League recommends opposing HB465 as drafted, urges partnership approach on homelessness and public safety

The Utah League of Cities and Towns Legislative Policy Committee on Feb. 18 recommended opposing House Bill 465 as drafted and urged state lawmakers to pursue partnership-based alternatives rather than preemption or financial penalties.

HB465, as drafted, would require a city of the first class that receives homelessness mitigation funds to enter into an agreement with the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS). The bill text sets two stated outcomes for such an agreement: to “increase public safety” and to “ensure the proper function of city police department with generally accepted standards.” If a covered city did not sign the agreement by a specified date, the bill would authorize the state to withhold gasoline tax revenues and homelessness mitigation funds. The bill also tasks DPS with creating a rapid-response team that could deploy in any city of the first class to respond to illegal camping or large-scale illegal drug distribution.

League staff framed the bill as a response to a public safety plan produced by Salt Lake City at the request of top state officials; sponsors say they want assurance the plan is implemented. League staff and multiple speakers said they support stronger public-safety outcomes but object to the enforcement mechanism in HB465.

“We have a comprehensive plan,” said Councilmember Dan Dugan (Salt Lake City). “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. It attacks a city who is trying to work the problems.”

Other mayors and local officials told the committee that mandating state control over local police operations or using gas-tax withholding as a sanction would represent preemption of local authority. An attendee who identified themself as Mayor Walker argued enforcement alone cannot solve the problem: “If our cops transport somebody, they arrest them for camping and they transport them to jail, they’re released before the paperwork is done. Without more jail space or housing options, you can’t solve this problem with enforcement.”

Staff offered alternatives that keep DPS and cities working together — for example, mutually negotiated contracts with DPS for mobile rapid-response teams and clarified operational rules for deployment — rather than a statute that conditions local funding on executing a state-drafted agreement. The committee opened an anonymous Slido poll of members to measure support for opposing the bill’s mandatory-agreement and withholding provisions and to test support for a negotiated, partnership-based contract model.

The committee also heard that chiefs of police reported opposition to the bill’s current draft. League staff said they would continue to draft and promote alternatives that emphasize partnership and clearer operational details for any rapid-response team.

Ending: League staff said they would testify against the bill in committee unless the draft changes and will circulate action alerts and proposed language for a partnership alternative as the session proceeds.