Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Winter Response Code Red topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
League outlines changes to winter response and a proposed "code red" heat response; League says some duties are limited to outreach
Summary
Legislation under discussion would modify winter response planning and create a "code red" heat-response framework; League staff said proposals generally remove land-use preemption and focus on outreach and ensuring providers cannot be prohibited from offering emergency services during extreme heat or cold.
League staff briefed members Feb. 10 on multiple bills that would change the state's approach to time-limited emergency sheltering and extreme-weather responses, including winter response, code blue (cold-weather triggers) and a proposed code red heat-response.
Staff said Representative Clancy's earlier proposal substantially rewrote winter-response rules; the current direction retains requirements for winter-response plans (the seasonal policy that runs Oct. 1–April 15) but removes many land-use preemption elements and the sunset that would have limited obligations to a single winter. Counties of the first and second class would be required to form a task force and submit possible shelter locations and assessed needs to the Utah Homeless Services Board, according to the bill language discussed.
The League said there are currently no substantial changes proposed to the statutory code-blue structure (cold-weather triggers tied to temperature), but negotiations continue on a separate code-red construct to respond when extreme heat poses immediate life-safety risk. Current code-red language under discussion would apply in first- through fourth-class counties and would be triggered by a NOAA-derived "heat risk" metric that accounts for temperature, humidity and other factors. Under the draft, cities would not be required to provide a new affirmative sheltering duty beyond outreach; League staff said that in practice outreach could include police or other personnel giving water and directions to services. The language would also prohibit local governments from preventing private or nonprofit entities (for example, a church) from temporarily offering daytime services during a declared code red, provided the site complies with fire and building safety codes.
League staff said the statutory intent behind code blue and code red is preservation of life rather than creating new long-term care capacity; they emphasized that the bills remain under negotiation and that the code-red language could change. Staff invited municipalities to provide concerns about logistics (for example, volunteer and facility availability) and operational questions for further negotiation.
No formal vote or action on these bills occurred at the LPC meeting; staff said they expect additional substitute language and will continue outreach to counties and cities.
