[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6322771,"mediaKeyId","2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28","parentId",2346531,"title","League officers urge partnership, not preemption, on public-safety bills tied to homelessness","audioSeconds",1291,"startMs",941000,"endMs",2232000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28&start=941&end=2232","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28/thumbnail_941000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322771/Utah/League-officers-urge-partnership-not-preemption-on-public-safety-bills-tied-to-homelessness","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322771-83be1d78b571dcef9f6ec8a5e2a93bc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437783&Signature=jjO0tLd4fgTCYYOUgT2n5aalPjGMP272kkIUrXyPUKZUKvWOStOkQHvhNxJ~qh2trY--1f9p3~gnbOR9ilF8hWfIBvZZi4zINAQCl251OJBexrnd6f~KotMEV~GwDfwuko~u6k-jJCnl01wCU3ae6NMh0Jdp9nqWbytfay~tMMRNu2yvg1XPk~PQ50hun0xb7OlXHNI0~PDvWlwGcQbgbTjYrqX-YYuWIr3dC8VchCZFB~H5DKFJEFlh-J5xO6UutjAw7GYhJ2hyvYRbPesmQ9vaUpwPno49UxPgpoR34uD~RY-toAXbgHB82bFsEjH5GqjkTiUPs6tw55CRVhsIHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-19T19:41:33Z","article","The Utah League of Cities and Towns’ Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 debated several bills that tie homelessness policy to public‑safety oversight and funding, concluding staff will recommend opposition to House Bill 465 as drafted and asking staff to pursue partnership alternatives.

League staff described HB 465 as written to require a city of the first class that receives homelessness mitigation funds to enter an agreement with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) with two stated outcomes: “to increase public safety, and the other is to ensure the proper function of city police department with generally accepted standards,” language staff read from the bill. The draft also conditions continuation of gas tax and homelessness mitigation payments on executing that agreement; it would authorize DPS to deploy a rapid‑response team to any city of the first class for events defined in the bill as illegal camping or large‑scale illegal drug distribution.

Committee members said the bill primarily targets Salt Lake City, which released a public safety plan in January after a joint request from state leaders. Councilmember Dan Dugan, Salt Lake City, said the city’s plan “is a comprehensive plan” that “goes through very detailed actions” and that taking mitigation funds away from the city “really kind of hampers what we’re trying to do as far as public safety around those HRCs.”

Mayors and city officials argued the bill is a form of state preemption of local law enforcement. “This bill really forces the state into local law enforcement, and I think it’s problematic for all of us,” Mayor Walker said, adding that local police chiefs are appointed by local officials and that “their ability to work and operate inside our communities… is paramount.” Mayor Zoltanski (Sandy) said the bill’s threat to withhold funds “could have a chilling effect on subsequent cities considering coming online to offer shelter services in the future.”

Speakers also questioned the efficacy of an enforcement‑first approach. “If somebody if our cops transport somebody, they arrest them for camping and they transport them to jail, they're released before the paperwork is done,” Mayor [unnamed] said; “without more jail space or housing options, you can’t solve this problem with enforcement.” Multiple mayors and police‑related officials echoed that enforcement alone is unlikely to reduce unsheltered populations and recommended state support for system changes and resources rather than fiscal penalties.

League staff and several officers said they will recommend opposing HB 465 as drafted and pursue alternatives that stress negotiated partnership with DPS, clearer operational rules for any rapid‑response team, and removal of the threat to withhold gas tax or mitigation funds. Staff said they will continue to refine possible alternatives and present them to the committee and to legislators.

The committee discussed related shelter and winter‑response bills being tracked this session. Staff reviewed House Bill 505 (streamlining reporting for shelter cities and defining camping on state land), HB 329 (shelter‑county advisory board, mitigation allocations and operations, and penalties for controlled‑substance activity near shelters), and related measures (for example, requiring objective, blinded reviews for winter response site selection). Staff said HB 505 was drafted in response to requests from shelter cities and that some language is expected to change as the bills move through the session.

Staff asked members to talk with local police chiefs and county partners and to use Slido feedback to indicate priorities. The committee left the position on HB 465 as “oppose as drafted” while asking staff to work on partnership alternatives that would avoid financial penalties to cities and address operational questions about any DPS response team.

Looking ahead, staff said other homelessness bills (including those addressing mitigation fund reporting, winter response site selection and liability, and program coordination) are likely to need aligning clauses; members from shelter cities were asked to follow up with staff for granular drafting discussions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 18, 2025 Legislative Policy Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The Utah League of Cities and Towns’ Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 debated several bills that tie homelessness policy to public‑safety oversight and funding, concluding staff will recommend opposition to House Bill 465 as drafted and asking staff to pursue partnership alternatives.","taxTitle","Utah League of Cities and Towns, Utah Lobbyist / NGO, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",76712,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6322756,"LPC opposes bill that would allow expanded gravel operations without local approval; members cite health, process concerns and vote to oppose",670,3555000,4225000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28&start=3555&end=4225","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28/thumbnail_3555000.jpg","/articles/6322756/Utah/LPC-opposes-bill-that-would-allow-expanded-gravel-operations-without-local-approval-members-cite-health-process-concerns-and-vote-to-oppose","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322756-459f4dfca4f52ac7ec080c0bf60fa710/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437783&Signature=e4WPoK~xE0YqQLQe2BmqYGdbZSd15MBQ5NMGwtaFHMfesEE4zoIlQCnD5Z1A88UpTjte8YYUahDufSviWtyKQA9IOih0r374i5O6x0bm59V7VNy7XpDRalo6pJSaU8xSfW4TSAd3883~LFDdoZhSvDx7eMw~GaqBgZlVuZzUcF9mpXO-DMj5ADTNkeKsJR3eovxanqm2MUa5MGqjSqmHyfQqWf0zI37CO7NHSGJ1W8NqXSkhXEY~ys9KztBMTWtwlswQkZJ7npXYMX~O6QEj1drsP8qjrL3TK5MJPkNfnWgU9j0y9vJirpFcCfZEMvqZS2-Wu-wlac5YzD3iwM1lLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The League’s Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 voted to oppose a bill that would allow gravel operations to expand onto land the operator owns or controls without standard local approvals, citing public‑health, process and local‑control concerns.

League staff summarized the substitute as allowing expanded vesting for gravel operations if an operator owned or controlled the land by Jan. 1, 2026, and had not ceased operations for 24 months. The sub also extended a municipality’s notice and public‑hearing window from 10 days to 30 days and authorized a municipality to impose mitigation standards only where the city makes a finding of threat to health, safety or welfare; an operator could not be prohibited from expanding if it agreed to mitigation standards that complied with state law.

Members argued the substitute still leaves municipalities insufficient time and technical capacity to evaluate health and environmental impacts. “Thirty days is not enough to do a comprehensive study,” a mayor said during debate. Lynn Pays (Sandy City) and others noted the draft was ambiguous about whether new expansion land had to be contiguous to an existing pit or could be anywhere in the state, and warned communities could face new pits with limited notice.

Ken Lethem (North Salt Lake) said some negotiated changes were improvements but recommended opposing the bill because the contiguous/adjacent‑land provisions and the high evidentiary standard for municipalities to block an expansion are inadequate. The motion to change the League position from “pending” to “oppose” was seconded by Jeff Silvestri (Millcreek) and approved by voice vote with no recorded dissent in the room.

Staff noted negotiated additions in the sub—an owner notice requirement, a 30‑day public hearing option, a January 1, 2026 vesting cutoff and a 24‑month non‑cessation rule—but said several members nevertheless viewed the substitute as an unacceptable preemption of local land‑use authority. The committee instructed staff to update the League’s position to oppose the bill and to continue working on mitigation language with the sponsor where possible.","After extended debate the Legislative Policy Committee voted to oppose a bill that would let gravel operators expand to new land they own or control without municipal approval, with negotiated mitigations but tight timelines and vesting language that members said leave cities no time to respond.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6322761,"League cautious on records and audit bills; support for law‑trained records director, questions on balancing test and audit access",653,2262000,2915000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28&start=2262&end=2915","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28/thumbnail_2262000.jpg","/articles/6322761/Utah/League-cautious-on-records-and-audit-bills-support-for-lawtrained-records-director-questions-on-balancing-test-and-audit-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322761-4baa16bf9db0e9095436364d81252719/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437783&Signature=VXSiMNB65R6bZBQhVpAGe4LbLC1Goqj7Rhj~3HPDF1QHh37kiri60sxPDyJshG~1St7mdttOTMC1sXT5pl3jm7ffsZ0IYyb6gPMw6ZhPa9~vmWmtKtURBDpMy-3tBw9~bs14oHI-pT6l24Yh3RAx3mbYcg0quix9uLA2dGz4UHjU4~zxu~0IIBqCNxNVcwHxJ4iHtretuY~yTCqEFVFVoRvHkjbnYhdcnViDuD3XLFdASp45Lst80owutw1kUxLTgbYjjDrQO~2kI6rwW3ZocuhqLn5nO9yNjc~dUAYmCLDFGPCeGEo4wkKtUW6zdnnMBlHqaXM6uPDSaTPX71APHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The League’s Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 reviewed multiple bills affecting records management, public‑records processes and legislative audits, expressing conditional support for a structural change to the state records process while cautioning against language that would reduce public access or remove procedural protections.

Jared, League staff, summarized SB 277, a government records management bill that would replace the multi‑member state records committee with a single, governor‑appointed, legally trained director and create a new government records office. “We feel like this is good because… there will be a legal trained, individual knowledgeable in records law that will be the director,” Jared said. League staff signaled support for the structural change but noted stakeholders are negotiating the fate of the “balancing test” the records committee currently uses to weigh access versus restriction.

Lynn Pays (Sandy City) urged caution: media and public perception could be that the change restricts access to government documents. “If we come out in support of that, there's a good chance that our citizens will feel like we are in favor of restricting public access to government documents,” she said.

Dave Qualey (Salt Lake City) described operational problems with the current committee—long, inconsistent hearings and decisions by members who are not law‑trained—and said the balancing test has yielded problematic outcomes in some cases; he also urged clarity on process improvements that would avoid inconsistent results.

On legislative audit changes (SB 154 sub 1 and related SJR 4), staff reported the substitute improved the original draft but retained concerning procedures. The substitute creates a process for the legislative auditor general to request records and for a governmental entity to assert privilege, with an arbitrator selected by the auditor general to rule within seven days; staff said the sub still “favors access to the legislative auditor general” and that the arbitrator fee exposure—requiring governmental entities to reimburse the arbitrator if they lose—raises procedural fairness concerns.

Committee members also discussed a separate bill that would make certain obstructive acts against legislative audits misdemeanors; staff said the concept is acceptable but language needs tightening.

Staff indicated they will continue working with sponsors on the balancing test language and on guardrails for legislative audit access and potential sharing of material obtained by auditors. The committee’s staff recommendation was to support SB 277’s structural change (law‑trained director) while continuing to press for clarifying edits on the balancing test and audit procedures.","Committee discussed SB 277 (government records management amendments), GRAMA revisions, and SB 154 (legislative audit amendments). Staff recommended support for some structural records changes but raised concerns about removing the balancing test and about procedural protections for attorney‑client privilege in audit requests.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6322767,"League updates members on housing and land‑use bills; warns against binding general‑plan language",564,294000,858000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28&start=294&end=858","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346531-1d29dddba98505c5929cc0ffedf69f28/thumbnail_294000.jpg","/articles/6322767/Utah/League-updates-members-on-housing-and-landuse-bills-warns-against-binding-generalplan-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322767-1611217a30a573be64738f0a54bfcef8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437783&Signature=F96LXkKF6Kw2UPzExCqDt1IGjiEX1b55dd~S85QGPizbW~9vXCYJ1roCHhpeTXQE1Y321TvCjQrQp0kcpnk2ENfX2NykagtV1UobgAVO-MpdKJ0gkn4VLD1utf3sJYnPI-67I-U0yt6Ewe0QcYEKmdjApVs8dcE8-Nrem~Iz3zhhBf07akmktVRNrzuypyz-I63TJM9byb-ZjBxmZ1FQ~fjVJSAPzpHadzbYEm364rTVksY8-W18qelb98u1IEeu~PI9Cn-9APng2ScuxTocwehdl9Ez~dAZVQrjZyEAgZ-1Da~egX2BeYICmGcWryJvmFDjhc74pqdGiRMBkXACew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","League staff updated the Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 about an array of housing and land‑use bills and solicited member feedback on a strategic plan; staff also warned that a proposal to require general plans to be “adopted by ordinance” could be read as converting aspirational general plans into binding zoning.

Staff summarized recent movement on several measures: Representative Dunnigan’s political‑subdivisions bill (House Bill 37), the Commission on Housing Affordability package (House Bills 360 and 368), and SB 181 (parking changes) among others. Staff said substitutes were pending on some measures and that city testimony had helped shape language. Members were asked to provide written feedback on Phase 1 of the League’s housing strategic plan by March 19 so staff can aggregate city input for the Phase 2 process beginning in April.

Staff described House Bill 320, a code‑enforcement tweak that would allow escalating fines for repeat civil or criminal code violations (the fourth violation after three previous penalties in 12 months). SB 280 was noted as clarifying retail incentive rules (allowing housing within a quarter mile of retail to count as “on‑site” for mixed‑use incentives, clarifying system‑improvement definitions and adding a six‑month deadline for GOYO to respond to incentive reports).

Senate Bill 262 was discussed as a vehicle for density overlay language and technical clarifications; League staff reported a staff recommendation to oppose the bill as drafted because the phrase “adopted by ordinance” in the general‑plan section could be used to push binding general plans at the state level. “General plan is aspirational. Zoning is where you get into… the regulations,” staff said; several mayors stressed that converting general plans into binding instruments could create conflict with state policy and with local referenda.

Members raised process concerns about substitutes and urged cities to watch for late amendments. Staff emphasized the distinction between partnership and preemption and asked members to monitor and provide input as substitutes are filed.

The League asked members to review the housing strategic plan materials and to provide targeted feedback, especially on topics that may not appear to affect all cities immediately but could matter as populations and jurisdictions grow.","League staff briefed members on a package of housing and land‑use bills under consideration, urged cities to review a housing strategic plan by March 19, and recommended opposing language that would make general plans “adopted by ordinance” if that wording risks converting plans into binding zoning.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

League officers urge partnership, not preemption, on public-safety bills tied to homelessness

LPC opposes bill that would allow expanded gravel operations without local approval; members cite health, process concerns and vote to oppose

League cautious on records and audit bills; support for law‑trained records director, questions on balancing test and audit access

League updates members on housing and land‑use bills; warns against binding general‑plan language