General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda June 23, 2021 at 6:00 Pm 505 East 2600 North North Ogden, Ut 84414

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA JUNE 23, 2021 AT 6:00 PM 505 EAST 2600 NORTH NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

PUBLIC CAN ATTEND IN PERSON OR: Click the link to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86190237246 Webinar ID: 861 9023 7246 Or Telephone Dial: 1 346 248 7799 or 1 669 900 9128 or 1 253 215 8782 or 1 312 626 6799

Welcome: Co-Chair Protzman Invocation or Thought & Pledge of Allegiance: Dan Nixon CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration to approve the May 26, 2021, General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting minutes ACTIVE AGENDA 2. Public Comments* 3. Discussion on Overlay Areas and Clustered Uses Presenter: Scott Hess, Planning Director 4. Discussion on Staff Review of General Plan Map, Overlay Areas, and Housing Choice Presenters: Scott Hess & Brandon Bell 5. Discussion on Moderate Income Housing – Pros and Cons of State Menu Items Presenters: Scott Hess & Jon Call 6. Question and Answer Session on ULCT Legislative Wrap Up Documents 7. Discussion on next steps and Committee assignments Presenter: Co-chair Grant Protzman 8. Committee/staff/Mayor comments 9. Adjournment

*Please see notes regarding Public Comments rules and procedure

The Committee at its discretion may rearrange the order of any item(s) on the agenda. Final action may be taken on any item on the agenda. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify the City Recorder at 801-782-7211 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted within the North Ogden City limits on this 18th day of June, 2021 at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website and at http://www.northogdencity.com. The 2021 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 12, 2020. Susan Nance, City Recorder Page 1

Public Comments Rules and Procedure a. Time is made available for anyone in the audience to address the Committee. b. When a member of the audience addresses the Committee, they will state their name and address. c. Citizens will be asked to limit their remarks/questions to five (5) minutes each. d. The Mayor shall have discretion as to who will respond to a comment/question. e. In all cases the criteria for response will be that comments/questions must be pertinent to this Committee, that there are no argumentative questions and no personal attacks. f. Some comments/questions may have to wait for a response until the next Regular Committee Meeting. g. The Mayor will inform a citizen when he or she has used the allotted time.

Page 2

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 26, 2021

The North Ogden General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on May 26, 2021 at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was also held virtually on Zoom. Notice of time, place, and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on May 20, 2021.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Grant Protzman John Arrington Julie Anderson Christina Watson Mark Brown joined via Zoom

STAFF:

Neal Berube Mayor joined via Zoom Jon Call City Manager/Attorney Scott Hess Planning Director Brandon Bell Associate Planner Joyce Pierson Deputy Recorder

VISITORS:

There were no visitors.

Co-chair Grant Protzman called the meeting to order. Committee Member Christina Watson led the Pledge of Allegiance and offered the invocation.

AGENDA:

1. Consideration to approve the March 24, 2021 and April 28, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting minutes

This item was discussed at the beginning of the meeting and voted on at the end of the meeting after another committee member (which formed a quorum) had joined the meeting.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 1 of 7 Page 3

Committee Chair Protzman made a motion to approve the March 24, 2021, and April 28, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting minutes as written. Julie Anderson seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

2. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

3. Discussion on General Plan goals and Committee deadlines Presenter: Co-chair Grant Protzman

Co-Chair Protzman gave an overview of the Committee’s task for the evening. He emphasized the Committee’s obligation to get decisions to the City Council so they could move forward on pressing applications. He praised Stefanie Casey for creating a color-coded map which brought together the zoning codes and the general areas. He acknowledged the need to “tear down” the Master Plan.

A member of the Committee expressed his concern that in the 16 months he had been on the Committee, these issues had kept coming up over and over without any progress. He stated he felt that was unnecessary. He gave it as his opinion that Staff, as trained professionals, could provide the details needed, and that the Committee shouldn’t be doing the research on what everything means. The Committee should be able to look at the research done by the professionals, and make decisions in a timelier manner.

City Attorney/Manager Jon Call sought confirmation that the Committee would like Staff to take on a greater role.

Committee Member Christina Watson stated that, as a citizen, she wanted to be involved in making decisions, but that she didn’t have experience on everything. It was hard for her to be looking everything up. Committee Member Julie Anderson mentioned that the Zoom meetings during COVID had hampered timeliness, as well.

4. Discussion on moderate income housing update Presenter: Planning Director Scott Hess

Planning Director Hess had reviewed housing reports of previous years to prepare for the presentation. He recommended eliminating some of the wording in the City’s moderate income housing document, as it related to subsidized units, and North Ogden had none. On the other hand, requirements of House Bill 82 required that some of the wording remained and other wording be added. He mentioned specifically wording related to accessory dwellings, which North Ogden had.

The problem boiled down to how the City could meet the Utah State-mandated requirements that Utah cities provide moderate income housing. With that as the point to strive for,

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 2 of 7 Page 4

Planning Director Hess outlined a plan that had worked elsewhere, and had the potential to work in North Ogden as well.

Planning Director Hess explained how a non-profit 501 (c) (3) Land Trust could buy the land, and then lease it back to the homeowner for $1 per year for 99 years. The homeowner would own the actual home and be responsible for all its upkeep. This plan would keep the cost of the land low and controllable. Homeowners would know that when re-sold, the property value would have appreciated some, though there would be no profit on the sale of land. This would help the property and the land remain affordable over the years, even when the property sold to another buyer.

Committee Member Anderson asked how the City would benefit from such a plan. Planning Director Hess replied that it would allow North Ogden to come into compliance with the State mandate. Planning Director Hess felt the City would not lose property tax. He explained further that the plan was a good way to introduce young families to home ownership. Furthermore, the non-profit Land Trust would keep an eye on whether a payment on the home was missed, and step in if it was. He stated that homes on this kind of plan have had a low mortgage failure rate of 1.5%, whereas the general rate of mortgage failure was 7%.

Committee Member Anderson also asked if there were any such non-profits operating in North Ogden at the time. The answer given was no, there were not. Committee Member Anderson was concerned that if they courted one operating elsewhere it may not meet the unique needs of North Ogden. Planning Director Hess stated the City could look for the right groups to partner with for donations and private endowments.

Planning Director Hess proposed that wording in the document regarding appreciation based on current rent and mortgage costs be stricken and changed to state that the City would assess on a yearly basis and adjust the number units needed annually. He mentioned that they needed to add 330 units over five years at 30% or less of median income, which would be extremely affordable. He stated that 30% of area median income was $591 unit per month, which, without the benefit of a non-profit owning the land, would translate into a basement bedroom only. Committee Member Anderson stated that housing had to be controlled because North Ogden had no very young families because they could not afford to live there.

There was discussion as to whether the strategy would compete with anything else the City was doing. It was explained that non-profits were eligible for things the City would not be, so it shouldn’t conflict with other projects. It was suggested that this plan would become a “hand-up,” not a “hand-out” to people and would be quite advantageous.

Planning Director Hess predicted it would take several steps to adopt the plan, and may take up to a year to identify the right plan with the right partners. Co-Chair Protzman asked Planning Director Hess to bring all the pros and cons to the next meeting, at which time the Committee would make recommendations.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 3 of 7 Page 5

5. Discussion and/or action on recommendation for future Land Use map Presenter: Committee Member Julie Anderson

Committee Member Anderson presented a finalized future Land Use map with color coding applied to show how all zoning numbers and overlays had been marked.

Committee Member Christina Watson, having not attended the previous two meetings, had questions about why the area in which she lived had been marked in purple. Specifically, it had been marked at a higher density than it currently was, and that was a cause of concern for her. The discussion then focused on whether or not potential higher density housing areas were spread evenly around the City, or whether they were just in one spot. Staff was able to explain how older areas, that were likely to change in the next 10 years, were identified as places that could build to a higher density once torn down. Also explained was the idea of transferability, where densities could be negotiated if a developer was willing to add certain features, such an open community space, to their developments.

Committee Member Anderson took time to explain how the subcommittee in charge of the map had applied the color-coding. She mentioned specifically that yellow was on the hill; white was the most developed part of North Ogden (wherever that code appears, very little development area was still left; red was where high density could go in the future; blue was mixed-use high density; orange was commercial; green was conservation; and pink was low density with a transferable option.

There was subsequent discussion as to whether they should change the coding for the area being discussed. Since there were only one or two parcels left to be developed in that area, it might not need to be changed, though they acknowledged that the future could bring changes that were hard to accept. During the discussion, it was emphasized that it was important to maintain transferability to preserve open space in any high-density housing development. It was also mentioned that it had taken months for the committee to arrive at a map that could be submitted to the City Council, so it needed to be done now.

Committee Member Watson asked if the coding lined up with bordering cities’ plans. City Attorney/Manager Jon Call took some time to outline how North Ogden’s planning measures up in relation to the areas that border other cities. Co-chair Protzman also pointed out that there were 3 or 4 portions that were designated as Weber County, and which were allowed for annexation.

The goals for high density housing areas were that they included small-scale walkable neighborhoods that fit the fabric of residential life, and from which residents wouldn’t have to travel far for services. Also, it was important to preserve the open flow of water. Courtyards could be created to foster a sense of community. Any demolition of existing structures to put in new ones would have to follow the new plan. In summary, if someone wanted to put up higher density housing than currently exists, there were things they would have to be willing to do to get it approved.

Co-Chair Protzman reminded everyone they were basically giving the Planning Commission and the City Council a set of suggestions in light of the fact that North Ogden cannot sustain General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 4 of 7 Page 6

growth with the same approach used for the last 100 years. The population had gotten too large and the resources too limited. And, the State of Utah was now mandating what must be done, so it must be done. In light of the State’s mandates, cities can still say “no” to things, if it was all written out in a development agreement. Without proper negotiations, cities could lose what they want.

Planning Director Hess stated that the Utah League of Cities had drawn up a good wrap-up document, which he would send to all committee members.

Committee Member Watson summarized what it was that she wanted: • Neighborhoods with ¼ acre lots in the whole section • Prominence Point should not be transferable • Not a whole lot of high density all in the same spot • Arrange the map so colors were more balanced • To have the same style of neighborhood wherever “purple” appears on the map • Medium and high-density housing all along the commercial areas

City Manager/Attorney Call reminded the Committee that the City Council was most eager to pass something for certain areas of the City, and that the area that concerned Committee Member Watson was not in that location. They could send something as approved, while stating that something else still needed discussion. Co-chair Protzman suggested a motion to adopt the map as-is, with further discussion about the lower left corner of the map, though not the whole south end of the City.

Committee Member Mark Brown moved that the future Land Use map be approved as-is, with the exception of the area below the cannery and west of Washington Boulevard, which areas of the map needed more discussion. Committee Member Anderson seconded the motion.

Voting on the motion was as follows: Co-Chair Protzman aye Committee Member Anderson aye Committee Member Brown aye Committee Member Watson aye Committee Member Anderson aye The motion passed unanimously. 6. Discussion on possible recommended additional options Presenter: Co-chair Grant Protzman Co-Chair Protzman asked that PUDs, zoning overlays, and additional talking points be suggested to the Planning Commission to help them.

Committee Chair Protzman moved to accept the additional recommendations presented.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 5 of 7 Page 7

Voting on the motion:

Co-Chair Protzman aye Committee Member Anderson aye Committee Member Brown aye Committee Member Watson aye Committee Member Anderson aye

7. Discussion on next steps and Committee assignments Presenter: Co-chair Grant Protzman Co-Chair Protzman asked the Committee to take a look at some of the unique features in North Ogden that make it a beautiful place. He suggested a focus on waterways, wooded areas, trails, etc. He suggested they look for specific sections for overlays and have that ready to discuss at the next meeting.

Committee Member Anderson asked for a special presentation on overlays at the next meeting. Co-Chair Protzman stated he had already done that at a previous meeting, but he agreed to have another informational presentation, as such presentations make refinement possible.

Mayor Neal Berube had been listening by phone and at this point in the meeting he spoke up, suggesting a special feature of North Ogden was the Coldwater Creek area, and the restoration and retention of that area was critical. When the Mayor asked if he was an official member of this committee, City Manager/Attorney Call answered that he was.

Co-chair Protzman stated that Committee Member Watson’s earlier concerns were well- founded, so they would address those at the next meeting as well.

7. Committee/Staff/Mayor comments

Mayor Berube thanked all for their willingness to serve on the committee, and that differences of opinions were appreciated.

The meeting ended with a brief mention of how to improve attendance at future meetings in order to have a quorum for voting.

8. Adjournment

Motion to adjourn the meeting was informal, passing unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 6 of 7 Page 8

______Grant Protzman, Co-chairman

______Joyce Pierson, Deputy City Recorder

______Date Approved

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting May 26, 2021

1. Page 7 of 7 Page 9 UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS LEGISLATIVE2021 WRAP UP #Cities Work

INTRODUCTION

2021 was a legislative session like no other: new Governor, new legislators, COVID-19, Zoom voting, and an earlier start date after several 2020 special sessions. ULCT successfully nav- igated the 2021 General Session by relying on the League’s pillars: respecting the roles of state and local government, collaborating with stakeholders, and targeting policy-focused outcomes. ULCT took a hands-on approach with over 60 bills—testifying, negotiating, writing language, 245 and other advocacy BILLS TRACKED work—in addition to the

6. Page 10 INTRODUCTION

245 bills we tracked. Despite many bills preempt- ing local government authority, ULCT effectively defeated legislation mandating digital billboards, expanding short-term rentals, and increasing bureaucracy around fees, to name a few. ULCT invested significant resources negotiating and amending two preemptive land use bills, and will continue discussions with legislators on inspections, building design elements, and internal accessory dwelling units. Several bills supporting and improving law enforcement were passed due to the efforts of the Love, Listen, Lead Task Force, a joint ULCT and Utah Chiefs of Police Association endeavor. The Legislature also passed an unprec- edented investment in transit and transportation projects, efforts supported by the ULCT Board. Ultimately, our success comes back to the unpar- alleled involvement by our members. Thank you!

Of course, the session also created plenty of issues for the 2021 interim, including continuing discussions on water, land use, public safety, and much more. We encourage members to engage with the League through the Legislative Policy Committee, ULCT conferences, and League communications. 6. Page 11 INTRODUCTION

The 2021 ULCT Wrap Up is a summary of those bills discussed at the ULCT Legislative Policy Committee during session and other bills on the ULCT Hot or Work lists. These bills are noteworthy changes in policy and may require potential action. However, please be aware that many bills not included here passed and may impact your municipality. We encourage members to review the complete list of passed bills here.

For your convenience, we have organized the wrap up bills by subject area. Some bills fall into multiple subject areas. They have been sorted by the most prominent subject to which each bill applies.

CANNON DALELEE CASTLSTSTLETL VALLEY CCEEDARR FFORT CEDAR H FIELDF LD CCENTE CHARLES LLELLLE CLARCLAC RKSTO CLEVELA COOAALALVILLE COTTONW DANIELL DELD T DUCHESNE DUTCH JOHHN EAAGLE M ELK RIDGE ELMO ELSINOORE ELE WOOD E EPHRAIM ERDA ESCALAANTET EUREUREKA FARMINGTON FARR WESTT FAYETTEE FERE FOUNTAIN GREEN FRANCISIS FRUIT HEIGGH GENOLA GLENDALE GLENWOODD GREEN RIVER GUNNISONON HANKSHANK VILLE HARH RRISVILLE HAATC HELPER HENEFER HENHENRIEVILLEHENRIEVILLEVILLE HERRIMAIMAAN HIDEOUTT H ILDALE HINCKLEY HOLDENDEN HOLLADHHOLLAADAY HONEYVILLEHONEYVILLLLE WELL HUNTINGTON HUNTTSVILLLLEE HURRICANE HY UMM INDEPENDENCE INTERLAKENINT RLAKENN IVINS JOSEPHHJ MAS KANAB KANARRRAVILLELE KANANOSHOOSSHHK KAAYYSSVILLEEKE K OOSHAREM LA VERKIN LAKETKETOWN LAYTON LEAMINGNGTO LEHI LEVAN LEWISTON LLINDONLI LOOA LOGAN LYMAMMAN MANILA MANTI MANTUA MAPLEETON MARRIOTTT-SLA MARYSVALE MAYFIELD MMEAMEADOW MENDON MILFORD MILLCREEK MILILLLVILLE MINERSVI MONROE RONI MT MYTON RMONY NORTH LO SALT LAK OGDEN O RDERVILL OREM PA PARAGONA PAROWAWAN PAYSON 6. PLEASANT GROVE PLEEASANT VIEW PLYMOUTPage 12 PROVIDENCE PROVO RRANDOLLPH REDMOND RI IVER HEIGHTS RIVERDRDALE RIVERTR ON ROCK OOSEVELT ROY RUUUSH VALLEY SALEM SAL DY SANTA CLARARA SANTAQUIN SARATOG pg-5 ●QUICK pg-10 OVERVIEW ●ELECTIONS

pg-19 ●GENERAL pg-15 GOVERN- FINANCES MENT

pg-33 LAND USE pg-32 & BUILDING ●JUDICIARY CODE

pg-44 INFRA- pg-47 STRUC- ●PUBLIC TURE SAFETY

pg-62 ●POTENTIAL pg-61 INTERIM WATER ISSUES 6. Page 13 QUICK OVERVIEW HOW BILLS FARED WITH ULCT ENGAGEMENT

Bills that passed with the support of ULCT

HB0063 Impact Fees Amendments Candace Pierucci HB0075 Municipal Alternative Voting Methods Pilot Project Amendments Jeffrey Stenquist HB0128 Local Accumulated Fund Balance Amendments Mike Winder HB0162 Peace Officer Training Amendments Angela Romero HB0236 Waste Tire Recycling Amendments Steve Handy HB0248 Mental Health Support Program for First Responders Karen Kwan HB0264 Law Enforcement Weapons Use Amendments Angela Romero HB0334 Special Needs Training For Law Enforcement Steve Eliason SB0013 Law Enforcement Internal Investigation 6. Requirements Jani Iwamoto Page 14 HOW BILLS FARED WITH ULCT ENGAGEMENT

HB0433 Amendments Related to Infrastructure Funding Mike Schultz SB0038 K-9 Policy Requirements Daniel Thatcher SB0065 Community Reinvestment Agency Amendments Wayne Harper SB0194 Utah Main Street Program Derrin Owens SB0106 Use of Force Amendments Daniel Thatcher SB0196 Law Enforcement Agency Disclosure Amendments Jani Iwamoto SB0201 Public Notice Amendments Karen Mayne SB0217 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act Wayne Harper

Bills that failed which ULCT opposed

HB0066 Sheriffs Amendments Casey Snider (Preemption) HB0074 Municipal Police Oversight Amendments Mark Wheatley (Preemption) HB0076 Firearm Preemption Amendments Cory Maloy (Preemption) HB0122 Property Redemption Amendments Phil Lyman (Preemption) HB0133 Law Enforcement Recording Release 6. Amendments Mark Wheatley (Preemption)Page 15 HOW BILLS FARED WITH ULCT ENGAGEMENT

HB0144 Water Pricing Structure Carol Spackman Moss (Preemption) HB0229 Internal Investigation Amendments Craig Hall (Preemption) HB0245 Forcible Entry and Warrants Amendments Craig Hall HB0273 Single-Family Housing Amendments Val Peterson (Preemption) HB0274 Government Records Transparency Act Travis Seegmiller (Preemption) HB0317 Eminent Domain Amendments Mike Peterson HB0342 Government Enterprise Amendments Mark Strong (Preemption) HB0367 Qualified Immunity Amendments Brian King HB0377 Local Government Curfew Amendments Kera Birkeland (Preemption) HB0401 Fee Amendments Steve Waldrip (Preemption) HB0422 Political Subdivision Civil Liability Brady Brammer (Preemption) HB0439 Peer to Peer Car Sharing Act Robert Spendlove (Preemption) SB0061 Outdoor Advertising Amendments Scott Sandall (Preemption) SB0138 Violence, Disorder, and Looting Enforcement David Hinkins

6. Page 16 HOW BILLS FARED WITH ULCT ENGAGEMENT

SB0144 Billboard Restrictions Amendments David Hinkins (Preemption) SB0204 Permitting Amendments Kirk Cullimore SB0221 Short-term Rental Amendments Jacob Anderegg (Preemption) SB0241 Sales Tax Distribution Amendments Daniel McCay (Preemption)

Bills that passed that ULCT modified its position from opposed to neutral after amendments

HB0017 Utility Permitting Amendments Steve Handy (Preemption) HB0082 Single-family Housing Modifications Ray Ward (Preemption) HB0098 Local Government Building Regulation Amendments Paul Ray (Preemption) HB0139 Competency Based Hiring Amendments Norman Thurston HB0237 Lethal Force Amendments Jennifer Daily-Provost SB0113 Transportation Amendments Wayne Harper SB0164 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments Jacob Anderegg SB0199 Water Amendments Mike McKell 6. Page 17

HOW BILLS FARED WITH ULCT ENGAGEMENT

Bills that passed despite opposition from ULCT

HB0171 Agricultural Land Use Restriction Scott Chew SB0018 Property Tax Exemption Amendments Wayne Harper HB 143 Driver License Suspension Amendments Cory Maloy SB0034 Governmental Use of Facial Recognition Technology Daniel Thatcher (Preemption)

Bills that failed despite neuturality or support from ULCT

HB0154 Use of Force Revisions Kera Birkeland (Preemption) HB0283 Community and Police Relations Commission Mark Wheatley SB0052 Property Tax Deferral Modifications Lincoln Fillmore

6. Page 18 ELECTIONS ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 23 Voter Referendum Amendments Sponsor: Nelson, Merrill https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0023.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill clarifies and streamlines certain local referendum provisions. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill clarifies that a land use law for purposes of a referendum includes a rezone. This change reflects recent interpretation by the Utah courts and municipalities should be aware that a rezone may be subject to a citizen referendum. It also creates an accelerated process for a referendum to appear on the ballot. Previous to this bill, a referendum could not appear on the ballot in November, for example, if it referred a legislative action that happened after April 15 of that same year. Under HB 23, if the city recorder or town clerk, the county clerk, and the municipal attorney of the municipality in which the law would be referred all agree, the referendum may appear on the ballot6. for a special, primary, or general election heldPage 19the same year that the referred legislative action takes place. ELECTIONS HB 75 Municipal Alternative Voting Methods Pilot Project Amendments Stenquist, Jeff https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0075.html Legislative purpose of the bill This legislation allows more municipalities to implement an alternative voting method – aka ranked choice voting—pilot program. The deadline for a city to decide to participate for the 2021 election cycle is Monday, May 10. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 75 expands an existing pilot program allowing municipalities to use ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting allows a voter to rank candidates by preference, rather than only voting for one candidate. In cases where no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. For voters who ranked that eliminated candidate first, their votes count for their second choice and overall tallies are adjusted and, if necessary, counts are further adjusted until a candidate successfully captures the majority vote. The pilot program is currently scheduled to sun- set January 1, 2026. If a municipality wants to participate in ranked-choice voting, the municipal legislative body, before the second Monday in May of an odd-numbered year, must vote to participate and provide written notice to the lieutenant governor and county clerk. For 2021, a municipality must decide by Monday, May 10. The municipality may also enter into a contract with any county clerk to conduct a ranked-choice election and not just the6. county clerk of their own county. For example,Page 20if ELECTIONS

Salt Lake City wants to participate in ranked choice voting but is unable to contract with Salt Lake County to do so, then Salt Lake City could contract with another county clerk. A municipality may withdraw from the pilot program by providing notice to the lieutenant governor and county clerk.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 136 Initiative and Referenda Modifications Sponsor: Teuscher, Jordan https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0136.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends provisions of the Election Code relating to statewide and local initiatives and referenda. Municipal impact/what you need to do The bill precludes a person from paying a signature gatherer based on a rate per verified signature and instead requires paying a signature gatherer solely on an hourly rate. The signature gatherer also must wear a badge identifying herself/himself as a “Paid Signature Gatherer.” The local clerk shall post the initiative petition, initiative, fiscal impact estimate, and information describing how an individual may remove his/her signature from the signature packet.

6. Page 21 ELECTIONS ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 211 Initiatives and Referenda Amendments Sponsor: Thurston, Norm https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0211.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends provisions relating to statewide and local initiatives and referenda. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 211 requires a signatory to an initiative or referendum to affirm that he/she has reviewed the entire statement included with the packet. The bill clarifies that a person may not make any alterations or corrections to an initiative or referendum packet after it is submitted to the county clerk. The bill also updates state law on statewide referendum to require sufficient signatures from 15 Senate districts instead of 15 counties. The bill creates new procedures for county clerks in determining when to remove a signature and when a voter can remove a signature. The bill also requires a statement indicating whether paid signature gatherers were involved. The local clerk shall declare the petition to be sufficient or insufficient no later than 21 days after the day of the applicable deadline. The local clerk shall also declare the petition to be sufficient or insufficient no later than 111 days after the day of the deadline. The bill also clarifies how a local legislative body may repeal a law challenged by referendum petition to void the petition. For property tax referendums, the sponsors shall deliver referendum packets to the county clerk no later than the earlier 6. Page 22 of 30 days after the day on which the first individual ELECTIONS signs the packet (new language) or 40 days after the day on which the local clerk starts the process.

6. Page 23 FINANCES ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 128 Local Accumulated Fund Balance Amendments Sponsor: Winder, Mike https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0128.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 128 increases the maximum accumulated fund balance in a municipality’s general fund. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 128 authorizes a town to increase its accumulated general fund balance from 75% to 100% and a city from 25% to 35%.

ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 3 Appropriations Adjustments Sponsor: Stevenson, Jerry https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0003.html Legislative purpose of the bill This “bill of bills” supplements or reduces appropria- tions6. otherwise provided for the support and operationPage 24 FINANCES of state government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021 and for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill appropriated state funds for several programs, however it included two provisions of intent language that impact municipalities. The first provision requires the State Auditor to report to the Revenue and Taxa- tion Interim Committee by November 30, 2021, and a second report as necessary to cover the reporting of all fees by November 30, 2022, the status of the appropriate use of fees by state agencies, state offices, state courts, state institutions (including institutions of higher education), local education agencies, and other local government entities, based on the definition of fees as determined by V-1 Oil Co. v Utah State Tax Commission (1966), Banberry Dev. Corp. v South Jordan City (1981), and Larson v Pleasant Grove City (2020). A municipality should anticipate potential communications or follow-up by the State Auditor about how fees are used by the municipality. The bill is known as “the bill of bills.” The second intent language provision relates to B and C road funds and the recent federal COVID-19 stimulus, the American Rescue Plan. The intent language prohibits the Department of Transportation and Division of Finance from appropriating state funds appropriated for class B and class C roads for FY 2022 to counties or municipalities unless and until those counties and municipalities have shown in a report to the Legislative Fiscal Analyst and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget how the counties and municipalities plan to use federal funds provided under the American6. Rescue Plan and why those federal Pagefunds 25 FINANCES cannot be used for infrastructure improvements like class B and C roads. ULCT will be meeting with legislative leadership in April to discuss this provision.

ULCT POSITION: OPPOSE

SB 18 Personal Property Tax Exemption Sponsor: Harper, Wayne https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0018.html Legislative purpose of the bill The bill increases the current personal property tax exemption amount from $15,000 to $25,000. How- ever, this increase is funded by a revenue decrease. Spread across the entire property tax system the revenue impact is limited. Municipal impact/what you need to do A municipality should review the changed exemption in light of municipal revenues generated by the tax.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 65 Community Reinvestment Agency Amendments Sponsor: Harper, Wayne https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0065.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill enacts additional options for community reinvestment agencies (CRA) through interlocal agreements.6. Page 26 FINANCES Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill established a new option for CRA’s, allowing for the creation of a new entity through the establish- ment of an interlocal agreement between the existing CRA and participating political subdivisions. This new entity would have the authority to levy a property tax within the agency’s boundaries. There are requirements for an affordable housing component. The option also outlines the methodology for establishing the certified tax rate and accounting for the property tax revenue.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 104 Tax Levy for Animal Control Sponsor: Weiler, Todd https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0104.html Legislative purpose of the bill The bill authorizes counties (other than Salt Lake) where the county is the sole provider for animal control services to impose a specific property tax levy for animal control.

6. Page 27 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 17 Utility Permitting Amendments Sponsor: Handy, Steve https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0017.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 17 limits a municipality’s authority over utility con- nections. Municipal impact/what you need to do The bill prohibits cities and counties from enacting policies or ordinances that would restrict the connection of certain types of utility services. (For example, a city could not prohibit future natural gas services). The bill applies only to Public Service Commission regulated utilities and does not apply to incentive programs or to government owned property. ULCT is unaware of any cities that have enacted such policies.

6. Page 28 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 19 County Classification Amendments Sponsor: Snider, Casey https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0019.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill changed the population requirements on which county classifications are based. Municipal impact/what you need to do State law often places different requirements on select counties by classifying counties based on population. This bill increases most of the county population thresholds for classification. First class counties are now a population of 1,000,000 or more. Second class counties are now 175,000, but less than 1,000,000. Third class are 40,000 or more, but less than 175,000. Fourth class counties are 11,000 or more but less than 40,000. Fifth (4,000 or more) and sixth (less than 4,000) class counties did not change. The bill will likely have minimal municipal impact except in limited circumstances. However, it may change requirements or services within a county that has changed classifications, potentially impacting municipalities in that county.

6. Page 29 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 142 Cyclist Traffic Amendments Sponsor: Spackman Moss, Carol https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0142.html Legislative purpose of the bill This legislation allows a cyclist approaching a stop sign to proceed through the intersection without stopping if the cyclist slows and yields the right-of- way to a pedestrian or other traffic.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 236 Waste Tire Recycling Amendments Sponsor: Handy, Stephen https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0236.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill authorizes a municipality to apply to the director of the Division of Waste Management for payment from the Radiation Control of the Waste Tire Recycling Fund to cover costs to remove waste tires from a waste tire pile to a recycler. Municipal impact/what you need to do A municipality in which an abandoned waste tire pile is located should review the provisions of this bill, including requirements for applying to the director, if the municipality intends to seek reimbursement for waste tire transport or recycling. 6. Page 30 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 243 Privacy Protection Amendments Sponsor: Gibson, Francis https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0243.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill creates positions and procedures to oversee privacy practices in state government. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 243 creates the Personal Privacy Oversight Com- mission to establish guidelines and best practices for the collection and use of personal data by a government entity. The twelve-member commission will include two members representing law enforcement, one member who provides internet technology services for a county or municipality, and one member with experience as a prosecutor or appellate attorney. The bill also creates a state privacy officer, appointed by the state auditor, to review local government data practices. The state privacy officer may annually -re view how a local government handles personal data and publish on the state auditor’s website information about local government privacy practices. If the privacy officer identifies a local government for creating a risk to personal data, the local government must hold a public hearing to review its practices and hear public concerns. A municipality should review its technology contracts and data practices to ensure that they comply with the best practice established by the commission.

6. Page 31 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 294 Pandemic Emergency Powers Amendments Sponsor: Ray, Paul https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0294.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill terminates emergency powers and public health orders related to COVID-19. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 294 will end the statewide mask mandate on April 10 except for schools and gatherings of 50 or more people who cannot physically distance. While local health departments may require masks with approval from their legislative bodies, the orders and restrictions would expire if the state meets the following conditions: 1. The state’s 14-day case rate falls below 191 per 100,000 people; 2. Intensive care units are no more than 15% filled with COVID-19 patients over a seven-day average; and 3. The federal government has allocated 1,633,000 first doses of the coronavirus vaccine to Utah. Governor Cox has announced that he will continue, for the foreseeable future, to require state employees to wear masks. Municipalities may choose to adopt similar requirements for municipal employees.

6. Page 32 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 308 COVID-19 Vaccine Amendments Sponsor: Spendlove, Robert https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0308.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 308 prohibits a governmental entity from requiring that an individual receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 308, a municipality may not require, directly or indirectly, that an individual receive a COVID-19 vaccine, including as a condition of employment or participating in a government entity activity. The bill makes exceptions for distributing vaccines, government employees acting in a public health setting, or enforcement of a non-discretionary requirement under federal law.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 348 Economic Development Amendments Sponsor: Hawkes, Timothy https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0348.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 348 renames the former Governor’s Office of Eco- nomic Development to the Governor’s Office of Eco- nomic Opportunity (GO Utah Office) and makes other structural changes to align state economic development efforts across all levels of government. The bill creates the Unified Economic Opportunity Com- 6. Page 33 mission to coordinate state economic development GENERAL GOVERNMENT efforts, create a state economic strategy, and adopt accountability indicators. ULCT will appoint one commissioner to represent urban areas and the Utah As- sociation of Counties will appoint one commissioner to represent rural areas.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 347 Homeless Services Amendments Sponsor: Eliason, Steve https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0347.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 347 modifies state homelessness governance, including creating the Utah Homelessness Council and the State Homelessness Coordinator appointed by the governor, both of which will oversee the Home- less Shelter Cities Mitigation Restricted Account. The Utah Homelessness Council will include the mayors of the five cities which currently house homeless resource centers. The bill creates a statewide funding plan that will coordinate all of the local service plans and requests for funding. During the 2020 interim, ULCT participated in the Gardner Policy Institute’s examination of the governance structure of Utah’s approach to homelessness. HB 347 reflects many of the recommendations from the Gardner Policy Institute for service providers, local governments, philanthro- pists, and the State of Utah. You can see the recommendations here.

6. Page 34 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 72 Open and Public Meetings Amendments Sponsor: Fillmore, Lincoln https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0072.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill prohibits a public body from taking a vote in a closed meeting except a vote to end the closed portion of the meeting.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 125 Open and Public Meetings Acts Amendments Sponsor: Buxton, David https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0125.html Legislative purpose of the bill SB 125 amends the Open and Public Meetings Act provisions related to electronic meetings and anchor locations. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill re-codifies the Open and Public Meetings Act language that ULCT proposed during the June 2020 interim to provide flexibility to local public bodies to conduct electronic meetings without anchor locations under certain circumstances. First, in the absence of a declaration of risk, a public body holding an electronic meeting shall provide 6. Page 35 space at the anchor location for the public to attend GENERAL GOVERNMENT the open portions of the meeting. The second part of the bill addresses two electronic meeting scenarios in which an anchor location is not required. In the first scenario, prior to the meeting start, the chair of the public body determines that meeting at the anchor location presents a substantial risk to those attending or that the anchor location has been ordered closed for safety reasons. The public notice must then include a statement describing the chair’s determination, a summary of facts informing the determination, and information on how the public can attend electronically. In the second scenario, if during the electronic meeting the chair determines continuing at the anchor location presents a substantial risk, the chair must announce that determination and then state a summary of facts upon which the determination is made. The anchor location requirement is then suspended but only if, when notice was published for the meeting, a means was provided for members of the public to attend electronically.

ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 189 Tobacco Retailer Amendments Sponsor: Vickers, Evan https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0189.html Legislative purpose of the bill SB 189 modifies provisions relating to tobacco retailers, including permits, retail location, and certain penalties. Municipal impact/what you need to do

Under6. existing law, a municipality may not issuePage a li36- cense to a retail tobacco specialty business if the busi- GENERAL GOVERNMENT ness is located within 1,000 feet of a school. However, there was a grandfather clause that allowed licensing if the business was issued a license on or before Decem- ber 31, 2018, and was not located by the school after July 1, 2021. SB 189 extends that exception, allowing a business to be licensed if it is not located within 1,000 feet of the school by July 1, 2022. The bill also allows an exempted retail tobacco specialty business to maintain the exemption if, in addition to existing requirements, the business does not substantially change the business premises or operations.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 194 Utah Main Street Program Sponsor: Owens, Derrin https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0194.html Legislative purpose of the bill SB 194 facilitates Utah’s participation in the National Main Street Center through GO Utah. Municipal impact/what you need to do The Utah Main Street Program will provide resources for the revitalization of downtown or commercial districts. Municipalities can work with GO Utah (the new agency replacing GOED) to participate in the program and receive technical assistance.

6. Page 37 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 195 Emergency Response Amendments Sponsor: Vickers, Evan https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0195.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends provisions related to emergency powers and public health. Municipal impact/what you need to do SB 195 makes several amendments to the emergency authority of the governor, counties, and local health departments. For example, during a local public health emergency that has been in effect for more than 30 days, the local health department shall provide written notice to the county governing body at least 10 days before the expiration of the public health emergency and seek their approval. The county legislative body may at any time terminate an order of constraint issued by a local health department in response to a declared public health emergency. A local health department, the governor, or the chief executive officer of a political subdivision may not impose an order of constraint on a religious gathering that is more restrictive than an order of constraint that applies to any other relevantly similar gathering. Such orders may substantially burden an individual’s exercise of religion only if the issuing entity demonstrates that the order furthers a com- pelling government interest and is the least restrictive means to further that interest. Additionally, a local health department may not de- clare6. a public health emergency or issue an orderPage of38 GENERAL GOVERNMENT constraint without providing notice to the county’s chief executive officer at least 24 hours prior to the -or der (with limited exceptions). The county CEO or the county governing body may terminate the order. For those local health departments that span multiple counties, the county CEO or governing body may only terminate the order within their own county. The local health department may extend a local health emergency under “exigent circumstances.” The Legislature may also terminate a local order of constraint that has been in effect for more than 30 days. The bill also affects municipal emergency declaration authority. A municipal CEO may declare by proclama- tion a state of emergency if a disaster has occurred or the occurrence or threat of a disaster is imminent in an area of the city and the city requires additional assistance to supplement the city’s own response and recovery. However, the legislative body now has the authority to terminate the state of emergency by majority vote at any time. There is also now a 30-day limit on the municipal CEO’s initial emergency declaration. The municipal CEO may extend it an additional 30 days if exigent circumstances exist but then the state of emergency expires. The Legislature may also terminate by joint resolution the municipal declaration of emergency that has been in effect more than 30 days. A municipality should be aware that the bill limits the duration of a declared local state of emergency and allows the Legislature to terminate certain orders and ordinances adopted by a municipal chief executive or governing authority. The bill limits a municipality’s authority to implement regulations that burden the exer- cise6. of religion during a state of emergency. Page 39 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 201 Public Notice Amendments Sponsor: Mayne, Karen https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0201.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill modifies public notice provisions. Municipal impact/what you need to do SB 201 eliminates some requirements to publish public notice in a newspaper and on certain legal notice websites and requires certain notices to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website. Municipal clerks and others that post notice should review the extensive changes to the municipal code, municipal land use code, and other state code provisions. A list of those sections where notice was amended is available here.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 214 Official Language Amendments Sponsor: Cullimore, Kirk https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0214.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill removes provisions relating to English as the sole language of government in Utah. Municipal impact/what you need to do SB 214 authorizes local government communications in languages6. other than English. Page 40 JUDICIARY ULCT POSITION: OPPOSE

HB 143 Driver License Suspension Amendments Sponsor: Maloy, Cory https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0143.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill limits when an individual’s driver license may be suspended. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 143, a court may not order the Driver Li- cense Division to suspend an individual’s driver license based solely on a person’s failure to pay a fine or fee. Although a court may suspend a license for a moving traffic violation and other offenses like driving under the influence, the court may not suspend a license for a failure to appear or failure to pay an outstanding penalty accounts receivable. Prosecutors should review this bill for the changes impacting criminal prosecutions that may involve a driver license suspension.

6. Page 41 LAND USE & BUILDING CODE ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 82 Single-family Housing Modifications Sponsor: Ward, Ray https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0082.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill mandates internal accessory dwelling units (IA- DUs) as a permitted use with certain exceptions, enacts enforcement mechanisms, modifies the building code to exempt IADUs, establishes a loan program for IADUs, and prohibits a homeowner association from banning IADUs. Municipal impact/what you need to do: The bill defines IADU as an accessory dwelling unit created within a primary dwelling, within the primary dwelling’s footprint, and for the purpose of renting for 30 consecutive days or longer. The primary dwelling is a single-family dwelling in which the owner occupies the primary residence and the dwelling is detached. In areas zoned primarily for residential use (a determination up to the municipality), IADUs are permitted uses. However, a municipality may prohibit IADUs in 25% or less of the total area in the municipality zoned for primarily residential, or, if a6. state or private university with a student populationPage 42 of 10,000 or more is located in the municipality, 67% or less. LAND USE, BUILDING CODE A municipality may not establish restrictions on the construction or use of an IADU, including IADU size within the primary dwelling, total lot size, or street frontage. However, HB 82 allows a municipality to adopt the following IADU restrictions and requirements: require bedroom window egress, prohibit installation of a separate utility meter, require that the IADU design not change the appearance of the primary dwelling, require one additional on-site parking space and replace any garage or carport parking spaces if the IADU is created in the garage or carport, prohibit an IADU in a mobile home, require an IADU permit or license, prohibit an IADU if the primary dwelling is served by a failing septic tank, prohibit an IADU if the lot is 6,000 sq. ft. or less, prohibit the renting of the IADU for less than 30 consecutive days, and prohibit renting an IADU that is not in an owner-occupied primary dwelling. To enforce IADU regulations, a municipality may file a lien recorded with the county recorder if the property owner violates IADU regulations, the municipality holds a hearing to determine that a violation has occurred, and the owner fails to cure the violation. A municipality may also record with the county recorder a notice of a permitted or licensed IADU. Finally, a municipality may prosecute or fine an individual who advertises an IADU as a short-term rental on a short-term rental website. The above IADU provisions go into effect October 1, 2021. HB 82 also modifies the definition of “single-family limit” in LUDMA so that whether individuals occupying a dwelling are related or not is irrelevant. HB 82 also modified the State Construction Code to create certain exemptions for IADUs for wall thickness, ventilation, and6. other changes. Page 43 LAND USE, BUILDING CODE By October 1, 2021, a municipality should review those zones that are primarily residential and adopt an ordinance permitting IADUs if they are not permitted already. However, if the municipality chooses to, the municipality should also identify a zoning district cov- ering, as applicable, an area equivalent to 25% or less, or 67% or less, of the total area in the municipality that is zoned primarily residential and exclude IADUs in those areas. The IADU ordinance should also adopt any restrictions that the municipality finds necessary and appropriate under HB 82. A municipality should also amend an ordinance setting a single-family limit based on whether individuals are related to each other and note the changes in the building code for IADUs.

ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 98 Local Government Building Regulation Amendments Sponsor: Ray, Paul https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0098.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill establishes, for a one or two family dwelling or townhome, clear timelines for a municipality to complete plan reviews and inspections and prohibits a municipality from requiring certain design elements. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 98, if a municipality fails to provide a building inspection within three business days an applicant may engage an independent third-party licensed building inspector. The independent inspector must be licensed by 6.DOPL, carry the appropriate liability insurance,Page and 44 is responsible for issuing the certificate of occupan- LAND USE, BUILDING CODE cy for a project the independent inspector inspects. For plan reviews, if a municipality fails to complete a plan review within 14 business days, an applicant may request that the municipality complete the review, at which point the municipality has another 14 days from the request. If the municipality fails to meet the first 14-day deadline, an applicant makes a request to finish the review, and the city fails to meet the second 14- day deadline, a municipality may not enforce the plan review requirement if a licensed architect or structural engineer has stamped the plan. A municipality may require a single resubmittal of plans to address deficiencies identified by a third-party in a geotechnical or geological report. Both the inspection and plan review requirements are applicable to one or two family dwellings or townhomes. Finally, the bill lists information that creates a complete permit application. HB 98 also prohibits a municipality from imposing certain design requirements on a one or two family dwelling or townhome. Those design elements are exterior color; type or style of exterior cladding material; style, dimensions, or materials of a roof structure, roof pitch, or porch; exterior nonstructural architectural ornamen- tation; location, design, placement, or architectural styling of a window or door; location, design, placement, or architectural styling of a garage door, not including a rear-loading garage door; number or type of rooms; interior layout of a room; minimum square footage over 1,000 sq. ft. not including a garage; rear yard landscaping requirements; minimum building dimensions; or a requirement to install front yard fencing. However, the bill allows a municipality to impose design elements in several enumerated circumstances, including6. a local historic district, elements agreedPage 45to LAND USE, BUILDING CODE under a development agreement, a dwelling located in an area substantially developed before 1950, and an ordinance requiring materials that are not defective, and in a planned unit development. As part of the changes on mandated design requirements, HB 98 removes residential design elements as a menu option for moderate income housing plan strategies. Municipalities should review their building inspection and plan review processes to ensure that all departments and individuals involved with the process can successfully meet deadlines. Municipalities should also update their design element ordinances to align with the prohibitions and prohibition exceptions in HB 98.

ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 107 Subdivision Plat Amendments Sponsor: Ferry, Joel https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0107.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 107 amends subdivision plat provisions as they re- late to a water conveyance facility. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under this bill, a land owner submitting a subdivision plat to a municipality must include a description of water conveyance facility rights-of-way and ease- ments and any water conveyance facility located in the plat. After the municipality receives the subdivision plat, the municipality must, within 20 days, mail notice6. to a water conveyance facility owner withinPage 46 100 feet of the plat. The bill also requires a surveyor mak- LAND USE, BUILDING CODE ing a subdivision plat to consult with the owner of a water conveyance facility.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 115 Municipal Boundary Modification Sponsor: Waldrip, Steve https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0115.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill addresses cross-county annexations and amends provisions related to notice and exclusions from an incorporation. Municipal impact/what you need to do A municipality that intends to annex property across a county line should amend its annexation plan to identify the property and review the feasibility study requirements enacted in this legislation for cross-county annexations. The bill also prohibits a municipality from annexing an area that is identified in an incorporation feasibility study if the lieutenant governor has completed the first incorporation public hearing and the time for a specified land owner to withdraw from incorporation has expired. The bill makes additional changes to incorporation notice and process.

6. Page 47 LAND USE, BUILDING CODE ULCT POSITION: OPPOSE

HB 171 Agricultural Land Use Restrictions Sponsor: Chew, Scott https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0171.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 171 prohibits a municipality from restricting or regulating certain crops. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under this bill, a municipality may not restrict the type of crop grown in an agricultural zone or an area as- sessed under the Farmland Assessment Act. A municipality may not regulate an industrial hemp producer licensee if that regulation conflicts with Title 4, Chapter 41, Hemp and Cannabinoid Act, or the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 409 Municipal and County Land Use and Development Sponsor: Waldrip, Steve https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0409.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 409 reflects the work of the 2020 Land Use Task Force, changing multiple provisions in Title 10, Chapter 9a, Municipal Land Use, Development, and Manage- ment Act. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under6. HB 409, planning commissioners in SB 34Page mu 48 - LAND USE, BUILDING CODE nicipalities must complete four hours of annual land use training and a municipality must adopt objective standards for conditional uses. The bill prohibits a municipality, for a period of 10 years after the day on which a subdivision plat is recorded, from imposing on a building permit for a single-family dwelling in the subdivision any land use regulation that is enacted within 10 years after the day the subdivision plat is recorded. This prohibition is to address land use vesting issues. The legislation defines “development agreement” and their appropriate uses. These provisions are a response to recent case law regarding prohibited contract zoning. The bill also prohibits a municipality from requiring paved residential streets wider than 32 feet if the municipality requires low impact development where the street is located. If a municipality vacates a street or considers a land use amendment, the rights of culinary water and sanitary sewer authorities are not impacted and, in some cases, those authorities must receive notice. HB 409 amended several provisions to clarify lot line adjustments, boundary line agreements, and subdivisions. The clarifications include that a parcel boundary adjustment is not subject to land use authority review except in certain circumstances and that recording of a boundary line agreement does not constitute a land use approval. A municipality may withhold approval of a land use application that is subject to a recorded boundary line agreement if the lots or parcels are not in compliance with land use regulations. The bill also sets requirements for adjoining property owners exe- cuting a boundary line agreement and clarifies that a boundary line agreement that only affects parcels is not6. subject to land use authority or engineeringPage review. 49 LAND USE, BUILDING CODE A municipal land use authority should further review these provisions for additional requirements. Finally, HB 409 makes some clarifying amendments to land use appeals, including codifying the existing case law definition of “substantial evidence” as evidence that is beyond a scintilla and a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 164 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments Sponsor: Anderegg, Jake https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0164.html Legislative purpose of the bill SB 164 reflects the policies discussed by the Commis- sion on Housing Affordability over the 2020 interim. Municipal impact/what you need to do Several programs and changes were adopted in SB 164 to tackle housing affordability issues. Under SB 164 a municipality may grant municipal real property for affordable housing. Affordable housing units under this provision are those households whose income is no more than 50% of the area median income for households where the unit is located and can occupy the unit by paying no more than 31% of the household’s income for gross housing costs. If a municipality grants property to a development entity for affordable housing, the municipality must ensure that the real property is deed restricted for at least 30 years but is exempt from the requirements in UCA 10-8-2(3). 6. Page 50 LAND USE, BUILDING CODE The executive director of the Department of Work- force Services may award predevelopment grants up to $50,000 per project to entities located in towns and fifth and sixth class cities. Recipients may use grants for preconstruction services to low-income housing units, including market studies, technical assistance, surveys, environmental and impact studies, and prelim- inary architecture or engineering services. The bill also authorizes the Housing and Community Development Division to create a mediation program for landlords and tenants to minimize the loss of housing for low-income persons. Towns and fifth or sixth class cities may want to work with local pre-construction entities to encourage use of and target projects for grants. Finally, the bill directs county assessors and metro- politan planning organizations to work with the State Geographic Information Database to inventory existing housing units and their general characteristics. These efforts are designed to give communities a better under- standing of their current housing stock.

6. Page 51 LAND USE, BUILDING CODE ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 243 Political Subdivisions Amendments Sponsor: Stevenson, Jerry https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0243.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill makes changes to the authority of the Utah In- land Port Authority, the Point of the Mountain State Au- thority, and a Military Installation Development Authority. Municipal impact/what you need to do A municipality located within the Utah Inland Port Au- thority, the Point of the Mountain State Authority, or a Military Installation Development Authority should review this bill for amendments changing the use of tax increment for bonding and Open and Public Meetings Act requirements, among other amendments.

6. Page 52 INFRA- STRUCTURE ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 433 Amendments Related to Infrastructure Funding Sponsor: Schultz, Mike https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0433.html Legislative purpose of the bill HB 433 authorizes $1.1 billion in investments in roads, public transit and active transportation through combined new bonding and the appropriation of available one-time revenues. Wasatch Front Regional Council has provided an in-depth analysis here. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill will fund projects in accordance with Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan and the TIF Highway Proj- ects Ranked List. The bill will also benefit the state and municipalities through financial support of transit and active transportation projects. The ULCT Board with other stakeholder partners issued a letter supporting investment in infrastructure and transportation projects.

6. Page 53 INFRASTRUCTURE ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 113 Transportation Amendments Sponsor: Harper, Wayne https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0113.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill makes several technical changes related to transportation, public transit, towing and other related items. The towing language only applies to the Depart- ment of Public Safety (DPS). DPS may issue a request for information to evaluable vendors, products, and technology capable of increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency in the dispatching of towing providers and management of towing rotations in counties of the first or second class. Depending on the result, the Transportation Interim Committee could recommend a pilot program for a public-private partnership related to towing rotation management. The bill also clarifies liability for damage to a state highway, highway equipment, or highway sign.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 217 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones Sponsor: Harper, Wayne https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0217.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill enacts the Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act, a new development tool to better coordinate development around Frontrunner. Municipal impact/what you need to do 6. Page 54 INFRASTRUCTURE An HTRZ captures a portion of incremental tax revenue growth to support costs of multi-use and multi-family development within ⅓ mile radius of FrontRunner stations. A municipality may propose development and zoning around a FrontRunner station that: • promotes higher utilization of public transit; • ●increases availability of housing, including affordable housing; • ●conserves water resources through efficient land use; • ●improves air quality by reducing fuel consumption and motor vehicle trips; • ●encourages transformative mixed-use development and investment in transportation and public transit infrastructure in strategic areas; • ●uses strategic land use and municipal planning in major transit investment corridors; and • ●increases access to employment and educational opportunities. A municipality that intends to create a HTRZ should review the legislation for requirements pertaining to tax increment, zoning requirements, and plan submission to GO Utah, the former Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

6. Page 55 PUBLIC SAFETY ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 59 Intimate Image Distribution Prohibition Revisions Sponsor: Stoddard, Andrew https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0059.html Legislative purpose of the bill: This bill provides criminal penalties for any individual to duplicate, share, copy or display an intimate image during a criminal action. Municipal impact/what you need to do: The municipality/agency needs to ensure that in any criminal action, any intimate image be shared with only those involved in the investigation while ensuring that there is no sharing with anyone not involved in the investigation.

6. Page 56 PUBLIC SAFETY ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 62 Post Certification Amendments Sponsor: Stoddard, Andrew https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0062.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill expands the grounds for taking action in relation to peace officer misconduct. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 62, the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council may issue a Letter of Caution, suspend, or re- voke a peace officer’s certification if the peace officer engages in conduct that involves dishonesty or de- ception or knowingly engages in biased or prejudicial conduct. A law enforcement agency should update its policies and training to reflect these standards.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 84 Use of Force Reporting Requirements Sponsor: Romero, Angela https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0084.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill addresses data reported on use of force. Municipal impact/what you need to do HB 84 requires the Bureau of Criminal Identification to include statistics on use of force by law enforcement submitted by a local law enforcement agency. This data6. is in addition to other data an agency mustPage sub 57 - PUBLIC SAFETY mit under UCA 53-10-205. A municipal law enforcement agency should work with the bureau to ensure compliance with reporting requirements.

ULCT POSITION: OPPOSE HB 158 Juvenile Interrogation Amendments Sponsor: Judkins, Marsha https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0158.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill enacts provisions related to the interrogation of minors who are in custody for an offense. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 158, if a child in custody is subject to interrogation for an offense, the child has the right to have a parent/legal guardian present or, if the parent/ legal guardian is compromised, a “friendly adult.” A child may not be interrogated unless first advised of the child’s rights to have a parent/legal guardian or friendly adult present, and the child, with a parent/legal guardian or friendly adult present, has waived the child’s constitutional rights. A minor who is admitted to a detention or secure facility may not be interrogated unless the minor has consulted with an attorney, waived his or her rights, and the attorney is present for the interrogation.

6. Page 58 PUBLIC SAFETY ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 162 Peace Officer Training Amendments Sponsor: Romero, Angela https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0162.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill requires peace officers to receive certain -an nual training. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under HB 162, a peace officer must complete 16 hours of training focused on mental health and other crisis intervention responses, arrest control, and de-escalation within their 40 hour annual training requirements. If an officer receives training exclusively from POST, a municipality may defer to POST to ensure the 16 hours of training. If an agency provides training for officers, the agency will need to ensure that officers meet the 16 hour requirement.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 220 Pretrial Detention Amendments Sponsor: Schultz, Mike https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0220.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends and, in some cases, reverses changes that were made in 2020 bail reform. Municipal impact/what you need to do

Municipal6. prosecutors and others in public safetyPage 59 and judiciary should review this bill for the changes PUBLIC SAFETY related to bail and pretrial release. The bill removes the presumptions of release for certain individuals awaiting trial, removes requirements that individuals eligible for pretrial release be released under the least restrictive conditions, and makes several other changes related to bail forfeiture and pretrial release conditions.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 237 Lethal Force Amendments Sponsor: Dailey-Provost, Jennier https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0237.html Legislative purpose of the bill The bill addresses when a peace officer may use deadly force when an individual is only a danger to himself or herself. Municipal impact/what you need to do The bill deals with situations when an individual who is only a danger to himself or herself. A municipality will likely have to provide training and instructions (if necessary) in these situations. The defense of justifi- cation applies to the use of deadly force by an officer if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury or is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or an individual other than the suspect if apprehension is delayed.

6. Page 60 PUBLIC SAFETY ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 248 Mental Health Support Program for First Responder Sponsor: Kwan, Karen https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0248.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill creates a grant program to provide mental health resources for first responders. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill directs the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health to administer a grant program to assist first responders with mental health resources. Those resources include assessments for treatment, outpa- tient mental health treatment, or peer support. The grant program must be up and running by July 1, 2021 and has $1 million available. The grants are awarded to first responder agencies to implement a mental health resources program. A local agency that intends to apply for a grant should review the bill and division rules once adopted.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 264 Law Enforcement Weapons Use Amendments Sponsor: Angela Romero https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0264.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill requires a law enforcement officer to file a- re port6. after pointing a firearm or a taser at an individual.Page 61 PUBLIC SAFETY Municipal impact/what you need to do Most agencies already have this in their agency policy. If your agency does not have a policy like this, you will need to implement a policy consistent with this statute.

ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

HB 291 Residential Picketing Prohibition Sponsor: Ryan Wilcox https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0291.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill creates a statewide offense of targeted residential picketing and disclosing an individual’s address with the intent to cause another individual to engage in targeted residential picketing. Municipal impact/what you need to do Some cities already have policies about residential picketing but this bill now creates a statewide standard.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 301 Domestic Violence Training Amendments Sponsor: Candice Pierucci https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0301.html Legislative purpose of the bill POST will provide domestic violence and lethality assessment training for law enforcement officers and in conjunction6. with the Division of Child and FamilyPage 62 PUBLIC SAFETY Services to report to the legislature with data on domestic violence. Municipal Impact/what you need to do Each year your police officers need to have 40 hours of training. This bill requires that POST provides domestic violence and a lethality assessment training that your officers can have during their annual training. POST shall incorporate this domestic violence training requirement into their certification training.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 334 Special Needs Training for Law Enforcement Amendments Sponsor: Eliason, Steve https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0334.html Legislative purpose of the bill Under this bill, the Peace Officer Standards and Train- ing Division Director must ensure that peace officers are annually trained on intervention responses for mental illnesses, autism spectrum disorder, and other neurological and developmental disorders.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

HB 345 School Resource Officer Amendments Sponsor: Sandra Hollins https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HB0345.html Legislative purpose of the bill 6. Page 63 This bill amends the provisions related to the training PUBLIC SAFETY that the State Board of Education prepares and makes available to school resource officers. Municipal impact/what you need to do In your contract with your local school board, your school resource officers receive training. This training will now include information on developing and supporting successful relationships with students as well as the legal parameters of searching and questioning students on school property.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 13 Law Enforcement Internal Investigations Requirements Sponsor: Iwamoto, Jani https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0013.html Legislative purpose of the bill The bill requires law enforcement agencies to complete certain internal investigations (those under POST’s concurrent jurisdiction in 53-6-201(1)) even after an officer terminates at the agency. The bill also requires an agency that opens an investigation into al- leged officer misconduct under 53-6-201(1) within two years after an officer terminates to notify POST of the new investigation. The bill also requires an investigating agency to share the information about the internal affairs investigation with POST or any requesting agency. Municipal impact/what you need to do An agency will also have to share the information with POST6. as required by statute and with any agencyPage 64re- questing the information if your officer has applied to PUBLIC SAFETY another agency. The bill also allows an agency an opportunity to receive information from another agency if hiring laterally from another agency.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 38 K-9 Policy Requirements Sponsor: Thatcher, Daniel https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0038.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends the liability provisions for dog bites relating to law enforcement activities and requires the annual certification of law enforcement canines and handlers. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under SB 38, a municipality is not liable for an injury caused by a dog if the handler is trained and certified annually, the dog is trained and certified annually, and the agency has a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of dogs in law enforcement duties. Your dogs and handlers must be certified by either POST or by a national organization. A municipality should review the Law Enforcement Canine Team Certification Act enacted in the bill.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 68 Law Enforcement Weapons Amendments Sponsor: Buxton, David https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0068.html Legislative purpose of the bill 6. Page 65 This bill creates a program to fund the purchase PUBLIC SAFETY of technology and equipment for law enforcement agencies to assist in investigating officer-involved critical incidents. Municipal impact/what you need to do SB 68 appropriates $500,000 to the Department of Public Safety to issue grants to law enforcement agencies to obtain technology and equipment that assist with investigations in officer-involved critical -in cidents in which a firearm is used. To receive funds, a law enforcement agency must match funds and show that the technology or equipment meets statutory requirements. A municipality interested in the grant program should contact the department.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 98 Asset Forfeiture Amendments Sponsor: Weiler, Todd https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0098.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill amends provisions relating to the seizure and forfeiture of property and contraband. The bill addresses a number of issues within this area, including jurisdiction of a district court, when and how the property may be transferred to a federal court, and alters some of the time frames. This bill is a product of two years of study and negotiations among a number of parties. Municipal impact/what you need to do Under SB 98, a municipality that intends to participate in the state grant program of equitable sharing must have6. an asset forfeiture specialist trained and Pagecertified 66 by POST. PUBLIC SAFETY ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 102 Peace Officer Training Qualifications Amendments Sponsor: Mayne, Karen https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0102.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill permits certain lawful residents to apply to become peace officers or dispatchers. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill permits an individual to apply to become a peace officer or dispatcher if the individual is a lawful resident of the United States, is in the United States legally for at least five years and has legal authoriza- tion to work in the United States.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 106 Use of Force Amendments Sponsor: Thatcher, Daniel https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0106.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill requires statewide use of force standards for peace officers. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill requires the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council to establish statewide minimum use of force standards and annually review those standards. Peace officers and law enforcement agen- 6. Page 67 cies must comply with and enforce those statewide PUBLIC SAFETY minimum use of force standards. A law enforcement agency should review the council’s standards once established.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 155 Mental Health Crisis Assistance Sponsor: Thatcher, Daniel https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0155.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill creates the Statewide Behavioral Health Crisis Response Account and directs the Behavioral Health Crisis Response Commission, with modified membership, to study issues related to the statewide implementation of the 988 hotline. Municipal impact/what you need to do Right now, nothing. However, following this next two- year study period, the 988 crisis response line can impact municipalities in a number of ways, including the funding and implementation of 911 and adding behavioral health response teams. ULCT will have one member on the commission.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 159 Law Enforcement Data Management Requirements Sponsor: Anderegg, Jake https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0159.html Legislative purpose of the bill 6. Page 68 This bill requires the Utah Commission on Criminal PUBLIC SAFETY and Juvenile Justice to assemble a panel of professionals and experts to study and make recommendations regarding the collection and management of statewide public safety data and report the findings to the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim committee. Municipal impact/what you need to do Right now, nothing. However, depending on the findings of the panel, our agencies may have to supply certain data. ULCT will work with the Utah Chiefs of Police Association to provide input about the data collection recommendations and implementation.

ULCT POSITION: SUPPORT

SB 196 Law Enforcement Agency Disclosure Amendments Sponsor: Iwamoto, Jani https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0196.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill provides immunity for an employing law enforcement agency and its authorized officers or training academy providing information to a prospective employer upon request. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill is the companion bill to SB 13. This bill provides your agency and authorized officers immunity for sharing certain information and data on lateral hires when requested.

6. Page 69 WATER ULCT POSITION: NEUTRAL

SB 199 Water Amendments Sponsor: McKell, Mike https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/SB0199.html Legislative purpose of the bill This bill addresses secondary water metering and directs the Legislative Water Development Commis- sion to support a unified statewide water conservation strategy. Municipal impact/what you need to do This bill requires a secondary water supplier, beginning January 1, 2022 to establish a meter installation reserve for metering installation and replacement projects. The bill also prohibits a secondary water supplier from raising rates for secondary water by more than 10% in a calendar year unless the increase is to cover catastrophic failure costs or gives notice. Secondary water providers will need to update plans to meter by December 21, 2025 with the cost to meter the system, the timeline to meter the system with completion by December 31, 2040 and how the metering will be financed. 6. Page 70 POTENTIAL INTERIM ISSUES During the 2021 interim, ULCT will engage on several bills that failed during the session but will likely return next year in addition to other on-going policy conversations.

LAND USE

HB 364 Utah Lake Authority (Brammer, Brady) would have enacted the Utah Lake Authority, a new political subdivision to improve conditions at Utah Lake and collect tax increment from surround communities to fund improvements and other programs. Stakehold- ers raised concerns about water rights and the authority’s regulator authority but supported continuing efforts to revitalize Utah Lake. ULCT was neutral on HB 364. SB 221 Short-term Rental Amendments (Anderegg, Jake) would have prohibited a municipality from en- forcing an ordinance that would not allow owner-occupied short-term rentals and using tax revenue to rent a short-term rental to enforce an ordinance that prohibited a short-term rental. Short-term rentals and their impact on affordable housing will likely be a discussion point during the 2021 interim and 2022 session. Although some legislators have recognized 6. Page 71 the housing problem that short-term rentals can cre- POTENTIAL INTERIM ISSUES ate in communities, there is still strong sentiment that short-term rentals are a property rights issue. ULCT will continue to discuss with stakeholders the impacts that short-term rentals have and how to balance the various policy concerns going forward. The Commission on Housing Affordability will continue its efforts this year. Initial interim discussions have focused on some of the policy efforts initially included, but later removed, from SB 164 Utah Hous- ing Affordability Amendments—primarily inclusionary zoning and development fees. ULCT is discussing potential steps going forward with the Commission chairs and how to increase member input to the Com- mission either through the Land Use Task Force or other stakeholder groups.

BILLBOARDS

SB 61 Outdoor Advertising Amendments (Sandall, Scott) SB 61 addressed the conversion of existing static billboards to digital if located in a zone in which a municipality allowed digital on-premise signs (e.g. a digital sign over a store front). The final version of SB 61 would have allowed a municipality to prohibit conversion in exclusively residential zones, but would have required by-right conversion in any other zone where a municipality also allowed digital on-premise signs. The by-right conversion to digital was regardless of the size of on-premise digital signs or if there were any permitted digital on-premise signs in the zone. In recent case law the federal courts have decided that, under the First Amendment, the government may not adopt regulations that distinguish between6. on- and off-premise signs (aka billboards)Page 72 exclusively based the sign’s advertised content. If a POTENTIAL INTERIM ISSUES municipality has not recently reviewed its sign ordinances, it should carefully examine any regulatory distinctions between on-premise and off-premise signs. ULCT opposed SB 61 but negotiated heavily with stakeholders who agreed to work directly with specific cities over the interim. SB 144 Billboard Restrictions Amendments (Hink- ins, David) would have prohibited cities, when selling city property, from restricting future placement of billboards on the property and negotiating with land- owners who wished to discontinue billboard leases, among other preemption measures.

PUBLIC SAFETY

We expect a number of issues to be carried over to the 2022 legislative session and discussed during this interim season. The following issues and others will likely be included on interim committee agendas. • Duty to intervene • Forcible entry • Pretrial release amendments • Release of body worn camera footage • Use of force standards Additionally, due to SB 155 and the impending utilization of 988 for behavioral health issues, a legislative authorized task force will convene. The results of this discussion will impact law enforcement. Moreover, this past interim, Department of Public

Safety6. Commissioner Jess Anderson convenedPage a 73 monthly meeting of law enforcement and commu- POTENTIAL INTERIM ISSUES nity leaders to discuss policing and the community. Although HB 283 Community and Police Relations Commissions (Wheatley, Mark) failed, Commissioner Anderson may reconvene meetings during the 2021 interim.

REVENUE

HB 401 Fee Amendments (Waldrip, Steve) would have prohibited a municipality from collecting a hook- up, land use application, inspection, regulation, or review fee that exceeded the estimated actual cost of the service provided for the fee. A municipality would be required to, for each fee, establish a separate interest-bearing ledger account and prepare an annual report showing the source and amount of money collected in the account. Although HB 401 failed, this bill and the language in SB 3 Appropriations Adjust- ments directing the State Auditor to report on local government fees indicate the Legislature’s ongoing interest in all local fees and ULCT will continue to engage with members of the Legislature. ULCT will engage with members and state leaders on maximizing federal funding from the American Res- cue Plan. After the U.S. Treasury issues fund guidance, ULCT will work with state leaders to identify where state and local efforts can best target funds for authorized projects while ensuring municipalities are able to use the funds for their specific community needs.

6. Page 74 POTENTIAL INTERIM ISSUES WATER

The H2O Collective is an initiative between ULCT and Prepare 60 (Prep60), made up of Utah’s four larg- est conservancy districts that deliver water to 90% of Utah’s population. The goal of the Collective is to provide cities, towns, and counties with meaningful water conservation tools, strategies, and training. The Col- lective will continue meeting this interim to provide potential water conservation policies, strategies, and training for elected officials.

COURTS

ULCT will continue to engage with task force members and stakeholders reviewing justice court structures and modifications.

6. Page 75 RESPECT

COL LAB ORA TION

OUT COMES

#CitiesWork

50 South 600 East, Suite 150 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: 801-328-1601

6. Page 76

2021 Legislative Land Use Changes Top 3 bills FAQ Follow up from March 24, 2021 Legislative Update Webinar Chat box *Please always check with your City Attorney on the specifics as it relates to your own municipal code. This is meant as general advice from the League.

HB 82 - Internal Accessory Dwelling Units (IADUs)

Question: We are not a college town so we have to meet the 75% requirement. Can we select zones that are primarily residential and not include the 6,000 sq ft lots in the 25% exception? Or do they have to be included in the 25% exception? Answer: A municipality may prohibit an IADU on a lot that is 6,000 sf or less that is located outside of the 25%/67% zoning district in which it chooses to prohibit IADUs.

Question: Does the bill specify how long the city has to verify if the application is complete or not? Answer: No there is no time clock on processing the permit or determining completeness.

Question: Can CCRs prohibit IADU's? Answer: No, under the bill they cannot.

Question: Can someone in an attached Condo or townhome in an HOA rent out their basement as an IADU? Answer: The bill is specific to accessory dwelling units within a primary dwelling, which is defined as a single-family dwelling that is detached and occupied by the owner. An attached condo or townhome likely does not meet this requirement and therefore the IADU would not be a permitted use for that dwelling.

Question: Southern Utah communities allow, even encourage, casitas. Typically casitas are attached. Am I correct that a casita is now an IADU?

Answer: If you define casita as an accessory dwelling unit and it is attached then yes it is an IADU.

Question: Are there any limitations on what cities can require or charge for application/impact fees?

April 20, 2021 1 6. Page 77 Answer: Fees must be based on the cost of providing the (regulatory) service.

Question: Can you clarify again whether a city may require an interior connection between the IADU and the primary residence?

Answer: You cannot require anything above what your requirements are if the residence was simply doing an addition. So, we would say no.

Question: If we already allow two-family dwellings as a permitted use in all residential zones, are we already compliant with this law?

Answer: If “two-family dwellings” are duplexes, you are not in compliance. If you allow IADUs in single-family dwellings, but have restrictions that don’t align with HB 82, you will need to revise those restrictions.

Question: Do you have any advice on reviewing and approving units that have been created in violation of zoning and without building permits prior to this bill as "new" IADU's?

Answer: If a property owner comes forward with an IADU located in “an area zoned primarily for residential use” that would have previously been illegal under the zoning but is now a permitted use under HB 82, the municipality must allow that IADU. If the IADU was also created without a building permit, but the owner is now trying to get a business license or other permit for the IADU, the municipality may require the property owner meet any regulations that are permissible under HB 82 to qualify for the license or permit but may not enforce additional regulations.

If an IADU is not located in “an area zoned primarily for residential use” and the municipality prohibits IADUs in that area or allows IADUs but has IADU regulations, or is located in an area zoned primarily for residential use but the municipality excludes IADUs as permitted under HB 82, the municipality may enforce any zoning or other regulations.

Question: If an applicant submits plans that violate the building code, is the City obligated to issue a permit? If so, where does liability lie for inevitable suits by the homeowner who had no idea the plan did not meet code?

Answer: No. The bill states that “an internal accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all applicable building, health, and fire codes.”

Question: Please clarify Building Code Changes. Does the change allow the ADU to share the same air with the primary building instead of a separate system? Health issues?

Answer: Yes it does.

Please see this summary and thanks to Vineyard’s George Reid and Cathryn Nelson of

April 20, 2021 2 6. Page 78 Herriman for pulling it together.

• The amendments to the construction code provide uniformity of enforcement across the State. Building Code Officials are no longer in a situation where strict application of the International Residential Code (IRC) is prohibitive, if not impossible, to allowing for construction of an internal ADU. • The primary dwelling must be occupied as the primary residence of the owner of record. This requirement is even more important with amendments to life-safety components. • The IRC is amended to allow for less than the required 1-hour fire separation between dwelling units. Each side of walls and bottom of floors must be protected by not less than ½” drywall. This is already common practice in nearly all construction. • The IRC is amended to allow discharge of return air from the ADU to the primary dwelling, and vice versa. This eliminates any requirements to have separate HVAC systems. • The IRC is amended to remove the requirement that occupants of both dwelling units have access to the main electrical service to disconnect power. In older construction, while the meter socket is outside the home, the service disconnect is located somewhere within the home.

Question: Does the bill limit parking regulations to only 1 stall for the ADU, or can additional stalls be required? Regulating parking is important to control on-street parking, preserving the atmosphere of the neighborhood, and not interfering with the quality of life of neighboring property owners.

Answer: The bill limits you to only being able to require one stall for the IADU.

Question: HB 82 says that a municipality may require a primary dwelling to “to include one additional on-site parking space for an internal accessory dwelling unit, regardless of whether the primary dwelling is existing or new construction.”

Answer: For purposes of the IADU, a municipality may not require more than one parking stall.

Question: Does the IADU allow owners to rent out individual rooms similar to a boarding house?

Answer: The bill does not address this other than an IADU is “for the purpose of offering a long- term rental of 30 consecutive days or longer.”

Question: In general, how is an IADU different from a duplex or two-family dwelling? Did they draw this distinction?

Answer: An IADU is within a single-family dwelling that is detached and also owner-occupied.

Question: Is it intended that this bill legalize what are now illegal ADUS under some ordinances?

Answer: The bill is not retroactive (looking backwards). However, if an existing IADU is located

April 20, 2021 3 6. Page 79 in an area zoned for primarily residential use, and that municipality does not exclude that location through the respective 25% or 67% exemption, the existing IADU is now a permitted use. The municipality may place restrictions on the IADU but only if those restrictions are in line with the permitted restrictions in HB 82.

Question: Will this bill help and improve affordable housing access?

Answer: TBD. It may not help provide more income restricted units but it may relieve some tension with units that had been historically rented but were taken off the market for short term rentals therefore putting more units at a mid-price point back into general circulation.

Question: Will the league have a template with new language to update our code?

Answer: As many of the provisions will require policy choices to be made at the local level we most likely will not but we will try to provide examples that may be of use to our members.

Question: Egress provision - in the case of an IADU that does not have an internal connection, and the only way into or out of the IADU is 1 doorway and the windows are very small and only open half way, they are sliding narrow windows that are not in compliance with the building code. Fire is worried about egress I the case of a fire blocking the single point of access. Does this new law mean we can't require larger windows for safety?

Answer: Check with your building inspector for now. We are not clear on that answer yet.

Question: Does this affect unincorporated counties as well?

Answer: Yes, the same IADU regulations apply to zones that are primarily residential in unincorporated county.

Question: What is the business license for?

Answer: A municipality may want to require a business license since the primary dwelling owner will likely rent out an IADU. The license also allows a municipality to ensure that the IADU complies with permitted regulations and is not rented as a short-term rental.

Question: So the internal adu can be larger than the primary residence?

Answer: HB 82 only says that the IADU must be created within the allowed footprint of the primary dwelling at the time the IADU is created.

Question: Since these definitions of IADU, etc aren’t in the bill, where are they?

Answer: The definition of “internal accessory dwelling unit” is included in the bill, but that definition also includes the defined terms “primary dwelling” (also in the bill) and “accessory dwelling unit” (previously defined in UCA 10-9a-103).

"Accessory dwelling unit" means a habitable living unit added to, created within, or

April 20, 2021 4 6. Page 80 detached from a primary single-family dwelling and contained on one lot.

"Internal accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit created: (i) within a primary dwelling; (ii) within the footprint of the primary dwelling described in Subsection (1)(a)(i) at the time the internal accessory dwelling unit is created; and (iii) for the purpose of offering a long-term rental of 30 consecutive days or longer.

"Primary dwelling" means a single-family dwelling that (i) is detached; and (ii) is occupied as the primary residence of the owner of record.

Question: The "primary dwelling" has to be detached, so an attached condo or townhome can not have an IADU? Answer: If a municipality wants to allow IADUs in an attached condo or townhome it may, but HB 82 does not require it.

Question: Can an internal ADU have a separate exit to the outside? Can the ADU be totally separated from the main dwelling- in other words- an internal ADU does not have to have access from within the primary dwelling?

Answer: Yes under the bill it can have separate exits and does not have to have internal access.

Question: Can you restrict the IADU size? can it be larger than the primary residence sq ft?

Answer: HB 82 says that the IADU must be created within the footprint of the primary dwelling at the time the IADU is created. It also says that a municipality may not restrict the size of the IADU in relation to the primary dwelling. So the IADU must be within the primary dwelling footprint but a municipality may not regulate how much of the footprint is the IADU.

Question: Would an ADU above a detached garage be classified as an IADU? Answer: The definition of IADU is a unit created within the primary dwelling. A detached garage is arguably not part of that “primary dwelling” but a municipality should look carefully at its own ordinance definition and could still allow that type of ADU if desired.

Question: What if an owner lives in the IADU and rents the main house as a short-term rental?

Answer: The bill states in 10-9a-530 that IADU’s are not for use for 30 days or shorter. Internal accessory dwelling units.

140 (1) As used in this section:

141 (a) "Internal accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit created:

142 (i) within a primary dwelling;

143 (ii) within the footprint of the primary dwelling described in Subsection (1)(a)(i) at the

April 20, 2021 5 6. Page 81 144 time the internal accessory dwelling unit is created; and

145 (iii) for the purpose of offering a long-term rental of 30 consecutive days or longer.

Question: Do Planned Community/MPD zones count as residential zones in terms of this bill?

Answer: The bill says “area zoned primarily for residential use” without further definition. A municipality should look how it has defined specific zones and determine whether they are “primarily residential.”

Question: Does this bill apply to all residential zones? Answer: No, only those areas that are “zoned primarily for residential use.” If a zone has residential use, but the residential use is not the primary use within the zone, the bill does not apply to that zone.

Question: What is the difference between internal versus external ADUs?

Answer: An external ADU is typically not attached to the primary residence and, if so, is not subject to this bill.

Question: There is prohibition on the minimum size or that you can't cap maximum size?

Answer: The bill allows a municipality to prohibit an IADU in a primary dwelling located on a lot that is 6,000 sf or smaller. For the size of the IADU, the bill says that an IADU is, by definition, a unit created within the footprint of the primary dwelling at the time the IADU is created but the municipality may not set requirements on the size of the IADU within the primary dwelling.

Question: Could a city require additional garbage cans for a home with an IADU? Answer: No, because that gets to the use of the IADU and it is not covered in the exceptions.

HB 98 (Building Inspections + Design Standards) Note: HB98 was vetoed by Gov. Cox but is scheduled to be brought to a special session this spring. Gov Cox veto letter can be read here.

Question:Does the prohibition on design standards apply to detached ADU's on lots with a single family home?

Answer: We would say no as it is accessory to the main use.BUT If your ordinance defines a detached ADU as a one or two family dwelling, then yes

Question: What's the difference between "Townhomes" & Multi-Family?

Answer: Good question. Look to you own definitions but townhomes under IBC say they share a common wall and are more like SF homes.Multi Family are more like mid and larger size

April 20, 2021 6 6. Page 82 apartment buildings. A town home won’t have a unit above or below. The unit is owned from the ground or lot up to the sky. Multifamily units are almost always going to be zoned as multi unit with the whole structure being one owner, tax id, etc. In most places Multifamily can't be split to sell individually.

Question: If a jurisdiction requires a letter from a water company as part of the residential building permit application. Does the new language mean we cannot require that any more because it is not on the list?

Answer: The list in the bill of what is a complete building permit application is exclusive, meaning that a city/county can't require additional items and say the application isn't complete.

Question: What about Form Based Codes that have design, can we just require a development agreement? We don't measure density in form based codes...

Answer: The main point of a form based code is to not care about the density but the form. You can use a development agreement.

Question: Is the 3-day inspection deadline also 3 business days?

Answer: Yes, it is.

Question: Can a city still issue requirements for elevations in new construction in the absence of a development agreement?

Answer: If you need elevations to measure height then yes but for design review no.

Question: Does the bill specify how long the city has to verify if the application is complete or not? (Prior to the 14-day shot clock period)

Answer: The bill is silent about the time for a city to verify that an application is complete, but rather says that the application is complete if it includes everything required by statute. An applicant can arguably claim that, if the application includes everything required by statute, the application is complete and the 14-day clock has started.

Question: Does a developer have to hire an independent 3rd party plans examiner/inspector or can they employ one within their company that is certified by DOPL?

Answer: HB 98 says that, if a municipality fails to meet the inspection deadline, the applicant may "engage an independent third-party licensed building inspector." The "independent, third-party" modifier arguably means that the inspector cannot be an employee of the applicant, although the applicant may contract with a DOPL licensed inspector.

Question: How long does a city have to do a re-review. Example. Completed initial review within 14 days, needs corrections. Once plans are resubmitted do cities have another 14 business

April 20, 2021 7 6. Page 83 days?

Answer: Unless an applicant agrees to an extension, a municipality that indicates corrections are needed cannot require a resubmission after the 14 days unless the resubmission is to address deficiencies identified by a third-party review of a geotechnical report or geological report.

Question: Municipalities cannot regulate design, but developers may still regulate design in their private covenants?

Answer: Yes, they may.

Question: I’m assuming design requirements negotiated during the annexation process and included in an annexation agreement would be the same as a development agreement. Is this a correct assumption?

Answer: Yes, we believe an annexation agreement with design element requirements are Development Agreements within the meaning of HB 409's new definition. In the context of LUDMA now with both the HB98 and HB 409 revisions, annexation agreements likely meet the definition of Development Agreements in most cases.

Question: What if inspections are being held due to conditions of approval not being met? (I.e no final inspection until retaining wall observation letters are submitted). Does this merit inspections being held for more than 3 days?

Answer: If we understand correctly, as long as it is bonded for and is not “essential to meet the requirements of the building code or fire code the Certificate of Occupancy must be issued. See 10-9a-802 below.

UCA 10-9a-802. Enforcement.

(d) A municipality may not deny an applicant a building permit or certificate of occupancy because the applicant has not completed an infrastructure improvement: (i) that is not essential to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy under the building code and fire code; and (ii) for which the municipality has accepted an improvement completion assurance for landscaping or infrastructure improvements for the development.

Question: Does the 14 day timeframe start over each time there is a correction needed on the plans?

Answer: No, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. The municipality should indicate any corrections within the 14 days. If an applicant fails to make the corrections, the municipality may still require correction at the building inspection.

April 20, 2021 8 6. Page 84 Question:This is only for the review correct, not the issuance of a permit. If they have redlines, then the shotclock is over?

Answer: After 14 days, (or 28 days if an applicant makes a formal request for a completed review after the initial 14 days) a municipality must issue a building permit unless the applicant agrees to an extension. However, at inspection a municipality may enforce any violations that an applicant did not cure from redlines or otherwise.

Question:How do you prevent the developers getting the 3-day inspection before they have finished their city permit. This really opens the door for confusion. Builders are telling planners that this allows them to get a building permit at the end of 14 days notwithstanding any issues with the plan and issues must be resolved at inspection.

Answer: Not sure on the first part; second part is same answer as above.

Question: If an initial property developer asks for an overlay or a new zone to provide additional density or other provisions not available under the base zone, thereby allowing the city to impose design requirements, can we still hold later property owners, or builders to whom lots are sold, to the design standards. Or do we have to do a development agreement for everything to bind future owners.

Answer: Traditional conditions of approval for PUD type requirements are an exception in the new statute. Our advice is that you do not "have" to have a development agreement, but we recommend using them for all PUD type situations that impose design guidelines. Please consult with your own attorney on this matter.

HB 409 Land Use Task Force Bill (LUFT)

Question: What is the population requirement minimum? Answer: The population requirement is the same as the MIHP requirement in SB 34: all cities of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th classes (e.g. cities with populations >10k) and cities of the 5th class with populations of 5k+ that are located in counties of the 1st-3rd class. The training requirement also applies to Metro townships with populations >5k and counties with unincorporated populations >5k.

Question: What if it is a land use change that the property owners want? If the change is reduced setbacks or increased height, the neighbors might not see it as a beneficial use.

Answer: The legislation is silent on that issue. HB 98 says that a “municipality may not impose on a building permit applicant for a single-family dwelling located within the subdivision any land use regulation that is enacted within 10 years after the day on which the subdivision plat is recorded.” It’s arguable that “impose” means a municipality may not unilaterally require

April 20, 2021 9 6. Page 85 compliance with the land use regulation, but may impose it if the property owner agrees. Check with your municipal attorney.

Question: What if that land use change is a life safety issue?

Answer: The bill does not make an exception for life safety, although this provision does not apply to “any changes in the requirements of the applicable building code, health code, or fire code, or other similar regulations.”

Question: What happens if a planning commissioner does not complete their training. Answer: If they don't get the first hour they can't vote. If they don't get the rest there is no penalty per say but let’s not have to have one imposed on us! The League will have available on May 5th, 2021 an online class that will fulfill the first hour requirement at luau.utah.gov.

Question: Is the road width requirement just pavement or the whole right of way? Answer: Pavement does not include curb and gutter.

Question: Do we need to flag subdivisions since 2011 or just 2021 going forward

Answer: The bill is not retroactive so we would say 2021. To that end ULCT is working on resolving in a special session or general session the issues with the 10-year vesting in HB409.

April 20, 2021 10 6. Page 86