H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments: transcript

Senate bill, house Bill 4 29. Thank you. Great. Good morning colleagues. Good to see you. Uh, we're down to the wire here. Last two weeks. Uh, colleagues, this bill was brought to me over interim and, uh, was something I've been working with my city and now other cities on. Uh, this bill, if you'll look at the original, was much broader and with the sub, it has been brought to be as narrow as possible. Uh, so this bill only applies to counties. The first class, uh, a county that is very much built out wall to wall cities now. And, uh, it only, uh, targets that trash collection, uh, service district, not other service districts within, uh, Salt Lake County. Uh, but one of the things that was brought to my attention was that, um, a city that I represent reached out and said, look, we found a way to lower costs for our residents, and we'd like to privately contract out for trash collection. Uh, but we are not able to leave the district. And the way that the law is currently situated, it very much holds cities hostage in not allowing them to leave, even when they're trying to do best by the residents. So, uh, this bill is very narrow in limited scope. It will create a, it creates a process for cities and counties of first class to withdraw from garbage collection. The way they would do that is a municipality would send a notice of intent to withdraw from the garbage disposal district, and then a feasible, a feasibility study would need to be conducted, uh, within 90 days. And after that, the city council would be able to meet and review the feasibility study, and then they'd be able to hold a public hearing and have a vote on it. Uh, should that city council decide that they want to leave that service district, then they will be able to send that notice of withdrawal and be able to contract out. Um, really this bills help strengthen local control. I think it's a great way to protect taxpayer dollars and maximize those taxpayer dollars and empower cities. I did have some language that was sent to me on Friday that, um, didn't quite strike the right tone here in terms of, um, special service districts looking for amendments. But I'll tell you, I am committed to continuing to work with them on this. Uh, I will say though, I think we're going to need to have a bigger conversation, especially in areas like Salt Lake County when we have cities and municipalities providing services, um, to look at what the role of these special service district is, especially, uh, when the private sector is already providing that commodity and they're providing it at a lower rate. So I think this is good. There are very few things we can do to lower property taxes and lower fees and, um, just the tax burden on residents, but this is one of them, and I would ask for the committee support. Okay.

Hello, my name is Emily Gray and I am on the Holiday City Council representing District five for the city of holiday. I'm also this year's board chair for Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling, or the Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District, or Ward. Um, as was mentioned by Pucci, um, this bill originated from Herriman City's desire to withdraw from Woodward, uh, and the difficulties navigating with the withdrawal process that's already in place. Um, however, we believe, uh, that House Bill 4 29 goes further than necessary to address herriman's concerns. While the bill opens a path that is easier to navigate for cities that want to leave Woodford, it eliminates protections for all cities that want to stay in that district. My city holiday, along with many others, find the best value with the services provided by Woodford and rely on the district's long-term stability. Uh, we have a, a letter that was emailed to you that we would like to pass out, um, of, uh, highlighting the cities that have done their own financial analysis and find the best value within this special service district. Bring it up to come over. Okay. Um, we would like to request, uh, that you adopt substitute language that's been developed, uh, in coordination with the Utah Associations of Special Districts. Um, that alternative maintains the path, uh, a workable path for withdrawal for cities that want to leave, while also requiring appropriate financial and operational analysis to ensure both the departing city and the remaining communities and rate payers are protected. As recently as last week, Taylorsville City did a cost analysis and determined that for their city, Wasatch Front waste and recycling district was the best provider of the services that they need, and that they couldn't get equivalent services for a better value. It's important that any leg legislative change balance the interests of a departing entity with the obligation to safeguard the communities that continue to rely on the district, both cities that find the best value for their residents. Outside special districts and cities that find the best value in special districts deserve protection. A thoughtful and measured approach will protect residents across the district and maintain stable and affordable services. Woodford and Herriman City leadership have established a collaborative path forward for withdrawal for their city, subject to approval by Herriman City Council and our district's board of Trustees. Um, but both sides are very optimistic about, um, about re getting that approval. We want to thank, uh, representative Pucci for continuing to work with us, um, on this LA language. Our hope is that any legislation that's adopted by this body, uh, reflects the same balanced approach, uh, and cooperative approach, and we want to thank you for your consideration.

Yes, good morning, Senator Vickers. My name is am am I audible here? Yes. Looks like it. My name is Evan Teel. I am the general manager for Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling. Um, relatively new to the position, but I have served in similar roles in the past, including a rural solid LA waste district serving portions of grand and San Juan counties, and also with the City of Flagstaff in Arizona. Although I've only served in my current role for fewer than six months, I have learned a lot about the organization and the communities it serves and believe that we provide an excellent service under the model of a special district. One of the main things I have learned is that the organization operates both effectively and efficiently from a cost perspective. And I'm spearheading a variety of initiatives to further optimize our programs and services, control and reduce costs, and drive continuous improvements to benefit the more than 86,000 residential properties throughout the 14 municipalities and unincorporated areas that we serve throughout Salt Lake County. Wasatch Front and recycling districts operates under a fee for service enterprise fund model. Through these funding mechanisms, we provide a variety of services beyond basic curbside trash and recycling collection. And these items are not oftentimes included with base services from other providers. These programs include our annual leaf collection program, our curbside Christmas tree collection program, our landfill voucher program, and our bulky waste collection program that collected more than over 7,000 tons of material in 2025 alone. In partnering with the municipalities throughout our service area, we provide these services in a way that requires little to no city staff or resources, eliminating the need for cities to supplement these programs with general fund monies such as property or sales taxes. Throughout my tenure with the organization, we have been working in meeting with Herriman City to evaluate their withdrawal request under the existing statute. Although we have both experienced misunderstandings and disagreements, we have recently developed an exit strategy with Herriman City that we believe will satisfy both parties. Uh, we are not fundamentally opposed to the withdrawal process, but we do respectfully request that the house bill be amended in a way that protects both the interest of the withdrawing municipality and the remaining cities and rate payers that rely on our services. And we look forward to working with, uh, the bill sponsor, uh, to move this bill forward. Thank you very much. Okay.

Uh, the, the main question is, you've said we want something that protects those that remain, but neither your letter, nor either of you have said what that means. What specifically are you talking about?

So primarily what we're, we're concerned with is as we, uh, separate from other municipalities and the quantity of, of properties that we service declines, our overall economies of scale become diminished, therefore increasing our costs, and it raises risks to the other communities and our partners with various other cities for where we may or may not have to raise fees, but we'll, we'll do everything we can to avoid that. We feel like we can absorb, uh, uh, an exit with, with Herriman City, but if other cities drop off more readily, that does impact negatively our economies of scale and therefore increases our costs.

And, and, and I, and I understand that to some degree. I guess the concern that I have is you already have in this bill as it's currently constructed, you know, they continue to meet the obligations related to any bond obligations. Um, and it seemed like, it seems like every other private sector that has a contract that somebody chooses not to continue on, they just end the contract and they have to deal with the economies of scale dropping. And, and if you're already, if they're already on the hook for bonds, why should we lock everyone into a hold harmless agreement for economies of scale when they're already paying the capital costs that you've bonded for? Uh, I mean, it, it just seems like if the private market can come in and provide this better, it's an incentive for you to be really good at your customer service and to keep your prices as competitive as as possible for the taxpayer, why should we ignore those benefits in favor of creating some disincentives related to potential loss in customer service and pricing competitiveness?

Yeah, respectfully. Uh, my name is Rachel Anderson. I am the Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District's attorney, and have been asked to come up and speak to some of those questions more specifically about what the amended language that we were looking at would do. Um, in response to your most recent question, however, I would say that I, I agree that we should not, uh, not look at those things. And, uh, to kind of answer more, more holistically, what some of the amendments that we were looking for is that, uh, the bill requires a feasibility study, but it only had language about, um, assessing the feasibility for the withdrawing city. Whereas existing withdrawal statute kind of looks at both. And so I just, you know, had asked for some language where it says that the, with the feasibility consultant would consider impacts on the district. It doesn't require any action based on those impacts, but at least includes in the, in the study that it looks at it. Um, one of the other, uh, things that I suggested is that if the feasibility study results in conditions, which often feasibility con studies studies do that says this would work if X, y, Z happens, um, that the parties would be required to follow those, um, suggestions by the feasibility consultant. That was one of the things that I, uh, suggested for the bill.

Um, you're Gonna, you're gonna make, cities are forced to follow every suggestion of a feasibility consultant.

That's been the model that we've always used in the past in these situations where, for instance, if, if they say that it, it'll be feasible if you do X, Y, Z, um, and then we don't want the city to be, to not do that, and therefore then make it not feasible.

That's what I'm trying to say. City Act in its very best interests at all times.

I agree. And I'm, I'm saying that the feasibility study probably would, would've suggested ways that made it in the best interest for all parties. And I'm just saying that we would request that they would be required to, to follow through with those things that were, that were listed as the best practices to make it feasible.

So that, that, that's the concern that I have, is if you view of an exit, is that they have to take care of everyone else and make sure that it's feasible for everyone else as opposed to protecting their own interests. Now you're locking 'em into it, or you're making them indemnify the rest of the group in order to leave. And, you know, if I choose, if I choose to shop at Costco instead of Walmart, you know, I don't really care what happens to Walmart. I just want a cheaper price at Costco for my family. And if a city chooses to leave because the pricing is better and the customer service is better, I don't know that they should have to take care of the rest of the cities that they're leaving.

Yes. And I, and I understand that, and I agree, uh, I would, I would just argue that, um, the, the language that I've suggested is not that they are required to necessarily take any particular action to protect the remaining district, but that it just be a factor that is considered, I try to be very soft in that language that it, it at least be looked at as to, you know, if we, if we took all these assets, would that materially harm the remaining district? And, and the reason that we think that that matters is, uh, our councilwoman Gray explained is that there are a lot of other communities that are also still relying on, on this district. And we're government entities. We're not private entities, so we're trying to do what's in the best interest for all of the residents as well. And so we're just trying to strike a balance between, um, you know, uh, favoring the interests of cities that, like you've said, have wanted to, uh, exit and, and get a better price perhaps elsewhere. Um, and one thing that the, the suggested edits do not do markedly is, um, we didn't suggest that we take away the city's right to, uh, initiate the process, which is missing from the current law. Um, and we also didn't take away the part about, um, the city being the final decider, whereas existing law requires both the city and the board to approve. I didn't try to mess with that, you know, so I'm trying to, you know, strike the balance where the city does still control the process to the largest degree. Um, we just want a little bit of analysis. Um, and one of the other things that I suggested is that when a feasibility report is provided, that, uh, the district has a chance to take a look at that before it goes public and make suggestions or comments, again, not to try to mandate anything, but just to have a voice in the process and to explain things that maybe were misunderstood or things like that. And so I tried to do a soft touch of just let's, let's keep them part of the consideration process without mandating that anything, um, happened in regards to, like you said, holding them harmless or, or keeping them com completely whole or anything like that. But just that you're looking at both sides Except for the mandate that they have to do the conditions of feasibility that the Yeah. That the consultant tells them to.

Yeah. So I hear your concerns there. And, and, and so that's like, I'm, yeah. I'm not cool with that one. Okay. I's A, that's a lot.

Okay. That's, that's been standard practice a among lots of, uh, different areas of the law that we've, that I kind of base that on, but I've Never seen that and I've done, okay. I've done legal work with regards to sewer districts special, every, every special, every kind of special service district, cities, counties. Yeah. I've represented them as their legal counsel, you know, all throughout the state, all throughout California, probably about 60 different public entities at various times in my career.

I've never seen that. Where a consultant gets to mandate what happens. I've never seen that. I've never even seen that proposed. Okay. I don't see how that's standard practice anywhere. Yeah.

I, I hear your concerns there. And, and as, as we just heard from Representative Pucci, uh, we, we got the message that, that the, the proposals that we proposed were maybe not quite where we need to be as well, and we're certainly willing to continue having those conversations. I'm not saying that like must be what I said or nothing at all. You know, like we're definitely open to, to being reasonable and having I, and having these Conversation, I want, you know, that's not a light touch.

I was gonna, I was gonna say, I feel like I'm in an episode of Divorce court as well sometimes, but, um, That happens, right? So for Herriman, I will say this isn't real. This isn't about politics at all. This isn't about Herriman having a problem with our current provider. I struggle that this seems to be pitting us against other cities. It's not about that for us at all. And this isn't even just about Herriman. This is about a policy and an opportunity to allow the private market to fill an opportunity in our community. This came down to simply the concern that our current provider raised their fees to the point our representative on the board recommended. We take a look at the private market, and when we did, we discovered that we could save our constituents money by going that direction with cost of living at top of mind. Right now, we see this as an opportunity to save our residents money, and that's all this is about for us. We have major concerns with the suggested language from the special service districts, as it wouldn't give us the path forward. We are seeking immediately and would hold us only to the verbal commitment to work with us on an exit, but no guarantees we could take that step for our residents. We appreciate Representative Pucci help on this bill. We appreciate the relationship we have had with our current provider, but we would encourage the committee to adopt the original language at this point. Thank you.

I would recommend favorably HB 4 29 for substitute.

Yeah, I, I understand, especially I think the adding the bond piece, and I assume that was the piece that was added in the sub, or we Had it originally, But Yeah, we had it originally and that, that's an important one. I understand the investment for capital and, and the reliance on that when you're working together, but we see this in special service districts all the time where they are fighting like crazy for customers. And you see it in rural areas when cities annex and they mm-hmm. They get into, you know, into spats with, you know, because, you know, the special service district is trying to keep their customer base and all of that. Um, we are here for the citizens, not the government entities. And, and if the special service districts or any competing group wants to continue to provide those services, they need to be the best deal. And once they're not the best deal, God bless the private market for giving our citizens a price break. And so I, I struggle with protectionism over government entities merely because they were created by other governments. You know, I, I'm not out there to hurt them. They need to, you know, the, the capital things that everyone agrees to go in and that invest, you know, that, you know, lenders have, have relied on. I think you've, you've covered that piece well, you know, and if there's other things that are fair exits or something like that, I, I get it. You know, maybe there's trucks that are dedicated or something like that, that have to be accounted for. But, uh, you know, at the end of the day, you know, these, these need to work for the people as the best deal with the best cost customer service. And once they're no longer doing that, every city needs to be able to act in their best interest without regard to the interests of the other cities. The other cities need to need to see that if they all hang together, then they better hang in, you know, as strongly as possible, you know, or else they're gonna have to find their own path out of it. And so, um, you know, I, I appreciate the bill and I support it. Thank you.

And, uh, I was, uh, reminded that we have a substitute online, so I'm assuming you'll speak to that. Absolutely. And the substitute is very important. So I took what could have been an exciting Friday for you and made it just a regular Friday where you can get home and have pizza with your family. So, uh, please make sure that you're looking at the first sub on this bill. Uh, colleagues I have with me here today, mayor Lauren Palmer, who is the mayor of Herriman, one of the cities I represent, uh, and the city I grew up in and over interim, uh, the mayor brought to me an issue where the city of Herriman has tried several times, uh, to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and do an assessment on how they can save taxpayers money. And one of those things is shifting. Who provides the trash collection service? And so they had tried multiple times to exit the trash collection service district with which they're a part of, uh, and were unsuccessful. And as I looked at this, uh, clearly the city is trying to do the good work of being thoughtful about this process and find cost savings to households and taxpayers at a time where cost of living is so top of mind. And essentially they're being held hostage and having to subsidize other entities. Um, if you'll notice in the first substitute, this is very clear in that we are just targeting trash collection in counties of the first class, which would be Salt Lake County, uh, if you weren't aware of that. And it really helps strengthen local control. And it outlines a clear process for removing a city or a municipality from a trash collection district. Uh, how they would do that is a city would notify the di the service district, the trash collection service district that they would like to leave, and it would trigger a feasibility study that could be done. The study could not take more than 90 days. As we all know, studies are a great way to kill good ideas. In some cases that just based off the timeline that's spent on them. So it has a 90 day turnaround there. After the study, that municipality is able to take it, uh, to their city council for a vote, and they're able to have a vote. And if the city votes the council votes to remove themselves from that special service district, then they're able to do so and they notify that to the trash collection service district that they're a part of. Um, mayor Palmer, do you wanna add anything? No. Okay. Alright. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah.

I'm just, I I'm definitely representative. I've never been called. I can thank you for that. Um, lemme just say we, we respect the role of special service districts in general. We understand there's a role for special service districts, especially where there's infrastructure that's hard to break apart. It's hard to separate water lines or, you know, or a wastewater treatment facility. In this case, we're just talking trucks, we're talking cans. And this instance, we were, our residents were passed on a increase and at that point we, it triggered us to look for cost savings for our residents. That's what triggered this as all. It wasn't a lack of, we weren't unhappy, it was just we thought, well, maybe there's a way to, the private market can service this better. And we found out there was, and as we tried to look into ways to remove ourselves, it, there wasn't truly a mechanism. There were a couple of options, but it really wasn't gonna be feasible. Even if we did a feasibility study, the board still didn't have, and it showed it was good for the board, they still could have gone back to a vote and let us out. So really, we're just looking for a process to get out of trash. You know, they can sell those assets easily. Even a new provider would probably take on those assets. We're just looking for a way to save our residents, as the representative said, money and a type. When everything is tight for our residents, we're just looking for a way to save our residents money without harming special service districts in general, I would say.

I'll wrap up. Go ahead. Okay. Yep.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize I missed almost the entirety of this, but I understand we're looking at the first substitute then.

Yes, the first substitute, you're going to love Representative MacPherson. It removes the slaa piece and the law enforcement piece. And if I can just briefly, I I think this is a bigger issue. Uh, when we look at service districts, generally speaking, they're providing a good that the private sector does not provide and for economies of scale, right? They're able to service things like water or sewage or public safety or fire, right? In this case though, in trash collection, there are private sector companies that can provide this commodity for much cheaper. So I, I think in general, trash collection service districts will have to, you know, pivot to be more competitive if they wanna maintain that place as a government entity in a private sector commodity world. But this bill just deals with trash collection in Salt Lake County.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I could want to follow up. Of course. Go ahead. The um, and, and, uh, I'm not necessarily saying this as a bad way just to understand this though. Is there a likelihood or a suggestion here that this may affect the remaining, um, service district members as far as with they see rate increases likely as, as others perhaps start leaving?

I couldn't speak to that. I think, uh, I can tell you the cities that are in the service district, if you'd like, we've got Holiday Brighton, Cottonwood Heights, Harriman Kearns, Magna Millcreek, partial, Murray partial, Sandy Taylorsville, West Jordan, White City. Um, I think it'd be up for those cities to take a look at that in a feasibility study for themselves. I will say though, I've learned a lot about some of the inefficiencies. There's an individual who, I have a map here. There's like an island of after we incorporated a lot of unincorporated county. But there is one house that this service district is coming down the street picking up that one trash and continuing down 'cause everyone else is with the private provider talk about a waste of money, quite frankly. Um, and so I am hopeful this just, uh, increases discussion around the value of perhaps trash collection and in, in a county that is wall to wall cities. I have learned a lot about special service districts and I'm in no ways an expert at this point. But even just talking to some of the rural counterparts and how they do landfills and having a 30 year commitment on it and how they have to treat that, um, is a deeper discussion, which is why I kept this to just a county that is largely wall-to-wall cities. Thank

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, I'm just, uh, I don't totally understand the whole concept either, but, so I'm just curious as what is the state doing to help solve this? Why can't the cities and the county just do it?

So right now we do have code that outlines a process that ensures, I would argue a monopoly and no exit for a city. Because right now, if say a city like Herriman says, we can save more money and provide efficiencies for our constituents, but these nine other cities don't want them to leave, they cannot leave. Which is why this updates the process and trash collections special service districts that says no, a city would have to take it to a vote. So the legislative body within their city or municipality makes a vote on whether or not they're gonna leave and then they notify the sur district. So that's the change current code. They'd have to go back and negotiate it with the, the service district and their vote would be outweighed by other cities.

So the, the state controls all of that is What you're saying? The state controls the process and governance of special service districts.

So, uh, this is your last trashy bill of this system. Right. I've learned a lot about trash while working on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alright,

It does. Thank you. You alright. Thank you.

We know you, but thank You for the record representative. My name is Corey Holdaway. I'm representing Magna City today. Uh, just want to thank the representative for the substitute. Uh, we had, uh, some grave concerns with the, the original bill, um, as Magna has, uh, uh, taxes that come through sylvis, that bill was problematic. The, uh, the new bill, uh, we're, uh, we're okay with, uh, it, it just, it creates a process. So, uh, just encourage your support, uh, on the substitute. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you. LA Grand Bidder representing the Utah Association of Special Districts. I appreciate, uh, represent our pucci and working with us on this bill. We met with her on Tuesday and had a good meeting. Um, and we appreciate the substitute as well. We haven't had a chance to spend a lot of time completely digesting the substitute bill. There are a couple of small items that we're willing to work with her on as well as some other issues. And, and so we look forward to continuing to have discussion with her. We understand the importance of the issue with respect, FYI on the, on the small boundary adjustment situation where she found there's apparently one home in a, a general area that is the only one picked up. We did put a provision in the statute a few years ago that allows for very simple boundary adjustments and those types of situations. We'd be happy to work with the city and with the district in making those simple boundary adjustments where that makes sense. Uh, we, uh, since our meeting on Tuesday, we have spent some time, uh, working with the parties. Our desire, our preference is to see if we can get people to work together to resolve problems and issues without, uh, running legislation if that's possible. There have been some, um, I think, feelings on both sides on this issue, which makes it a little bit challenging. But we have received feedback as we've had discussions the last few days with particularly the district of a desire on their part to work with, uh, the city. I will let the district speak for themselves in a moment, but, uh, we would encourage that. I think it'd be a very positive thing to have, uh, the, the entities work together. I realize that perhaps there's some hard feelings on, uh, with the city as well, but we would invite them to work together with the district in doing so. We look forward to working with, uh, both sides as we move ahead and, uh, we appreciate, uh, you allowing us to speak on the subject.

Thank you chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Emily Gray and I sit on the Holiday City Council for District five. Um, and I'm this year's board chair for Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling. Uh, house Bill 4 29 creates a new way for a city to leave a garbage disposal district by bypassing existing safeguards that are meant to protect the long term stability rate payers and district governance. Unlike the current law, which requires a formal initiation, requires board review, requires that no harm for the citizens that remain will occur and encourages negotiation. House bill 4 29 allows for a unilateral withdrawal, excludes the district from any of the decision making process and permits withdrawal without feasibility analysis if harm results. This bill also restricts the district's financial actions during the process, increasing instability and a risk to our bond ratings. It appears that it's aimed at the Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District, despite an existing cooperative withdrawal process already underway with Herriman City and says a troubling precedent for special districts statewide. I want to let all of the committee members know, uh, that we are actively working with Herriman to set up a meeting to work out a friendly withdrawal with them. We understand that Herriman wants to leave the district and we are me willing to meet with them to help that happen this year. We've already started drafting an RFP for withdrawal and are hoping to publish that next Wednesday. We're looking forward to working with Representative Pucci and with Herriman to create a positive separation. We hope that the members of this committee will support our efforts too, for lack of a better word, support the divorce, but to just make sure that the children are protected. Thank you so much.

Thank, thank you Mr. Chair. Appreciate your, your thoughts here. Um, I think many of us are in favor of not having government interfere. If it was up to us, we would make government smaller and allow cities, municipalities, and service districts to handle these issues on the side. Now, from your comments, you've stated that you're in talks of setting up these meetings and this seems like this should have happened a long time ago. And the fact that you're now in front of us and we have a bill in front of us and a mayor pleading with us to have this happened, um, it seems like that meeting should have been scheduled six months ago. Why, why are you here now? And, and talking about a future meeting? Um, I would just like to understand why this hasn't happened already.

That's an, that's an excellent question. Um, there were some disagreements with, uh, the, uh, district, um, and Herriman City. And as we worked that while we worked that out, and we still see some things differently, but there was a pause for I would say maybe five to six weeks from the time of, um, us being aware of that pro of those problems to when we met with them and we decided to move forward. So we have started moving forward on the process. We also had, um, a change in our leadership at Wasatch Front waste and reti, uh, and recycling. Um, that created some delay, uh, with our general manager retiring, Pam Roberts retired, and then we got a new general manager. So it's taken, it, it has taken us some time, um, leadership wise to get up to speed on, on addressing this issue. Um, and then we had an issue of, um, just a difference of opinion on, on some things. Um, but that has, that, I wouldn't say it's been resolved, but we've agreed to move ahead with the withdrawal statute as is. Um, so, and I, and I, my guess would be is that the balls for this, uh, for this bill, were already rolling. Um, and then we got back on the same page and, and, and I, I, I really believe that it's very possible for us to come together. Um, we know that Herriman wants to leave, um, and, and we respect their right to do that. We just, we just wanna make sure that the process, um, can go forward in a way that, um, that can respect all all parties. Um, but we know that we want to leave and we'll support them in that desire. Thank you.

Uh, I'm Sherry, or, and I'm just representing myself. I'm formerly on the Herriman City Council. My term ended in January. Um, I served on the Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling District board for eight years at, at while I served on city council. Um, I would say I was probably the, the hornet's nest kicking this thing along because, um, doing my due diligence, making sure I'm being responsible to my, my taxpayers, it came to my knowledge that I felt like we were paying too much. We did our p and discovered we were paying about 20% more than what we could be if we Uintah the private market. I believe that it's all of our responsibility to protect our taxpayers. And that's what I felt like, um, asking to leave did. Um, I can say that it was the, the discussions you asked about representative fee fee, those have been in the works and those have been happening, but we have not been met with good, good results. And I would tell you, in my opinion, to some degree of aggression. So I, I believe that we have tried diligently to work together and have this resolved. But I think it's important to understand too, when it's to the point of legislation, it's for the protection of all the cities involved. It's not just har um, it when other cities come to the point where they feel like this is a service that's provided by the, by the market and let's look at it and see if we're, you know, being responsible with our taxpayers, they should have the right to do that and they should have the right to represent the taxpayers and have an exit strategy that, that is not cumbersome and it looks out for the best interest of the taxpayers.

Thank you. Do we have that, uh, sub to adopt here?

I make a motion we adopt for substitute HB 4 29

do you wanna speak to the motion? Yes. Thank, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I would just like to speak in favor of this bill. I also have the wonderful opportunity of representing Herriman as, uh, a rep in the state house. And we moved there first as a family, as a young family 10 years ago. We were one of the fastest growing cities in the state. And our city looks very different than it did 10 years ago. Um, and our services also need to be different than it did 10 years ago. Our residents expect us to look at every service that they pay for and ask a simple question, which is, is there, is there a better way to do this? And I think this bill gives cities like Herriman a fair process to answer that question when it comes to, in this case, garbage service. And so, um, I'd like to applaud the sponsor for running this bill. Um, I think this is about giving growing cities a structured responsible way. Not forcing change, but allowing it to change if it makes sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it okay if I ask one final question to the sponsor?

Great. So I, uh, I'm supportive of the bill and plan to vote for it, but I do have a question on if the bill passes and governor signs, it becomes law, uh, what's the process? What, what will Herriman city residents see happen after that?

So if, should this bill pass, the change in the process would be that they could notify the district, the trash collection district that they would like to withdraw and either there's two ways the parties could agree and come up with this withdrawal process, which is outlined here if they don't wanna do a feasibility study. But the default plan would be it would trigger a feasibility study that they would kick back. They'd have 90 days to complete it and bring it back to them. And then the city would be able to take a vote in their city council whether or not they're going to stay in the service district after reviewing the feasibility study. And If they, if they leave, then that's when a private provider will come In, then the city gets to contract out with whomever they'd like to pick up trash. So there'll be like an RFA process or something like that? Exactly. They would put it out for bid.

Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you.

I'll make the motion to pass out fa favorably hb or first substitute HB 4 29 from this committee.

Just briefly. And I'll say, you know, I'm, I'm not normally, uh, someone that, uh, honestly, just to be fair likes specialty districts, but I think that they have a purpose when they are very limited in their scope and their mission. They're financially transparent, but most importantly, when they are subordinate to their local elected, uh, uh, government, uh, uh, leaders. And in that regard, I think this is a very important bill. So I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, can I just, oh yeah, I'm sorry. Is that all right? Back, back to the, uh,

I just wanted to respond. A couple of the comments that were made when I worked on this with O-L-R-G-C specifically just looking at trash collection. There was not any concern about bond ratings. I know that comment was made. I think that's very much an overstatement. I also think that, um, the idea that you have to pause any financial growth, it's a 90 day pause and that's just, if they take that full time for the feasibility study, as also will just point out, this has been a great learning experience for me. I largely work in policy related to education as DU Representative MacPherson. Uh, but I will tell you, uh, in many ways we have created monopolies. And so this bill is not taking on service districts as a whole in the state. And I recognize that there are rules, Ophir police water that the private sector does not provide. This is trash collection. No one's going to get hurt. It's about trash cans and trash trucks picking up your trash, right? So I think I can maybe work trash in one more time to this, but, but I just would like to point out that I think that this is a very narrowed scope of a bill and it is not, I did not do this just for Herriman. There were many offers made. We can just get Herriman out. I have had at least three other cities come to me and say we have done the same cost analysis. I know that we could save taxpayers money, but we are too afraid to vocalize it. Which I think also points to a disproportionate level of power in this relationship. The idea that this is parents resolving a custody battle with children is not accurate because they're not able to leave and eject from this. I also think this is just a cautionary tell. Uh, I really do believe in free market principles. If you were to go to a provider, you have, say for your internet or for your phone back when you used to have a home phone and say, we'd like to cancel our subscription. They usually go through a series of offers of why are you leaving, what can we do to make this better? Can we cut this in half? What can we do to keep you as a customer? That is not what happened when Herriman tried to leave. And I think customer service is important in providing a role and I think it's important for our taxpayers to be represented by their cities and have cost savings where they find them. So I'd ask for the committee's support on this.

consideration. Madam Reading Clerk First substitute House bill 4 29 Special District's amendments by Representative Pucci. This bill is heard in government operations with the vote of ten one one

Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Uh, this bill is very narrow and li in limited in scope. It's one that I've worked on over interim, uh, with my one of the cities that I represent and really gets at the heart of the issue when we talk about working to save taxpayer dollars and encouraging our municipalities to maximize taxpayer dollars and be looking for ways that they can cut costs. So this is very simple. This bill is, uh, applies just to counties of the first class and in areas of trash collection. So what this would allow is it creates a process for a city in the county's the first class. So just right now in Salt Lake County to withdraw from garbage collection. Uh, and what the process is that's created, it's very fair, transparent, and open, is it allows for municipality to notify the trash collection district that they would like to withdraw from that trash collection entity. And it would trigger a feasibility study that would be done, uh, within 90 days. You can see that on lines 1 76 to two 19. And then after the feasibility study is conducted and the bill walks through how that would work, uh, it is given to the trash collection district and then also the city. And the city council is then able to meet and make a decision and hold a vote as to whether or not they're going to withdraw from that trash collection district. And they'll send that notice of withdrawal to the trash collection entity. This bill really strengthens local control. Uh, it helps protects taxpayers and to me is a very common sense approach as we look at special service districts. I'll also add in counties of the first class when it is essentially wall to, to wall cities. Now we'll be revisiting and discussing the conversation, I think around special service districts as it has changed. I mean, municipalities continue to provide those services in my district in particular, the one of the cities was looking at doing this and they found they could save residents six to $8, uh, per trash collection. And so to me it's a way for them to save money and also empower our cities to make good sound fiscal decisions. And that's the bill.

Thank you. I'll waive Summation has been waived.

Thank you. Uh, this, this bill modifies, um, a relationship with the garbage disposal dis district. It only really impacts one special district. Um, I think we've worked out all the kinks with, uh, with the code and the first substitute and, uh, and met with all the stakeholders. Um, you know, been a lot of conversation about this bill, but I'm be grateful to cross this one off the list so that Mr. President, I'm happy to open, I'm open for questions. Senator McKay is open to questions to cross it off the list.

Thank you. I'll move the house. Bill 4 29. First substitute, be read for a third time. Thank

A rules committee meeting? I mean, Yeah. The rules committee

Um, but House Bill, first I, the first thing I need to do is I need to make a motion to substitute first substitute or first substitute and, um, replace it with second substitute house Bill. 4 29. Hang on. So we have a motion un, uh, to substitute.

Yes. Thank you. Uh, after the bill got out of the house, uh, there were a few things that were dealt with in, uh, counties of the first class. And by cleaning up some of that language, it took away the contentious issues around, uh, around the special district, uh, dissolution or or divorce process. And so, including this language, uh, makes that better. So for that purpose, uh, that's the purpose of the sub.

Thank you president. Um, the bill now just makes it so that there's a clear process for how, uh, a, uh, you know, a municipality or other jurisdiction might leave a municipal service district. Uh, it leaves, uh, basically cleans up some language about, you know, what areas, uh, and how it applies to certain areas. But the key parts of the bill are really how the divorce process works when people are leaving special districts, uh, and makes it so that a, a district, uh, or the entity can leave the district in an orderly fashion and, uh, not leave the district in a position where it's worse off. Um, but also lets the district make its own decisions once a municipality is to leave that special district. Um, like I said, this second substitute takes, uh, most of the fight outta the issue. Uh, that's why luckily we've, uh, been spared the lobbying on it. But for that purpose, um, Mr. President, um, I'm happy to open for questions if they, if there are any

Yep. Thank you. I'll move that second substitute house bill 4 29 Special District Amendments pass under suspension of rules. I Don't think we need, we're on third reading, so let's just go ahead and pass it.

Vote. Senator Vickers. Baldy Lewin, Brammer Bus Cullimore. Escamilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kinins. Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner. Musselman Owens Pitcher. Plum Rebe. Sandal Stevenson. Aye. Stratton Vickers. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton picture President Adams Aye.

Motion to circle Thank you representative.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Juab. Uh, the cha motion. Motion to concur.

Yes. Thank you. Uh, working with the Senate, not only does this have the narrow trash collection component, but it now also addresses the county process, um, in a very fair way, so that if you were to look at a county entity, they would have an opportunity to withdraw in a responsible way.