H.B. 347 Artificial Turf Placement Modifications

What this bill does

H.B. 347 would require local education agencies to notify residents within 200 feet before installing artificial turf of at least 5,000 square feet, by mail or in person 30 days ahead, and to name a point of contact. It would also put the installation on a board meeting agenda for public comment, but would not ban the turf or require an environmental study.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 9 yes, 0 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 6, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 5 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: House vote, which failed · Feb 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 6, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (55 turns)

  1. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)55:39

     Thank you, Representative Peterson. Thank you. We'll go to item number two, house bill 3 47, artificial turf replacement modifications. Representative Gwynn, welcome Representative Gwynn.

  2. Rep. Hoang Nguyen55:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you committee for, um, having this item today on the agenda. Uh, I would like to, oh, first I am speaking to the first sub of House Bill 3 47. This bill, I know some of you have been, uh, reached out to, uh, with, with opposition to this bill. Let me start. We do have a handout here. I don't know if, uh, Kyle's gonna be handing out this intern to this, uh, bill to make it a little bit more clear. Let me start with the genesis of this bill. This bill, the discussion for it came about this summer when a community in my district, um, artificial turf was installed in a, uh, school property that was closed and was opened for as a sports complex. And artificial turf was installed in a, a, a great amount of it was installed, and the neighbors who were surrounding property adjoining to where the artificial turf was installed, uh, had had a lot of issues cause arise from the artificial turf installed from heat islands to the smell of rubber and plastic. Some residents, uh, reported that their, their vegetable gardens were greatly affected by the amount of artificial turf installed. Uh, we had a meeting this summer where there was quite a few folks, over a hundred people who showed up to kind of testify to the nuisance that has created for these residents. So this bill is about making sure that we work with LEAs to be neighborly to give proper notification when they are going to install artificial turf. This bill does not ban artificial turf from being installed. It does not require an environmental study. Uh, it does not even apply when they are trying to remove turf or install or replace it. It's just the initial installation. What this bill does do is it does give proper notification to surrounding neighbors around, uh, where the artificial turf will be installed. We were went back and forth quite a bit with a couple of different LEAs, and this is what the first substitute has kind of dwindled down to, to make sure that, um, it's not too burdensome for LEAs that was not the intent here. It was more just to let neighbors know, uh, when they will be installing it. So what we've had here is it will require notification to residents who live, um, the elder edge of where the artificial turf will be installed 200 feet, within 200 feet. They will receive a notice from LEAs, um, either by mail or by, uh, going to their door to notify them that they will be in, have plans to install artificial turf. They will also, um, LEAs will also, with their current standing board meetings, list this as a, as a line item on the agenda to let public come and testify to, uh, when they are installing artificial turf, if there's any questions or concern. And then this will also require them to, uh, to give, um, let residents know, neighbors know who the point of contact is when they are planning to install artificial turf. Like I said, this does not stop them from installing artificial turf. This is a way just to make sure that they are notifying their neighbors when they are doing it, and giving an opportunity for neighbors to come to their standing board meetings to speak on that issue. That concludes my presentation.

  3. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)59:44

     Thank you, representative Wynn to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Teuscher.

  4. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher59:54

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, could you tell me representative, um, if I, I mean, I see the, um, requirements on lines 100 to 1 0 1 that say that an LEA governing board may not improve installation of artificial turf until the re the re turf until the requirements of this section have been met. What, what would happen if they didn't follow this regulation? What would be the remedy Right now with what had happened in my community? And, and to be clear, this bill is something that in this community, it's already happened. It doesn't do anything to, uh, help what's happened in this community. It's for other residents around the state where, um, my constituents feel very strongly they wanna prevent this from happening. What would happen if they do not, um, follow all that, all the required notices here and go ahead and install it would give opportunity for possibly a lawsuit and more costly to the LEAs because some of the, you know, my community felt that strongly that they want, that it disturbed their enjoyment of their prop, uh, personal property so much that they wanted to, um, take a legal route. So, so this in fact, would actually give more protection to LEAs by saying they've covered by statute covered their requirements, so that there's not a route to, for legal, uh, ramifications for LEAs. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I can just add one, ask one more question that is, um, I understand the situation that you've had in your, your community with this in particular school, but are there any other requirements that you know of in the code that deal with maybe a, another political subdivision of the state, a city town county installing this, or maybe a large, um, private entity, you know, say a, um, someone that wanted to have a recreation center that ha was outside and put in artificial turf. Are there any requirements that would be placed on those groups? This one just pertains to LEA.

  5. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:01:56

     And also, I, I should note that it also with, in working with LEAs, um, it only pertains to when they are installing artificial turf of at least 5,000 square feet or more, which generally qualifies for lacrosse, soccer, uh, football. This does not, this code does not apply to any other outside of LEAs uh, installing artificial turf. I will note that Salt Lake City, in particular has, uh, local, um, code does already ban artificial turf. So that, that's a direction that some local municipalities are taking. Okay. Thank you. Does that answer your question? Thank you,

  6. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:02:34

     Representative Fati.

  7. Rep. Jake Fitisemanu1:02:38

     Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, question for the sponsor. Can you just help me understand, um, get a little more clarity on the timeline that we're talking about? So, in my initial reading, it looks like it's, it's very clear about the notification for the community meeting, but at what actual point is the, um, the meeting and or the notification required ahead of the actual installation? So the written notification is required 30 days before, um, before they are gonna be installing it, and I believe it's 60 days, uh, on their LEAs website to allow folks to know that it's gonna be on the agenda for them to, to come. So, uh, please ask.

  8. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:03:21

     Yeah, so it's 30 days written notice in the mail as well. Okay.

  9. Rep. Jake Fitisemanu1:03:25

     And just a follow up question if that's allowed. Sure. Um, I guess what I'm asking is that this is just a, a requirement for a meeting to be held for input to be able to be shared. Um, but that input, even if it was overwhelmingly oppositional, would not prevent an LEA from actually installing the turf.

  10. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:03:44

      It would not, and let me just say this again, this does not require an LEA to conduct a Independence standalone public hearing notice on the installation of artificial turf when they decide to do so. This bill makes it very clear they can have it in their regular, regularly scheduled board meetings, monthly board meetings, or whenever the LEAs hold their, uh, standing governing body meeting and have it as in a line agenda to be able to take public comment.

  11. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:04:16

      Thank you, representative Arthur.

  12. Rep. John Arthur1:04:21

      Thank you, chair. Um, I just want to further clarify because I'm, I'm, I'm picturing this in my mind. So, 60 days before the meeting where they'll discuss this, it gets posted on the website 30 days before the meeting, any resident who lives within two, whose property is within 200 feet of the turf installation area. So it's not just 200 feet of the school, it's 200 feet of the turf installation area. They get a written notice informing them of the meeting. They come to the meeting, they get to voice their, their concerns about it. It's a regular board meeting. Uh, in theory, at that board meeting, the, the board members would vote, or they could vote at the next one, but there would be a meeting where they discuss this and they take public comment. And then ultimately, just as the, the good representative pointed out, they, even if the opposition is overwhelming, they could still vote to install the turf. And then after that vote is done, not, but not until all those requirements are filled, could installation begin?

  13. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:05:24

      That is, or could it even be approved? That's correct. That's, that's the process here. That is correct. Okay.

  14. Rep. John Arthur1:05:29

      That's, thank you so much for allowing me to clarify that. Thank you.

  15. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:05:33

      Thank you, representative Arthur. Representative Kohler.

  16. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:05:36

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, question you mentioned, well, first of all, just, uh, when you enumerate a bunch of reasons on here, distances and all this stuff, it seems to me you're just adding a lot of, uh, mindful thought to the public that they're gonna beat this and somehow, and they're gonna get out and push it, uh, a little bit more than if they want. And I think in most cases like this, I've been around quite a few of them, and I understand the smell that's there for a while. You mentioned, oh, lawn and garden affecting by being affected. Um, I'd love to know more about that, but I, I have a hard time putting all this stuff in saying they have it right to have a hearing and come and speak to it. But you've listed a whole bunch of problems in here that could be, or that are limitations on it, that I think that would actually end up being the, the focus of these meetings and causing a lot of trouble for LEAs when it's a school. And if you look around, most of the schools are putting on official turf. This is coming. And to stop it or cause it to be slowed down is a costly thing for them. But I'd like to know more about, or enumerate, maybe somebody in the public will talk to it about how are these, some of these other detrimental effects actually occur. I can't see how they're affected. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:06:46

      Thank you. Jim Kohler. See no further lights from the committee. Let's go to the public. Who'd like to speak to this? Raise your hand please. We have 1, 2, 3. Come forward please. There's, raise your hand if you support, if you're opposed, if you swore support opposed. Okay. Support. Who's opposed and no opposed. Okay. Come forward. Those in favor. You'll have two minutes. Someone online. We don't have anyone right now, but we'll check again. Alright. Thank You. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

  18. Willow Jeppson, property owner1:07:28

      My name is Willow Jepson. I speak, uh, representing myself. My family and I have lived in our home for 20 years, and on the other side of the fence was an elementary school with large grass fields. It's been a beautiful, quiet, green place to live. But now we live a dozen feet away from a huge new field of artificial turf, and it's really, truly causing catastrophic problems for our property. Sadly, we saw them preparing the substrate to lay this, but we all believed it was going to be grass because we weren't giving any notification. We didn't find out until the morning that they rolled it out that we were getting artificial turf under Utah Code section 78 B dash six dash 1101 nuisances de defined as anything offensive to the census or an obstruction of the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. And that's exactly what we are facing right now. Um, once the, the turf was rolled out and the temperatures climbed above 65, our yard has become like a living hell. It's hot, very, very hot and filled with thick, stinky fumes. Most people aren't aware that artificial turf has the potential to cause these nuisance effects of the really hot, um, the heat and the strong unpleasant fumes. But it is a real thing. Um, artificial turf is a heating surface just like asphalt and concrete and metal, but it actually heats up on average 37 degrees hotter than asphalt. Um, there are many well conducted peer reviewed studies, including one that's been highly quoted nationally, run at BYU in 2002. It showed that on a hot Utah, sunny day artificial turf measured 60 to a hundred degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the adjacent grass. And so it can reach one 60 to 200, and that heat has to go somewhere. Um, so it radiates and it blows into neighboring properties. And this is what has happened. We, my testimony is that the heat island effect is real, and it's not just in our yard. I've read about it all over. Um, so our beautiful yard that we've hosted things in for many years now, family events, neighborhood events, community events, we can't host there because it is truly so hot and miserable. Um, this law should exist to require notification because this does truly create nuisance. And if we were able to go and give input, um, it would actually prevent as, as senator, uh, as, um, representative n said a benefit to the LEA, because if they get input from us, they can take into consideration how we actually use our properties and consider the ideal placement on the lot for their turf. There is a place, for example, on our lot where if they just placed it back from the edges, it could have really made a big difference for us. So good communication during the planning process can prevent conflict between LEAs and the communities they serve and even help them avoid costly legal battles with neighbors over nuisance damage to their properties. So I thank Representative n Nen for sponsoring this bill, and I appreciate that the purpose of it is to protect other owners, property owners' rights in the future so that other neighborhoods don't face the nuisance effects that we are facing without any notification or chance to voice our concerns. When the use and enjoyment of one's very own property is at stake, notification is only fair. Thank you.

  19. Unknown speaker1:10:27speaker not certain

      Thank you. I have a question for you. And will the witnesses please sign the, the paper there? It's for you. So you said it's 60 to a hundred degrees hotter than, Than the gra the natural grass.

  20. Willow Jeppson, property owner1:10:39

      Really? Yes. Really. And, and when you look at thermography, um, photos, I mean, there's just been so much, so much research done. So how does this impact your adjacent yard then? I mean, you said you can't hold activities, but does the heat radiate, I mean, so much that you can, or what is it you Radiate? The heat both radiates into our yard making. I mean, you step into our yard if we've taken temperature readings many over, many, many days in the backyard next to the field compared to even our front yard. Big difference in the temperatures. It is so hot, it's very unpleasant to be out there. And I'm not even just talking August, um, truly from May until mid-October, there were days that were so, so hot and this and the fumes, they actually don't dissipate for about eight to 10 years. And I'm not, I mean, there's no exaggeration. It smells like a hot tire store, a really hot muggy tire store right in our own yard. We have a beautiful sunken rock garden area. Um, and, you know, in the summer at 10, 11 o'clock at night, it's still hot, muggy and smells like a tire Storm. Which community do you live in? We live in, this is the Rosalyn Heights property. We live up in the, um, it's upper sugar house. Mm-hmm. East Sugar House.

  21. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:11:48

      Okay. Thank you for your testimony. We got some other questions for you, Representative Chevrier.

  22. Rep. Representative Chevrier1:11:52

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I was just wondering, you know, this bill doesn't prevent as, um, the good representative mentioned a school district from installing this. So imagine the scenario this bill was in place and you received the notice, um, at, at that time. It sounds like you wouldn't have known that it would've caused this harm, but maybe you would've shown up and testified maybe you didn't like it. If the school board, uh, didn't take the action that you were hoping for, how, how would that have made you feel?

  23. Willow Jeppson, property owner1:12:23

      Well, I mean, obviously frustrated be, um, I think, I think part of the benefit of this bill is that it it informs them to be considering the neighbor's needs. Because if they truly don't know either about the heat island effect, this may at least clue them in there is a real thing. The heat island effect is a real thing. Let's look at our lot, let's consider where it might go. And then we, we would've worked with, you know, spoken with our own, our own elected school board member and asked her please to, you know, talk to the other board members and have them consider like placement on the even slightly different placement on the lot.

  24. Rep. Kristen Chevrier1:13:04

      If I could ask one more question. So, um, based on what I'm hearing from you, it, it sounds like if, if the claims you're making are true, we probably shouldn't permit these at all in Utah, right? Because 'cause of all the negative impact that you have. So wouldn't that be a more effective solution than just, you know, having a notice?

  25. Willow Jeppson, property owner1:13:26

      Um, effective, yes, but of course we have to balance the legal rights of the LEAs and the legal rights of the property owners. So this is where we're trying to just protect our rights a little bit more.

  26. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:13:39

      Thank you. Thank you. Thank you representative. Pleasure. Representative Kohler.

  27. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:13:44

      Yeah, thank you. Follow up on the question you just got, um, you, the hearing that we're talking about here happens, you're up there talking. What would you suggest they do? Is there something, I mean, I haven't seen the the part, but what, is there somewhere where they could actually install this that would not offend

  28. Willow Jeppson, property owner1:14:01

      what you're trying to solve? Yeah, that's A, that's a great question. So on the lot that we live around, there are 36 properties around the lot. And interestingly, ly on three sides, there are very deep lots on one side, there are narrow shallow lots because in years past, those neighbors donated for $10 this area to the school district in order to have a school for the children. So the lots are much shorter. If we had been able to know that this was happening, we could have, we could have pointed out that if this were placed either more central to the lot or even over against the very long deep lots where some people don't really actually use their space all the way back to the end, then the heat island wouldn't be affecting people whose, whose back doors and, um, driveways, basketball hoops, kitty pools, swing sets, vegetable gardens are literally right up to the edge. So there actually in our case, was a better placement. And if we'd been able to say, you know, would you consider not placing it right up in this corner where the lots are the shortest, I mean, our back door is less than 20 feet from the line. And, but in most of the other areas, you know, those other sides, um, there's more of a buffer zone. So I think that there is sometimes wiggle room for them. Thank you.

  29. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:15:25

      Thank you for your testimony. Go ahead sir.

  30. Aaron Torres, property owner1:15:29

      Thank you. If I can just give you, uh, a homeowner's perspective, uh, Just go ahead and tell us your name, Please. My name is Aaron Torres. And again, uh, a neighbor, a couple, couple lots away from, thank you, Uh, From Willow, my neighbor, who I've shared a property line with now for 24 years, installed thousands of feet rather acres of artificial turf and rubber infill. Uh, they did this about 12 feet from our property line. The only notice we received that this new field would be plastic and rubber was when we saw semi-truck after semi-truck, after semi-truck pulling in and unloading the rubber infill. They dawned hazmat suits. They dawned mass during the installation. They were just feet from where my kids played from, where my vegetables grew again with no communication about what was happening, their conduct. And this product didn't just impact us during the installation phase. It went on and incr to increasingly interfere with our ability to use our property. As the summer weather warmed up, we saw our vegetable garden suffer from intense heat waves that pulsated off that new field. I put in a new water system, I installed new shade canopies. None of it was enough before the area was a mix of grass and asphalt. And there was never a problem with the heat. The heat from this new installation was unique and very different than anything we had experienced again, in the prior 24 years we'd lived there. Next came the smell. Following the installation, we began experiencing excessive odor from the artificial turf. The odor gets worse as the fields heat up during the the day. And with even the smallest breeze and noxious smell encroaches on our property, it feels like a cloud that won't, that won't leave my home is further away, um, from the field and then some of the other impacted property owners. But with that noted, another terrible part of this nuisance comes after a warm day. And as after the sun has gone down, I wanna open my windows, uh, let fresh air into my home. Rather my home fills with the odor of, as was said, a tire store that smells just like you're standing in a tire shop. The cause of the noxious odors come directly from the artificial turf. They've caused harm to my family by taking away our right to use and enjoy our property and the home the way we did in the previous 24 years that we lived there. Um, my neighbors that I've talked to, we fully support HB 3 47 as it does the minimum to require the basic property rights that are, that they be respected one neighbor to another. Um, with this bill, I hope I, we are looking out for the property rights of others who could be impacted in the future the way we have been. And all we are asking is that, uh, for what we did not get that, that this bill provides the notification, the communication that should have happened.

  31. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:18:23

      Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We had one other one that wanted to speak. This will be our last witness. Welcome, sir. Go ahead.

  32. Rhett Jeppson, property owner1:18:39

      Thank you. My name is Rhett Jepsen. Um, I'm also a neighbor adjacent to the property that has been mentioned. And I want to just add a couple of additional comments to what's already been said. Um, after this installation took place, as was mentioned as neighbors, none of us had any notification. So we contacted the school district and went down and had a, uh, a very, um, friendly conversation with the superintendent and the man who was over the entire project. And when we asked why they chose artificial turf and the placement, the answer was that it was primarily for durability. And we asked about the heat island effect and the toxic fumes and other things that come off. And they were dumb struck by our comments on that. And we asked what they used to make the decision to, to choose artificial turf. And they said, well, we relied on this guide. And it was a sales brochure from the artificial turf company talking about all the positive characteristics of it. Um, let me back up and say that I am not opposed to artificial turf being used for sports fields. It's a function of whether it's placed in a stadium setting with the proper buffer zone or right up against residences where it's damaging. And so this is where with our particular situation and this school district, had we been given notification in advance, we could have had a friendly neighborly conversation about the placement and some of the impacts, and they would've maybe been educated. This particular district did not understand any of these topics that are now causing the problems to us. So one of the benefits to this bill is that we'll also create more of a friendly relationship between the installing LEA and the neighboring community. 'cause that as it is right now, they've created nothing but animosity, distrust and contention. Um, I wanna also just comment, um, that I did not know anything about artificial turf other than that I knew it was used for sports fields and professional sports especially. Um, after it was installed and we started noticing the heat, we bought a heat gun where you can go measure the surface temperature. And I just want to validate that this past summer was one of the more mild summers we've had in, in Utah. We had days in the eighties and nineties, but very few days in the hundreds in the days when it was in the eighties, high eighties and approaching 90, I went over to the field and would take temperatures. It was 1 55, 1 60, 1 65. So this is not an exaggeration. And if we had days in the hundreds, this would be up to probably 180. And we have no barrier, no, no vegetation, no trees, nothing. And so when the winds pick up, it's like living in a convection oven. And so once again, if we had been given notification, we could have, um, cooperated and communicated with the school district to talk about a more appropriate placement or talked about vegetation, buffers or other things that would've prevented this damage to the neighboring community. Finally, um, my backyard is my haven. Um, and in to, to talk specifically, somebody asked about vegetable gardens. I have two garden boxes. The one that is close to the field after installation in three weeks, it went from green and lush to completely demolished. We have a tree that's in the line of sight that's split and is using sap. We have, um, cedar atlas trees that are dropping needles at an alarming rate. And we've had two certified arborists come and tell us that the damage is due to the heat island. It is very real and a very real damaging impact to our property. It is absolutely 100% a nuisance. Thank you.

  33. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:22:16

      Thank you for your testimony and thank you for making the effort to come and speak to us today. We'll close the public comment period and come back to the committee for action. And we do have a, a substitute substitute. One. Representative Arthur

  34. Rep. John Arthur1:22:43

      Thank you chair. Um, motion to, to move the sub.

  35. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:22:49

      Okay. The motion is to adopt first substitute house bill 3 47. Would you like to speak to that?

  36. Rep. John Arthur1:22:55

      I think that it, it makes changes that, that improve upon the original version of the bill.

  37. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:23:00

      Okay, thank you. The motion is to adopt the first sub discussion to the motion Representative Gwynn, would you like to comment on the adoption of the sub?

  38. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:23:09

      Thank you for making that motion. The first original bill that was published was, you know, kind of throwing a lot out there. This substitute is a lot of negotiations and back and forth with a couple of different LEAs. So I think I would support the adoption of first sub.

  39. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:23:26

      Thank you Representative Arthur for summation. I'll wait. Thank You. The motion is to adopt first sub to house bill 3 47. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously.

  40. Rep. John Arthur1:23:45

      Representative Arthur, I'd like to reserve the right to make a motion.

  41. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:23:50

      Okay. Oh, you're sitting by the rules chair so he can help you with that.

  42. Rep. John Arthur1:23:59

      Okay. Uh, every committee I'm told something different is the new guy that just messing with me. Uh, I'd like to, um, make a motion that we pass out favorably, um, HP 3 47 as as, uh, okay. Amended.

  43. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:24:16

      So the motion is recommend favorably first substitute house bill 3 47. Would you like to speak to your motion?

  44. Rep. John Arthur1:24:21

      I would, um, you know, listening to, to these folks who have been impacted by this, um, decision and the project that was, uh, completed, um, I, I, as I look at the asks of this bill of an LEA to inform residents of the, the projects that could be coming in and impacting their properties, I think that it asks not too much. I think that having a posted, um, notification on the website 60 days ahead and then 30 days, um, prior, a written notification to those who would be impacted makes a lot of sense. Frankly, I, I wish that this was the policy for any LEA that is considering any sort of capital project that could adversely affect the residents around that project. I, I, I, um, would love for this to be expanded to the, the common practice of all, all districts looking to, to improve their schools that may impact the residents who live around it. So, um, for those reasons, I, I am, um, supportive of this bill.

  45. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:25:34

      Thank you Representative Arthur. Discussion to the motion Representative Teuscher.

  46. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:25:38

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't, I don't necessarily agree or don't necessarily disagree with, um, the good representative here from Cottonwood Heights. Um, that, that this isn't a very large ask of the LEAs. Um, the, the thought that kept going through my mind as I heard the, the impactful, um, comments from, from the public was, I'm just not sure this bill really is gonna solve, solve the problem that, that we're hoping it's gonna solve. Um, I can imagine in my own situation, if I received a postcard that said that the school across the street was going to be putting in artificial turf, I'd be like, oh, okay, great. That might be a good thing for my kids and not know anything. Like we heard from any of the public comment that there are these heat islands or the temperatures would go up, or that there would be a smell for eight to nine years. I assume that's all true. And, um, and so I just wonder if this is a solution that, um, you know, seeks to put a bandaid on something but isn't actually gonna solve the problem. And so I wonder if maybe it would be better to take some more time to really study it out and say, do we need regulation in here that sets up buffer zones and what are those? And getting all of the different, uh, stakeholders at the table to work through that, uh, like we saw on the last bill. I mean, it sometimes it takes a few years to get it right. Uh, these people are gonna have to live with the problems that, um, were created here. This isn't going to solve it. And I just, I think sending out the postcard is, is, you know, maybe just, just not enough if the, if the impacts are really true that we're hearing here. And so for that reason, I'd, I'd love to see some more work on this bill before it advances.

  47. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:27:18

      Thank you, representative te, Representative Lisonbee, you'll have an opportunity in, in a, in a moment. Thank you, Representative Kohler.

  48. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:27:24speaker not certain

      Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. I kind of echo what's just been said. I don't think the bill's done. There's lots of other entities besides LEAs that put in these kind of fields. They're not included. You got support courts and other things that I've been around. They generate heat. I think you need some more work, and so haven't decided yet, but I think it's, uh, probably needs to be held and worked on a little bit more.

  49. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:27:46

      Thank you Representative Kohler for their discussion.

  50. Unknown speaker1:27:51speaker not certain

      So I'd like to make a comment. So I applaud you for the work that's done. Could you do more? Yes, but that's somebody else's bill. What you're trying to do is solve an issue with the LEA. I can think of numerous instances throughout local government where the governing body's required to have a public hearing. Doesn't mean that they have to listen, but they, at least they, the, the public have an opportunity to come express their concerns, and then the governing body can decide if they're going to do what they want or they'll do what they want to do anyway. So I do see value of this. It may be that the LEA in this case is unaware of the harmful effects. You're bringing it to their attention and maybe they can move it. So I think it's a value, it could be enhanced, you know, and I know you started out with a larger enhancement, but now you've refined it. So I, I think it's a value, and I don't think we should try to have you do something that's not in your bill and hold this for till we get something more perfected.

  51. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:28:48

      I see. No, uh, for further comments. So, representative Winn for your summation.

  52. Rep. Hoang Nguyen1:28:53

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I really do appreciate the thoughtful conversation that we've had today and the points that have been brought up. While initially the onset of this bill, we wanted to do a lot more, and, and Representative Teuscher is absolutely correct that, that there does need more to be looked at. When I presented this to the water tests, um, committee, it, it was brought up to wanna do a study in interim study about the effects of artificial turf in our water in our shed with the, uh, uh, nuisance of the smells and everything. That's gonna be a really big lift, and it's gonna take quite a while. Right now, the trend of, of different LEAs, different institutions is more and more artificial turf is being installed outside of the, for lots of different uses. With this bill to the chair's point, we need to get a lot more stakeholders involved to be able to get to a consensus. And that's gonna take quite a while. The purpose of this bill, and, and getting it to this point with this first sub is just so, just like we heard testimony today from the public, if they could have had just that proper public, the opportunity to make the public comment, just to possibly work out with the LEAs where the placement, where the correct placement to reduce the nuisance and harm that would've, uh, cause on neighboring residents. I think that's enough to, at least until we can get to the point of where we stand as a state on artificial turf, and if there are environmental and health impacts on it, I think this is a good stop gap for now to be able to at least prevent this from happening in other communities so that they can get the proper input and possibly work with their neighboring LEAs. So, so I know it doesn't do enough. I wish it does more. I know my constituents wanted to do a lot more, but this right now is the solution that we have to be able to start working towards a bigger solution overall. So with that, I conclude Mr. Chair. Thank you

  53. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:31:00

      And Representative Arthur for summation.

  54. Rep. John Arthur1:31:03

      Thank you, chair. I just want to one more time commend the sponsor for bringing this bill on behalf of her community and her constituents. And I want to commend those constituents for, for taking on this effort to help save others in the future from, from this same situation that's already happened in their case. And it's, uh, it's, it's been very moving for me to see you taking on this effort on behalf of others. I think that this bill is, is asking for, uh, a bare minimum of communication and transparency in a process that can have profound impacts on the lives of a family. And that's why, um, I look forward to supporting it.

  55. Committee chair (Rep. Thomas W. Peterson)1:31:45

      Thank you, representative Arthur. The motion is to recommend favorably first substitute house bill 3 47, roll call. Vote. Representative Arthur. Arthur. Yes. Representative fit Fit. Aye. Representative Gwynn? Yes. Representative Hansen. No. Representative Kohler. No Representative Lee, no. Representative Peterson? No Representative. Teuscher, no. Chair. Dunan? Yes. So the motion fails five to four with Dunnigan, Arthur, Fati, Mona, and Gwen in favor. Okay. Thank you representative. Thank you for Your time.