H.B. 535 Disposition of Public Property Modifications: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's, uh, appreciate the members of the committee. I know we had this on the last agenda and, uh, we ran out of time, so, uh, appreciate the opportunity to visit about 5 35. Um, I do have a second substitute, and I will be speaking to the, um, second substitute. So lemme provide a little bit of background. Um, a number of years ago, this was quite a few years ago, um, we were working on, um, uh, some real estate related, uh, questions. This originated in Washington County. The city was, uh, had sold some parcels of land and, uh, down by the convention center. And we had a very simple question, what did the city sell the parcels for? And, um, the answer was, uh, it's not disclosed. Um, and, uh, that be, that became a concern. And we kinda watched the issue. And, and over time we started to realize that there were some transactions that would occur periodically in governmental entities where, um, for whatever reason, the, uh, transaction, um, uh, it was, it was either difficult to find out what the actual, uh, transaction was or, or when it occurred, or, um, what the, what the terms of cell for the, for the disposition of, uh, real property was. Um, this, uh, came to a head a little bit this fall, um, in rules review and general government. Um, when, um, there was, uh, some work by the committee to look at this particular issue. Um, there was a long, uh, committee hearing about, uh, a particular transaction, uh, in Riverton. I'm just gonna note that there was, it was very clear there had been an audit that, that, that the state auditor had done, uh, that said that there was nothing that was done that was illegal in the transaction. Um, in the committee hearing, there was, uh, it was more than an hour discussion, but it was, it was also clear that there was, uh, nothing that was done that was illegal. But what the committee was trying to understand and figure out was how did the, how did the process of dis of real property disposition work? Um, when was the notice to the public that the public entity, uh, was planning to, or had a plan to dispose of real property? This is property that's owned by the public entity. Um, uh, how was that noticed? And then when a decision was made, uh, how was that decision communicated? And, and, uh, so there was a lot of discussion about that. But ultimately, what we've, what, what, at least, uh, what we've discovered is that, um, in some limited cases, uh, you can transact real property without, you can sell, uh, public property without any, without any public disclosure. Um, and so this bill seeks to address that particular concern. And so, let me walk through, uh, what the bill does. It defines disposition as either sell, lease or joint venture. So if you sell the property, if it's a government entity, they sell the property. If they lease the property or they joint venture with, um, a, uh, for example, a, uh, private entity, then that would be considered a disposition. Um, the intent is, uh, the legislation is to apply it to, uh, what are dur what are deemed significant parcels, significant parcels in the stat, uh, significant parcels is a definition that's left to the various government entities right now. And so we chose, um, to apply a, um, uh, $500,000, uh, $500,000 value. So anything that's $500,000 or more would be considered a significant parcel. Anything less than that would be a, uh, would not be considered a significant parcel under the, uh, definition in the, in the, in this proposed legislation, um, the, uh, the process would apply to cities, counties, um, uh, it would apply to special districts, agencies, authorities. There's some unique carve outs. And so I'll give you a couple of examples of the carve outs. Um, in, we've been talking about, uh, there's other legislation going on right now regarding, uh, cell, regarding school district disposition. Um, if school districts sell a property right now, a municipality and or a charter school has a right of first refusal, and so they have a carve out for those existing conditions. Um, there's carve outs for, uh, if a property is sold by a government entity, and then, for example, if it was, and, and it's being returned for in some capacity, there's a carve out for intergovernmental transfers. Um, but if you're selling, if you're disposing of real property to the public, either to sell, lease or joint venture, that's the application here. Um, then, then it sets out a process. It says you need to post either on your website or some other public listing website, uh, that you're for 45 days that you plan to sell, uh, real property. Um, you make an announcement in your public meeting, you don't have to take action. You just make an announcement, you disclose that you're planning on doing it. You put a sign on the property that says, we plan to dispose of this property. And then you can go into, you can still go into your closed session under the Open and Public Meetings Act to negotiate the sale of, or disposition of real property. You can handle all those negotiations in a, in an, uh, open and, uh, following the Open and Public Meetings Act, which allows you to do that in closed session. Um, particularly in, uh, crass, there's some provisions where they can, um, they can accept less than fair market value. That's currently the, the standard. We're not telling them who to do a deal with or how to do a deal or what terms to accept. We're only, we're only asking that once a transaction has been that, that there's been a decision made that, that also be disclosed by the public body. Say, we decided that we're selling the property, or we're joint venturing with this party. And, and these are the basic terms. So the process that we've outlined is, um, again, I think it's, we've tried not to interfere with the actual decision making process, and we've tried not to interfere, um, with the, uh, uh, ability for them to pursue certain governmental interests or strategic objectives or economic development interests. We just wanna know, yes, we're we plan to, uh, make a disposition, and on the other side, this is the decision that we made and, and make that clear. So that's what the bill does. Um, and I'm happy to, uh, go to the happy to ex, uh, entertain any questions from the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate this bill. And I just, uh, wanted to know if, like, when you're talking about noticing, um, the people about it for 45 days, I am not one that's inclined to look at notices all the time for sales, unless I'm a builder or someone who's interested. How can we make this open or just more accessible to, more available to the ordinary citizen too, so they're aware as well? I, I, I, that's a great question, and I kinda wrestled with that. But I think that, um, we tried to follow, I tried to set up a process that I think balanced the interests that, uh, um, uh, uh, of the public entity trying to go through the process. And also, uh, the public, um, when we change zoning, we do a couple of things. They usually will post a notice on the property. Um, uh, there's a notice in a public meeting. Um, we send out notices to the nearby residents. I, I felt like that asking that last requirement was probably, uh, that it's not usually just the immediate residence, uh, that might be interested in. So what we did is we said, look, you can, you, you, you can either post on your website or listing website, um, notice in your public meeting minutes and then put up a sign. I think that that's a reasonable thing. It doesn't cost them any money. There's no, there's a, it's a nominal cost to get a sign and put up a notice. But anyway, that, that was kinda what we settled on as the least intrusive, but also a very visible way to say, this is what our intent is.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, sometimes a government entity ends up trading property with the developer. Like if, you know, they, they just work out a deal. If they developer has land that the city wants to put a park and they're trading land, would this have to go through the process? Or is it just if you're putting it up for cell? So in, I techn, I, I didn't, I intentionally didn't use exchange. So cell lease or exchange, I think there's probably some argument that if you're exchanging, you're, you could still be arguing that you're selling, but, but I intentionally didn't put exchange. If you're exchanging, like, for like, um, I, I didn't put that in the bill. Um, so I think the answer to your question is the intent is not to trap exchanges that are like, for like, uh, value, for value. Um, but, uh, but, but I think some people are looking at the word sell and saying, well, that's a form of sell, but I, but I intentionally didn't use the word exchange in the bill.

All right. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um, first wanna thank Representative Walter for working with us. We've had quite a few conversations about this bill. Um, wanna start off by saying we're not opposed to the underlying concept with what we're trying to do. Um, making sure that the public has access to all the information, making sure the public has knowledge of what their local government is doing. Uh, one of the joys of representing 257 municipalities is we have local governments with different forms of government. Um, and one of the things this bill inadvertently does is, um, carries over some, uh, legislative or carries over some administrative power to the city legislative branch in a strong mayor form of government. There's about 10 of those cities. So we're working with a sponsor on some clarifying language just to, um, delineate when a, uh, when an administrator is, um, in charge of disposing of that property that, um, they're following the city ordinance, that there's still the disclosure in the notice pieces. So, um, it's technical stuff. We think we'll be able to resolve this issue, but, um, just wanted to flag that for you. I know that there's been some conversations about, uh, redevelopment policy, uh, redevelopment agency policy as well. And I believe Rob Sand from Sandy representing the redevelopment association is on to, uh, address some of that. But again, I wanna thank the sponsor we're working, and I think we'll be able to address, um, some of these technical issues. Thank You. Thank you.

Perfect. Thanks so much. Um, yeah. I'm Rob San. I'm the Deputy Director of Economic Development Redevelopment Agency at Sandy City, and I'm also the president of the Utah Redevelopment Association. And I also first want to thank Representative Walter for his willingness to engage with us in thoughtful and meaningful dialogue, um, around this bill. And also to listen to some of the concerns that, uh, re community reinvestment agencies have overall, we do support, uh, transparency and disclosure in the disposition of publicly owned property. And we also appreciate the Bill's goal of ensuring that there's public awareness and noticing, um, and accountability when properties dispose. But there are a couple of, of concerns that we have with the bill. Um, and specifically it's the, the difference between other local entities, uh, AC acquisition and disposition of property compared to redevelopment agencies. So a lot of times, um, these different local entities, they'll dispose of a property when it's no longer needed. Um, and it's a surplus property. And the goals for redevelopment and reinvestment agencies are, we acquire and dispose of property that's tied to furthering the objectives and goals of project area plans. And so there really isn't ever a situation where our property would be deemed as no longer needed, um, most dispositions or str uh, strategically tied, uh, to a specific redevelopment outcome or a specific end use in mind. And so, usually when we have a significant parcel, um, it's disposed through a competitive and publicly advertised RFP process, and that process prioritized redevelopment objectives and long-term public benefit, and doesn't simply tie the offer to based solely on price. And so we would hope, um, that we could revise and add some language that preserves the agency's discretion to dispose of property. Um, we still think it's great to comply with all of the requirements that the bill sponsors outlined in 11 dash one dash 2 0 3. So we, we wanna have that disclosure and that transparency, but we would love some language that still gives redevelopment agencies, um, ultimate decision power and who we sell that land to. And yeah, uh, we'd just like to thank Representative Walter again and, and the committee for, uh, letting us speak to this, and we look forward to continued dialogue. Thank you.

Arthur, thank you, chair. I'd like to go ahead and make the motion that we move sub two. The motion is to adopt second substitute house Bill 5 31.

Uh, no. I'll wa Okay.

Yes. Thank you. Um, this, this is just to adopt the sub, Right? Yes, that's right. And, and I was just gonna speak to the change, if that's all right.

Towards the very bottom of the bill, um, there was an issue where we had incorrectly, uh, addressed the option period for school districts and some of those other entities. And so we worked with the drafting attorneys to make sure that that 90 day period was properly reflected in the substitute.

Thank you. I would like to go ahead and make the motion that we pass out favorably, uh, sub to house bill 5 35. The motion is to recommend favorably. Second substitute house bill 5 35.

I'd just like to thank the committee and acknowledge that, uh, we are working with, uh, uh, the league on that language that they referenced, and I'll make sure we get that right to accommodate the various, uh, forms of, uh, city government. Um, we just discovered that this afternoon.

Thank you. I'll just reiterate how important it is to all of us, this, this disclosure and, uh, transparency. So I thank, uh, bill sponsor for bringing this

Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It's great to be here. Um, you know, it's a very interesting time in the last, uh, couple of days of the session. It seems like you, we find, find ourselves running into each other in each other's committees. So it's great to be here with you today. Um, house Bill 5 35, disposition of public property. I'll just, uh, this is, we're on the third substitute. I'll just note that there was a, uh, very simple change that was, uh, dropped in a, a force substitute at the request of Salt Lake City because of the airport. There were some airport issues that we needed to clarify, and I'll come back and, and speak to them in just a moment. But I did want to let the committee members know that, um, that there is a force substitute at the request of, uh, Salt Lake City. So, lemme explain. House Bill, uh, 5 35. Uh, this bill essentially originates because we have a public process for disposing of real property. And most of you're familiar that if you wanna sell a piece of pro a public property, that you tell people that you're going to sell the property. And then, uh, that, uh, decision or that process is public. Uh, we found out, uh, through, uh, uh, a number of, uh, courses that kind of culminated in a, um, a general government and Rules review committee. Earlier, uh, last fall. We, we found out that there's a loophole where you can, where a there's specific provisions where a, um, CRA or, uh, in some very unique cases, you can dispose of real property without noticing, and you can, uh, you don't have to, you don't have to share the terms of that disposition. So this public property disposition process is essentially non-public. And so what House Bill 5 35 seeks to do very simply, is ensure that, uh, government entities, if they're selling real property, that they, uh, and sell is actually sell, um, or lease or joint venture exchange is not a sell. So they can still exchange, like, for like, um, the four substitute clarifies. The easements are not a sell. Um, but if you're planning to dispose of real property through a cell ex, uh, a sell a lease or a joint venture, you have to provide notice for 45 days. So you, you put a notice in your, um, your meeting minutes, um, you put a sign on the property, you say, this is what we're intending to do. We're accepting offers or proposals. And then you still have full discretion as a governmental entity, uh, to make whatever choice you feel like is in the best interest of your, uh, constituents, your residents, whatever your, uh, whatever, uh, governmental entity that you are. But when you make a decision, you just have to again, notice that you made a decision. We sold the property to, um, uh, whomever or whichever entity, and, and, and basically make the, the terms of that cell, uh, public. Um, we, we designated there's a provision where there are what are called significant properties, right? So, significant property right now is any governmental entity can adopt their own policy for a significant, uh, parcel. Uh, and what we did is we set a significant parcel. Anything that's 500,000 has an estimated value of 500,000 or more is a significant parcel, um, parcels below that value. If by policy they want to include them as a significant parcel in their, uh, in their ordinance or their policies, they can, but, but anything that's estimated to have a value of 500,000 or more is considered a significant parcel and would be required to go through this process. So, um, those are the key elements of the bill. Um, I'm happy to take questions from members of the committee about, uh, the particular proposed policy.

Would you like to adopt the fourth sub? So moved, Mr. Chair.

Yeah. Yeah. Very briefly. All what we're doing here is handling, um, handling, um, uh, the situation. An airport might be doing a short, uh, a lease that's less than 10 years. Uh, they have provisions where there's some unique provision, there's some unique provisions we're trying to accommodate for them. So it's, it's an airport specific provision. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Um, and I, I appreciate those changes into the, uh, airport. Salt Lake International Airport happens to be my district. So it is critical. Just, um, wondering about the 10 years, is that kinda like best practice or where was that 10 year?

We, it's kind of an arbitrary number to be honest, Senator. Um, we didn't want to do 20 years because that's, uh, frankly, that's, uh, pretty common for a uncommon for a lease to be longer than 20 years. So it would've essentially exempt all leasing. And we didn't want to create a burden on the airports, which they, they have lots of very unique types of leases that would be typical from different than what you would typically see out in a community. And so we're, we're trying to accommodate, uh, the unique nature of their short-term leases, where literally you can't put up a sign like it, it was, that was

The intent. That answers my question, Mr. Chairman. Just thank you, um, to, for addressing that part. It was, you know, just seeing it makes me feel much better And we didn't know about it literally till today. So we were happy to get it addressed. It just wasn't something that was brought to our attention. And, and I think that there, over time we'll probably find there's some other, uh, very, very unique, uh, issues that we may need to deal with. But, but we just barely found out about that one today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Carson ERs with the Utah League of Cities and Towns. I really want to thank Representative Walter for working with us. I know that we've had quite a few meetings trying to address just sort of like little ancillary, um, issues where a local government might, uh, the airport I think is a good example. It's something that just kinda came up with the last, the last, uh, minute here. But, um, an airport, for example, may have leases for, uh, things like server rooms or, um, concessionaire stands or things that are just, uh, more di minimis that may turn over quickly. And, um, just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a lot of posting for, for things like that. Not trying to create administrative burden while still preserving the intent of the bill, which would help, uh, help disclose to the public if there's changes. Help make sure that the public's aware, help make sure the city's informed of, um, and it's more than just cities, but the political subdivision's informed of, uh, the actual value of, of property. So we appreciate him making those changes. I know that, um, I know we might still have a couple more tweaks, but, uh, we really appreciate him working with us. We encourage the committee to advance the bill, um, and know that if there's issues, uh, that rise the next couple days or the next next, uh, over the summer, we'll just continue to work to try to make sure that the policy addresses everything it needs to cover and, um, doesn't inadvertently create any other, um, issues for the, the various, many, uh, tasks that local governments provide with public property. So, thank you Mr.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Sean Guzman, government Affairs Director for the City of St. George. And we're here to speak in favor of the bill as well. Uh, we think it's a common sense, um, direction to both the public and cities and entities, governmental entities on the process for disposal of property. It gives some certainty and uniformity to that process. We appreciate the bill sponsor for working with us on this. I know that there are still a few tweaks as Carson noted that uh, some cities have brought up, but the sponsor has agreed to to work with, with us on that as well. So we wanna keep the bill moving and would ask for your support.

Senator Brammer. Yeah. And have we adopted the fourth Sub? We adopted the fourth sub, so I'll move that We recommend favorably HB 5 35 fourth substitute.

Representative A waive. Okay, I waive summation.

The bill's been circled. Madam reading Clerk Second substitute house Bill 5 35. Disposition of public property modifications by Representative Walter. This bill was heard in political subdivisions with the vote of 9 0 3.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we adopt the third substitute to house Bill 5 35.

I would, uh, after the, uh, bill was originally heard, we had a meeting with the League of Cities and Towns and the, uh, RDAs. Uh, there were some concerns that they had, that they had expressed that they would, that they wanted to have worked on. We were able to sit down and work on those issues and their, their comfortable with the outcome. And so let me explain what we did briefly to address their concerns. Uh, first of all, uh, there's a two different forms of government and, uh, for example, a strong mayor form of a government versus a weak mayor. The language didn't really properly account for these various forms of city governance. And so we made that accommodation. Uh, we addressed some concerns they had around disposition of non-significant parcels. We made it clear that exchanges, uh, like for like, or property for property exchanges wouldn't be included. And then we clarified that, uh, which they always, always had, but we made it explicit that they have, uh, the right to negotiate and, um, uh, negotiate for their, uh, the terms that they felt like were most appropriate in a, uh, closed meeting. And that, and, uh, made sure that that was very clear, even though that that wasn't necessarily something we addressed in statute. So, thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Walter discussion to the bill.

I'll waive Sum motion has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker house Bill 5 35. Uh, disposition of public property, uh, is a, to me, uh, a policy that, uh, I think is gonna have a tremendous impact on transparency of public entities selling land or other real property. So, uh, uh, one of the things we discovered, uh, over the course of the last year was that there was a, uh, frankly, there was a loophole in the disposition of real property where a governmental entity could, under certain circumstances, sell property without, uh, going through an open and public process. Meaning they provided notice to the public that they intended to sell the property, and then after they made a decision about who they were going to sell it to, uh, uh, acknowledging or, uh, making a some kind, making it public in some way, who they were going, uh, the, the terms of that final sell. And so, uh, this bill addresses those specific concerns. It does a couple of specific things to try and clarify. The first thing that it does is it, uh, makes it clear that if you want to sell a property, uh, and you are a governmental entity, then uh, you'll need to post a sign on the property that notifies the people, uh, in the area, uh, notifies the public that there's an intent to sell. I'll just notice, uh, I'll just note for the members, that if you want to rezone a property, there's already a requirement that you have to post a sign on the property. So this isn't an unusual or a burdensome requirement for the, uh, uh, for the, uh, public entities. The second thing is, it requires notice in a, uh, public meeting. There, there doesn't have to be a vote. It, it just, they just need to have noted in the minutes or, uh, noted as part of the public meeting that there's an intent to dispose of the property. Um, and then after the, uh, uh, and, and by the way, this would apply to a significant property. A significant property would be any property that is, has an estimated value of $500,000 or more. And, um, uh, the governmental entity, if they want, could do they, they could set that threshold lower, but, but anything over 500,000, um, they'd have to go through this notice process. And then after a property was, uh, sold or otherwise disposed of, um, there would be a notice, uh, as part of their, uh, meeting minutes, um, that would say this is the action that was taken by the, by the public entity to clarify that, uh, they had actually made a decision. Um, one of the things that we did in this bill was made it clear that a dis disposition is sell, lease, or joint venture. Um, it does not include an exchange, as I referenced in the, uh, discussion on the substitute. If, uh, if the government, if a governmental entity wants to exchange property with, uh, another party, um, that is of similar value, then they have the ability to do that. They happen pretty frequently, sometimes with lot line adjustments and other reasons why they might need to move. So we, we made it very clear that exchanges were not, uh, we're not included with that. Mr. Speaker, um, I'm open to questions from the body.

I will waive. Thank you. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we adopt the third substitute to house Bill 5 35.

I would, uh, after the, uh, bill was originally heard, we had a meeting with the League of Cities and Towns and the, uh, RDAs. Uh, there were some concerns that they had, that they had expressed that they would, that they wanted to have worked on. We were able to sit down and work on those issues and their, their comfortable with the outcome. And so let me explain what we did briefly to address their concerns. Uh, first of all, uh, there's a two different forms of government and, uh, for example, a strong mayor form of a government versus a weak mayor. The language didn't really properly account for these various forms of city governance. And so we made that accommodation. Uh, we addressed some concerns they had around disposition of non-significant parcels. We made it clear that exchanges, uh, like for like, or property for property exchanges wouldn't be included. And then we clarified that, uh, which they always, always had, but we made it explicit that they have, uh, the right to negotiate and, um, uh, negotiate for their, uh, the terms that they felt like were most appropriate in a, uh, closed meeting. And that, and, uh, made sure that that was very clear, even though that that wasn't necessarily something we addressed in statute. So, thank you Mr. Speaker,

I'll waive Sum motion has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker house Bill 5 35. Uh, disposition of public property, uh, is a, to me, uh, a policy that, uh, I think is gonna have a tremendous impact on transparency of public entities selling land or other real property. So, uh, uh, one of the things we discovered, uh, over the course of the last year was that there was a, uh, frankly, there was a loophole in the disposition of real property where a governmental entity could, under certain circumstances, sell property without, uh, going through an open and public process. Meaning they provided notice to the public that they intended to sell the property, and then after they made a decision about who they were going to sell it to, uh, uh, acknowledging or, uh, making a some kind, making it public in some way, who they were going, uh, the, the terms of that final sell. And so, uh, this bill addresses those specific concerns. It does a couple of specific things to try and clarify. The first thing that it does is it, uh, makes it clear that if you want to sell a property, uh, and you are a governmental entity, then uh, you'll need to post a sign on the property that notifies the people, uh, in the area, uh, notifies the public that there's an intent to sell. I'll just notice, uh, I'll just note for the members, that if you want to rezone a property, there's already a requirement that you have to post a sign on the property. So this isn't an unusual or a burdensome requirement for the, uh, uh, for the, uh, public entities. The second thing is, it requires notice in a, uh, public meeting. There, there doesn't have to be a vote. It, it just, they just need to have noted in the minutes or, uh, noted as part of the public meeting that there's an intent to dispose of the property. Um, and then after the, uh, uh, and, and by the way, this would apply to a significant property. A significant property would be any property that is, has an estimated value of $500,000 or more. And, um, uh, the governmental entity, if they want, could do they, they could set that threshold lower, but, but anything over 500,000, um, they'd have to go through this notice process. And then after a property was, uh, sold or otherwise disposed of, um, there would be a notice, uh, as part of their, uh, meeting minutes, um, that would say this is the action that was taken by the, by the public entity to clarify that, uh, they had actually made a decision. Um, one of the things that we did in this bill was made it clear that a dis disposition is sell, lease, or joint venture. Um, it does not include an exchange, as I referenced in the, uh, discussion on the substitute. If, uh, if the government, if a governmental entity wants to exchange property with, uh, another party, um, that is of similar value, then they have the ability to do that. They happen pretty frequently, sometimes with lot line adjustments and other reasons why they might need to move. So we, we made it very clear that exchanges were not, uh, we're not included with that. Mr. Speaker, um, I'm open to questions from the body.

I will waive. Thank you. Summation has been waived.

Thank you President. Motion to amend

Thank you. This is, uh, some quick cleanup language that related to an easement and how it relates to the fair market value of Disposed property.

Thank you very much. This is a quick bill. Um, what we found was a loophole in, uh, in, in reinvestment areas that allows, uh, that allowed, you know, uh, subdivisions of the state to give away real estate, uh, without putting proper notice or signs or anything like that on the property. And so the purpose of this bill is to just, uh, we've been working with the cities and working with the, working with the other subdivisions of the state just to make it so that there's proper advertising when a piece of real estate is sold to the public, much like the state has to. But that Mr. President, happy to, to yield to questions.

You. I'll move that house.

Thank you. So this came to, uh, one of the house members where, uh, someone had had a very difficult, uh, they had a very difficult, um, pregnancy and they lost the baby.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we concur with the Senate amendments.

Would. Uh, we just clarified some issues around easements and leasing in the disposition of real property. Uh, to make sure that the bill operated the way that it was intended. There were some issues that were brought up by Salt Lake County that we resolved.