[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.

Board of Directors Meeting August 17, 2026

Transcript