >> Yep.
[2:01:03] >> Okay. We have reached the end of our
[2:01:05] meeting. As you know, um, the standard
[2:01:08] is from Janax.
[2:01:10] >> So, Dr.
[2:01:13] Can I add one thing before we get I need
[2:01:15] a I need a permission or I've been asked
[2:01:18] again to run for the president of the
[2:01:20] national cities.
[2:01:23] >> It's it's a long shot no but I've got to
[2:01:25] have a letter from the league to support
[2:01:26] that. So
[2:01:28] we mayor I'm I'm comfortable even though
[2:01:32] that's not on the agenda. We've done
[2:01:34] this several years now and I've written
[2:01:36] that letter.
[2:01:38] I would just ask
[2:01:43] » thumbs up.
[2:01:47] » Okay, with that I'll take a motion to
[2:01:49] adjourn.
[2:01:51] >> All in favor of adjouring, please say I.
[2:01:54] >> I. Thanks everybody.
[2:01:55] >> Thank you all for your work. Thank you
[2:01:57] all in Sarah Focus.