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

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.