2020 Governor's Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board

2020 Annual Report

Prepared by: The Office of Rural Development, Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development and the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Submitted to: Gov. Herbert, members of the Legislature, and the members of the Economic Development and Workforce Services Interim Committee In accordance with Utah Code § 63C-10-103 (2019) and Utah Code § 68-3-14 (2019) business.utah.gov/rural

GOED Staff for GRPB Ryan Starks, Director of Business Services Governor’s Office of Economic Development ryanstarks@utah.gov Rebecca Dilg, Rural Outreach Manager Rural Director Designee, Office of Rural Development rdilg@utah.gov Beckie Page, Program Support Specialist beckiepage@utah.gov

GRPB Staff 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

1

Contents Letter from Steve Styler, Co-Chair of Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board – 2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Overview of the Rural Economy in the State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Impact of Jobs in Rural Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Office of Rural Development Annual Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Summary of Current Issues and Policy Matters Relating to Rural Economic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Strategic Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Statement of the Board’s Initiatives, Programs, and Economic Development Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Statement of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board’s Top 2021 Legislative Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2020 Rural Economic Updates from Members of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Utah League of Cities and Towns: Mayor Emily Niehaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rural Utilities: Jeff Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 At-Large: Jason Yerka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 At-Large: Shannon Ellsworth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Utah Association of Counties: Commissioner Kent Wilson and Geri Gamber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Department of Workforce Services: Zac Whitwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Southern Utah University: Stephen Lisonbee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Division of Indian Affairs: Dustin Jansen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 At-Large: Michael McKee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Report Recipient List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CONTENTS 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

2

Letter from Steve Styler, Co-Chair of Board

Letter from Steve Styler, Co-Chair of Board 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

3

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board – 2020 Co-Chair, Governor’s Designee Executive Committee Member Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox

Co-Chair, At-Large Executive Committee Member Steve Styler

At-Large Executive Committee Member

Association of Governments

Shannon Ellsworth

Geri Gamber

Agriculture

Tourism

Gary Hallows

Joan Hammer

Associate VP of USU Extension Services

SUU President’s Designee

Executive Committee Member

Executive Committee Member

Dr. Brian Higginbotham

Stephen Lisonbee

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board – 2020 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

4

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board – 2020

At-Large

Oil, Gas and Mining

Michael McKee

Robert Miller

Utah League of Cities and Towns

Rural Utilities

Mayor Emily Niehaus

Jeff Peterson

At-Large

Department of Workforce Services

Commissioner Curtis Wells

Zachary Whitwell

Utah Association of Counties Commissioner Kent Wilson

At-Large Jason Yerka

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board – 2020 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

5

In accordance with 63C-10-103 (1)(g)(i)

Overview of the Rural Economy in the State In his 2017 State of the State address, Gov. Herbert announced the 25K Rural Jobs Initiative. This goal was introduced to create 25,000 new jobs in rural Utah before 2020.

Rural Utah is defined as all Utah counties outside Davis, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber counties. The definition of rural Utah includes a total of 25 of Utah’s 29 counties. The baseline period of 2016 was used in determining total job creation and growth within these counties.

Before the pandemic, Utah’s economy was hitting on all cylinders with an historically low unemployment rate. The state led the nation with the best job growth as all ten measured industry sectors experienced employment gains. Since the start of the 25K Rural Jobs Initiative, rural Utah has gained 29,156 new jobs, or approximately 117% of the goal.

Last year at the Utah Rural Summit, the Department of Workforce Services (DWS), along with the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and Economic Development Corporation of Utah, announced a Rural Jobs Network to help promote hard-tofill jobs along the Wasatch Front and to advocate moving jobs to the rural areas. One emerging strategy is telecommuting/ remote work.

Only one county, Daggett, lost jobs from 2017 to 2019. A major impact on the county’s revenue and employment was the 2017 closure of the jail, which resulted in this job loss. Six counties account for approximately 79% of this increase: Box Elder, Cache, Iron, Summit, Wasatch and Washington counties. Washington County alone accounts for 42% of this increase. Given that Washington County is the largest county economy within the 25-county rural designation, one would expect Washington County to add the most new jobs.

Much changed in the four years since Gov. Herbert’s challenge, including advancement in technology, broadband, and an unprecedented pandemic. The coronavirus pandemic became the impetus to flex into a new era of online commerce, education and telehealth.

The oil and mining industries in Utah have experienced significant peaks and valleys. There are increased global opportunities for this economy with the expansion of the railroad. Several of the rural counties have tossed their hat in the ring vying at strategic inland port prospects. The Utah Coal Country Strike Team serves Carbon and Emery counties’ coal communities by raising incomes and diversifying the economy. The Strike Team includes a multi-disciplinary team of experts who, with the support of the Utah Legislature and national funder Schmidt Futures, assist with public policies and invest in workforce training, tourism infrastructure, housing revitalization and economic development incentives. For more information, visit coalcountrystriketeam.com.

Before the pandemic, and even more so since, the advent of remote work provides unprecedented prospects for rural residents and those living and working on the Wasatch Front who would like to become rural residents. The state’s great broadband and Utah State University’s Rural Online Initiative training opens this door widely. Silicon Slopes chapters were initiated statewide among mainly rural counties to promote tech diversification, remote working and bolsters the entrepreneurial spirit.

Another result of the state’s response to the pandemic is the Learn & Work program. The program includes a wide range of programs offered to the rural workforce through these short term certificate programs. For example, SUU has 11 that will impact 435 individuals in rural Utah (see: suu.edu/learnandwork). Snow, Dixie, USU and others will have similar programs that have a real impact on rural communities. Some of the certificates are also for the support of remote working or online education/instruction.

The Utah Main Street Pilot Project, funded through the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Utah Office of Tourism, Utah Department of Heritage & Arts, Utah Department of Transportation, USDA’s RBD grant, and supported by multiple partners, has been launched in Price and Brigham City. This project encourages economic growth, creates a positive community image, attracts new business, creates new jobs, and preserves historic resources. With support from the state Legislature, we hope to continue this program with many rural communities in Utah.

Overview of the Rural Economy in the State 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

6

Impact of Jobs in Rural Utah Prepared by the Office of Rural Development, Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development

Impact of Jobs in Rural Utah 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

7

Office of Rural Development Annual Report In 2019, the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board identified three priorities and recommendations to address in their strategic plan: Rural Economic Development, Rural Planning, and Rural Leadership. Within each of these three areas, top legislative priorities were chosen to guide the GRPB during the 2020 legislative session. Below is a report of each priority and recommendation.

Under Rural Economic Development, four areas were identified to support: 1. Utah State University’s Rural Online Initiative (ROI) for remote workforce development. The GRPB supported monitoring numbers of individuals trained and employed and considered making a recommendation in the future for the legislature to continue funding this program. a. We are pleased to report that since October 2018, the Rural Online Initiative (ROI) has trained 844 Utah citizens in 19 rural counties.The total number of people trained also includes individuals trained on the Wasatch Front earlier this year as the ROI program responded to all Utah residents’needs in response to COVID-19. Of those taking the training to find employment, 137 now have remote jobs, with an equivalent impact of 5,216 jobs created on the Wasatch Front. ROI has also issued over 100 scholarships to continue online skills training as they seek remote employment. (View the full ROI 2020 Impact Narrative) 2. Southern Utah University made the private sector a focus of the Utah Rural Summit by launching the Southern Utah Speed Pitch competition, speakers covering city/county planning, and youth leadership and innovation with business students attending the Summit. a. We are pleased to report the Rural Summit’s continuation in 2020 modified to meet the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic with both live and virtual presenters and attendees, including the second annual Southern Utah Speed Pitch that formed an expansive partnership with Snow College.

3. The creation of a new post-performance “Rural Economic Development Tax Increment Finance” (REDTIF) incentive or modification of the existing EDTIF. a. We are pleased to report that legislation was created in SB 241 for this incentive, and opportunities were presented to address the challenges of promoting business expansion in rural Utah.

4. An additional percentage of Transient Room Tax (TRT) funds to be made available to counties of the 4th to 6th class and flexibility in spending for needed infrastructure to address the demands created by robust tourism visitation. a. We are pleased to report the legislation was supported by the GRPB and passed by the legislature (HB 280).

Under Rural Planning, two areas were identified to support: 1. The Legislature — To create or expand an existing business expansion and retention grant program for rural communities to directly promote the growth of existing small business, economic diversification, job creation and strategic plans or implementation of economic development goals identified in current strategic economic development plans. a. We are pleased to report that the GRPB supported legislation of SB95. This legislation created the Rural County Grant program and allowed each county to individually identify their economic development needs and apply for grant funds to be used upon the recommendations of their statutorily mandated County Economic Development advisory boards. These boards are comprised of various private business and public sector representatives. Eight million in funds were allocated, but was reduced before disbursement to $2.4 million due to COVID-19 related budget reductions.

Office of Rural Development Annual Report 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

8

2. The Office of Rural Development (in collaboration with other state, federal and private sector partners) — Continues to create awareness of the many resources available to rural businesses and supports the continued development and implementation of rural Strategic Economic Development Plans. a. We are pleased to report the Office of Rural Development’s participation in the Rural Coordinating Council (RCC) composed of state, federal and private sector entities that support a myriad of rural resources. The ORD participated at two different League of Cities and Towns conferences with the RCC to train community leaders about the various rural resources. The ORD supports the Office of Community Development in their preparation of the RCC Inventory providing updated programs and sharing the resource information as well as collaborating to identify relevant resources for our rural counties. The ORD also facilitates the Broadband Advisory Council, bringing private infrastructure and internet service providers to the table with public entities to collaborate, share, and connect broadband resources to rural residents.

Under Rural Leadership, the GRPB: 1 Committed to encouraging input and engagement from all board members about the industry or organization they represent on the GRPB. 2. Recommended that the governor and his staff consider qualified applications from candidates of all ages when making appointments to state boards and committees.

3. Recommended that the GOED and the GRPB identify rural “next generation” leaders and highlight their accomplishments and service at GRPB meetings, the Utah Rural Summit, the GOED Rural Day on the Hill, and the ORD quarterly newsletter, etc. a. We are pleased to report that the GRPB recognized and awarded Paul Hill, USU Extension Professor, and program director was awarded the “Next Generation Leaders” award at the 2020 Rural Day On the Hill. b. We are pleased to report that the Utah Rural Summit recognized Utah Rural Innovators for the impact on Rural Utah during 2020.

Office of Rural Development Annual Report 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

9

In accordance with 63C-10-103 (1)(g)(ii)

Summary of Current Issues and Policy Matters Relating to Rural Economic Development There are several pressing issues that face rural Utah during these unprecedented times. The GRPB highlighted four issues deserving of special attention during the current COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis.

Workforce Development Economic development is an ongoing goal for the GRPB and for other organizations focused on serving rural Utah. Many board members noticed the need to target workforce development in rural Utah to further rural economic development.

Rural Utahns are willing to work hard and shore up their communities, but there is a limited pool of mentors and programs from which they can draw. Economic development will be accelerated if rural workforces are given better access to mentors, training and chances to learn new skills. Traditional economic development efforts need to continue. Still, their effectiveness will be enhanced by an additional focus on workforce development, especially if economic hardship necessitates greater flexibility and movement from both rural and urban employees alike.

Affordable Housing Affordable housing is usually tied to booming metropolitan areas and the increasing costs of living in urban centers.

However, the lack of affordable housing in rural areas can have an exacerbating effect on communities and families.

When housing is limited, growth and expansion are curtailed, and vital services can be lost. GRPB members have witnessed many instances where healthcare providers and employers have passed over rural communities because of their lack of affordable housing. Affordable housing can vary from town to town, especially in areas with significant tourism and seasonal employees. Increasing or improving affordable housing must be balanced with local job opportunities and growth. It is crucial housing is not forgotten as a part of overall economic development.

Rural Utilities Specific GRPB white papers also examined ongoing efforts in developing utility services to rural towns and neighborhoods. Utilities provide a base foundation of security and good quality of life for rural Utahns. During economic crises, like the current pandemic situation, more and more families face financial hardship and unemployment. Cheaper and more widely available utilities will result in lower costs for rural residents. The GRPB hopes to continue to serve rural Utah effectively, and further development of rural utilities would focus that service on the families and individuals comprising Utah’s rural communities.

Rural Broadband Access to the internet has become vital in recent months. Rural communities, including Native American tribal communities, are largely cut off from reliable broadband access in Utah. Dependable internet connections are crucial for economic development as well as education efforts in rural Utah. High-paying tech jobs can be performed entirely from home, as long as employees can get online and meet with coworkers and clients virtually. When so many more jobs have been moved online, and rural counties experience severe unemployment, broadband access can act as an economic lifesaver for rural Utahns.

Entire school districts are currently unable to guarantee in-person teaching during the upcoming school year. While many schools can rely on virtual classrooms and assignments to support the teachers educating Utah’s students, rural schools cannot provide those same resources to students who do not have high-speed connections at home. Rural communities are at risk of missing out on educating students for an indefinite length of time. Increased broadband access, affordability, and household adoption would dramatically improve students’ learning opportunities during the ongoing public health crisis.

Summary of Current Issues and Policy Matters Relating to Rural Economic Development 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

10

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Strategic Plan As provided in Utah Code 63C-10-103, the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board is to serve as an advisory board to: (i) the governor on rural economic and planning issues; and (ii) the Governor’s Office of Economic Development on rural economic development issues; and prepare an annual strategic plan that: (i) identifies rural economic development, planning, and leadership training challenges, opportunities, priorities, and objectives; and (ii) includes a work plan for accomplishing the[se] objectives.

The 2020 GRPB Strategic Plan provides priorities and recommendations for the following: 1. Workforce Development 2. Affordable Housing 3. Rural Utilities 4. Broadband Accessibility & Adoption

Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Strategic Plan 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

11

In accordance with Utah Code § 63C-10-103 (1)(g)(iii):

Statement of the Board’s Initiatives, Programs, and Economic Development Priorities Workforce Development The Department of Workforce Services (DWS) mission statement is “We strengthen Utah’s communities by supporting the economic stability and quality of our workforce.” For the past several years, Utah has been in a pattern where the state’s urban areas enjoy economic growth and prosperity that is significantly greater than the rural communities. However, because of that growth urban employers were facing a lack of a local, available, qualified workforce. Unfilled jobs were growing faster than people available to work.

As a result of that challenge, last year the Department of Workforce Services, the Salt Lake Chamber, and Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCUtah) created a formal partnership called the Rural Workforce Network through an MOU unveiled at the 2019 Utah Rural Summit. This initiative’s primary goal was to bridge the plentiful jobs available in the urban areas to the qualified workforce living in rural Utah. Since that unveiling, both the Utah State University Rural Online Initiative and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development have joined as partners in this endeavor.

We’ve seen the severe economic impacts of COVID-19 in our entire state and the rural communities, especially. Often in rural areas, one industry is the primary sector of employment, and when that industry suffers, the entire county suffers, which can make recovery difficult. We’ve discovered that the transition to telework opens diverse opportunities to the rural workforce.

Now is our public and private sectors’ time to continue expanding telework options and realize that they are no longer bound by traditional geographic locations to find qualified candidates across the entire state. As businesses geographically diversify their workforce, it lends to a more stable continuity of operations if there are areas in the state that face tighter restrictions or staff who may not be available to work due to the pandemic. The work becomes more portable, and business operations can be routed to other areas and continue.

This strategy of the Rural Workforce Network will help be an economic equalizer, lifting the workforce across urban and rural communities. Together; it will help bring relief to the housing challenges that are prevalent in both urban and rural areas in the state, and could also help flatten the seasonal unemployment rates that plagued rural Utah for many years.

Therefore, the GRPB will support the Rural Workforce Network and leverage connections to both the private and public sectors to continue increasing remote employment opportunities across the state.

In partnership with iMpact, Custom Fit, BEAR and Southeastern Utah Business and Technical Assistance and seven counties (Carbon, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Grand, San Juan, and Uintah) an EDA grant was utilized to offer ISO & AS9100 certifications needed by rural businesses to diversify in the aerospace/ defense industry. Eight companies have so far enrolled in the certification process. Therefore, the GRPB supports iMpact, Custom Fit, business development centers, and county organizations to utilize federal and state funding and training opportunities to develop and train the local workforce in various technical aspects to help diversify their economies.

Finally, we must never forget our citizens underemployed or unemployed due to significant barriers such as intergenerational poverty, past criminal background, homelessness, English as a second language, drug dependency, or lack of education.

Therefore, the GRPB supports the efforts of DWS to assist in developing career pathways through credential attainment with post-secondary education, ensuring needs are met through available community resources.

Statement of the Board’s Initiatives, Programs, and Economic Development Priorities 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

12

Affordable Housing The GRPB identified housing as a critical topic for economic development for our rural cities and towns. The Commission on Housing Affordability advises the Legislature on policy related to housing. While there is statewide rural representation, the GRPB members are encouraged to participate in conversations with the commission to influence legislation.

The Rural Subcommittee of the Commission on Housing Affordability reviews topics to be addressed (see appendix B), brainstorm approaches for housing affordability and serve to incorporate legislative language that will collaborate rural needs with solutions. Therefore, the GRPB desires to have at least two members of our board serve on this subcommittee and develop legislative language that supports the goals of both organizations. Updates from the subcommittee meetings will be presented at the GRPB meetings. Due to the GRPB having a presence on this subcommittee, the GRPB members’ action item will be to voice their recommendations, support, and advocate for the recommendations that come out of this subcommittee.

Rural Utilities Rural utilities in Utah provide tremendous value to the western grid. This is accomplished by our ability to generate dependable power at reasonable costs. As demonstrated in August 2020 in California, capacity (or the ability to have power when power is needed) shortages will result in blackouts and/or sky-rocketing market prices.

As more renewables flood the grid in the west, states like California with Renewable Portfolio Standards that are not paired with sufficient capacity requirements are leaning on the grid. Coal and gas producing units in rural Utah serve as the uncompensated backup when these renewable resources cannot produce, resulting in revenue loss to critical rural areas of the state. This reliance typically occurs at peak demand times during the early evening. In other words, at the most critical times of the day, Utah coal and gas help stabilize a western grid system that would otherwise be overwhelmed by demand. This mismatch in supply and demand also creates volatility in power pricing, which exposes risk to Utah ratepayers. Therefore, the GRPB will encourage state leaders to work with neighboring states to build consensus on properly providing fair compensation for power capacity supplied to regional markets by rural Utah and neighboring state utilities.

The GRPB should educate our federal delegation to make sure they are aware of the impacts carbon dividend legislation will have on Utah, specifically rural areas. One concern with carbon dividends is it will unfairly punish rural areas where these carbon-emitting sources are located. These communities could end up paying more in carbon tax than they receive in dividend. If dividend legislation is inevitable, our federal delegation should ensure that our rural communities’ taxes stay in our rural areas and not be exported to other states. Therefore, the GRPB should oppose carbon dividend legislation unless the policy allows taxes or dividends collected in rural Utah to stay in rural areas where they were generated.

While it is widely accepted that Utah must continue to reduce particulate pollution on the Wasatch Front to improve air quality, comprehensive solutions that target the power industry won’t be as successful as those that promote and facilitate changing the behaviors of Utahns. Additionally, we must consider the impact of state policies that would accelerate joblosses in areas where the economy depends on power plants.

State legislation calling for increases in Renewable Portfolio Standards programs should be approached very cautiously.

As demonstrated in California, every megawatt of intermittent resources imposed on the power system must be accompanied by an equal number of megawatts in reserve generation (i.e. coal, gas, and nuclear). Overbuild of power could more than double the cost of energy. In some future day, electric storage may mature to the point that you can generate at one time of the day and use it at another. Therefore, the GRPB should support policies that protect Utah’s power networks and reliable generation facilities.

Alternative fuel vehicles are anticipated to become more prevalent in the U.S. and Utah marketplace over the next decade. Making sure Utah has an electric vehicle (EV) charging network is critical to this – it eliminates range anxiety and allows individuals to have these vehicles. It supports our rural utilities and also facilitates tourism to communities throughout rural Utah, many of which are located near state and national parks.

The state appropriated money for a matching fund program in their 2020 General Session for EV infrastructure in rural service territory. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic, that allocation (like many others) was rolled back. Therefore, the GRPB should advocate for that funding and program in the 2021 General Session to help rural co-op and electric municipal power system service territories build out infrastructure that supports low emission vehicles’ future growth.

Statement of the Board’s Initiatives, Programs, and Economic Development Priorities 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

13

The GRPB should actively participate in educational opportunities for legislators. This can include: a. Identify and recruit sponsors for a legislative tour of rural Utah, rural utility facilities, and Utah’s current natural resource industries economies. b. Participation in the Rural Caucus. c. Emphasis on rural utilities during the legislative “Rural Day”. d. Educational seminars for new and existing legislators about rural utilities, natural resource industries, and the realities of Utah’s rural economies. Therefore, the GRPB recommends educating new and current legislators regarding rural utilities – including a tour of rural Utah.

Broadband Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have learned more than ever that broadband availability plays a crucial role in our lives as we engage in activities such as telecommuting, commerce, remote learning, telehealth visits, and much more. Reliance on high-speed internet and cellular networks are crucial to keeping the world connected to rural Utah and rural Utah connected to the world.

The Utah Rural Telecom Association reported 1,800 new households were provided broadband internet connections temporarily at no cost to local rural Utah providers within two weeks of school closures and employees being sent home to work remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After two months of free internet access, approximately 70% of the households retained their internet service. Of those that did not, approximately 90% dropped service because of cost.

The remaining 10% reported terminating their internet access because they were moving out of the area. Internet service costs for low-income or some rural households remain an inhibiting factor.

In addition to internet access, digital adoption and digital literacy are crucial, especially for students and educators.

Students using hotspots quickly deplete their data, and many tribal communities face geographical obstacles as well.

Government entities and businesses have collaborated to provide better internet access for rural communities. The state library, the state COVID taskforce, the Confederated Tribes of Goshute Reservation, the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints and other groups reached out to try and solve these issues. The State Board of Education has instigated a State Broadband Initiative addressing various aspects of broadband with input from many public and private organizations to address the immediate needs of students and all residents to affordable online access. Therefore, the GRPB recommends supporting the State Broadband Initiative proposals to address cost and connectivity in rural Utah, including tribal lands. The initiative may include many of the following recommendations.

• Utah could offer a discount for broadband for low-income households. The existing State Lifeline, low-income program can be used to offer this discount so the only steps needed to deploy this solution would be a rulemaking proceeding before the Utah Public Service Commission to increase the Lifeline discount.

If the Lifeline discount was increased, the funding would come from the Utah Universal Service Fund surcharge. No additional state funding would be required, although the UUSF surcharge may need to be adjusted. Therefore, the GRPB recommends supporting legislation to increase the state Lifeline discount for broadband internet connection for low-income households.

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has extensive programs and policies encouraging the deployment of rural broadband infrastructure. These programs typically have a matching fund requirement for the providers/applicants, and applications are prioritized on what providers are willing to commit as “matching funds.” Utah could provide a percentage or portion of the provider’s matching fund requirement, thereby allowing providers to increase their matching fund commitment and optimize their federal grant and loan applications’ prioritization. Leveraging available federal dollars should be a priority for the state. Therefore, the GRPB recommends supporting legislation to help provide matching fund requirements for federally funded rural and tribal broadband infrastructure deployment. The GRPB additionally recommends that weight is given to providers to hire local Utah workers to install broadband to support the rural economies.

Statement of the Board’s Initiatives, Programs, and Economic Development Priorities 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

14

• The Utah Universal Service Fund (UUSF) program was revised in 2017 with SB130 to include support for networks capable of providing voice and/or wholesale broadband for rate of return carriers of last resort, and voice and/or retail broadband for non-rate of return carriers of last resort, such as CenturyLink to rural Utah. This fund is crucial to getting affordable broadband access in rural areas. It’s imperative that communities are able to have eligible providers that can utilize this fund to provide essential broadband speeds for education, telework, telehealth, etc. Therefore, the GRPB recommends that the UUSF continue to be available for the deployment and maintenance of broadband infrastructure to ensure broadband service provision to Utah’s high-cost rural areas. The GRPB further recommends a letter of support to the Public Service Commission regarding such and to express concern about the unresolved issue of the quality of broadband in rural counties and tribal lands.

• Residents without access to the internet, devices, or digital literacy skills are largely unable to access telehealth services, online employment or education, public services, or information needed to participate in democratic processes. A statewide coordinating and innovative funding can ensure resources are used efficiently and effectively across sectors. Therefore, the GRPB recommends supporting legislation to fund a state position to manage and coordinate statewide digital equity and inclusion efforts.

• Utah should offer support to tribal governments looking to expand upon and/or build new infrastructure to bring broadband services to their areas. This new or improved infrastructure could help tribes provide internet services to tribal members and surrounding non-Indian communities that need the same service. Having a tribe become the internet provider would help tribes economically and, in the long run, relieve financial burdens on the state to provide reliable internet to all of Utah’s citizens. Therefore, the GRPB recommends supporting legislation to fund broadband infrastructure to allow tribal governments in rural areas to become internet providers to their reservations and surrounding non-Indian rural communities.

Statement of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board’s Top 2021 Legislative Priorities 1. The GRPB recommends the legislature help rural co-op and municipal electric power system service territories build out infrastructure that supports low emission vehicles’ future growth.

2. The GRPB recommends participating with legislators in rural educational opportunities including: a. Identify and recruit sponsors for a legislative tour of rural Utah, rural utility facilities, and Utah’s current natural resource industries economies. b. Participation in the Rural Caucus. c. Emphasis on rural utilities during the legislative “Rural Day.” d. Educational seminars for new and existing legislators about rural utilities, natural resource industries, and the realities of Utah’s rural economies.

3. The GRPB recommends the legislature create policy to protect Utah’s power networks and reliable generation facilities.

4. The GRPB recommends supporting the State Broadband Initiative proposals to address cost and connectivity in rural Utah, and tribal lands including: a. legislation to increase the state Lifeline discount for broadband internet connection for low-income households. b. legislation to help provide matching fund requirements for federally funded rural and tribal broadband infrastructure deployment. The GRPB additionally recommends that weight is given to providers to hire local Utah workers to install broadband to support the rural economies. c. legislation to fund a state position to manage and coordinate statewide digital equity and inclusion efforts. d. legislation to fund broadband infrastructure to allow tribal governments in rural areas to become internet providers to their reservations and surrounding non-Indian rural communities.

Statement of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board’s Top 2021 Legislative Priorities 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

15

Appendix A 2020 Rural Economic Updates from Members of the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board

Prepared by the Office of Rural Development, Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development At the Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Meeting on June 24, 2020, the Board leadership requested white papers from all Board members for strategic proposals to advance toward potential legislation. Board members submitted proposals outlining current challenges and requests for state support from the industry or position they represent on the board.

Utah League of Cities and Towns: Mayor Emily Niehaus Our open space and public lands continue to provide us with economic opportunities for natural resource development, agriculture, and incredible recreational opportunities. Cities are gateways to these public lands. Coming out of this pandemic, we recognize in particular the recreation relief that our public lands provide Utahans and the continued need to protect and properly fund outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands. Counties and cities continue to look at TRT flexibility for tourism impact mitigation as well as further developing state lands with more recreation infrastructure like camping and trail systems dedicated to unique user groups to avoid user conflict on our trails and in our parks. ● Challenges ○ COVID-19 has especially highlighted the continued priority for many rural cities to build housing and develop commercial spaces for our young, emerging professionals. To do this, we need incentives to attract construction-related resources and building contractors to rural Utah. The American Dream is different for Millennials than it was for GenX’ers and Baby Boomers. Our cities are faced with responding to their need for high speed Internet, more densely developed downtowns, accessible health care providers, and access to quality education for our children. The pandemic has both highlighted and exacerbated the challenges already facing cities in rural Utah like: ■ lack of funding and technology in rural schools ■ decent housing ■ limited access to broadband ■ a lack of public transportation to urban centers ■ intergenerational poverty ■ a loss of human capital (also referred to as brain drain) ■ competition for funding with cities of the first class. ● Opportunities ○ Now is the time to attract these young professionals off the Wasatch Front to work remotely and contribute to our rural communities’ tax base. Remote work opportunities and tele-working can only succeed in rural Utah if: ■ The State of Utah leads in the adoption of more remote working opportunities ■ Direct investments in telecommunications infrastructure are considered as part of state public infrastructure bonding proposals.

■ Rural leaders must support the protection of the funding in SB 95 providing base funding for the development of local economic development planning and implementation. ○ It is important to recognize that working moms, dads, and caregivers were hit hard during this

pandemic. For those of us working from home, we were juggling two jobs: working from home and schooling from home. For those of us able to go to work, we were left without childcare options as daycare centers were closed. Workers (mainly women) were forced to make a decision whether to keep their job or stay home with the kids. It hurts rural Utah to lose a significant part of our workforce due to a lack of childcare options, whether it is school or daycare. Investments in rural education (both public and private schools) and childcare centers are critical in maintaining a strong workforce.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

16

Rural Utilities: Jeff Peterson Rural utilities continue to play a very important role in the economic prosperity of rural Utah. The demand for these services has become apparent in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Broadband and other cellular networks allow many individuals to work from home, and with a greater emphasis on remote working, this is a trend that will continue.

Obviously supporting all of this is safe, reliable, and affordable power to our rural communities. Ensuring that these utility services can continue or enhance is critical to rural Utah. ● Challenges ○ As base load resources are reduced, intermittent power generation is often unable to provide power when it is most needed. This leads to spikes in power demand, volatile pricing, reduced reliability, and, ironically, a greater dependence on the remaining traditional resources to back up the system. The state needs to be careful that energy policy positions do not so heavily lean into the solar/wind direction with increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standards Program that we lose our ability to generate our coal and gas resources. Coal and gas are reliable, low cost, and provide significant jobs and benefits to rural communities. These benefits cannot be replicated by today’s wind and solar. ○ Electric vehicles will become more prevalent in the US and Utah. Making sure we have an EV charging network is critical to this – it eliminates range anxiety and allows individuals to have these vehicles. The state appropriated a matching funds program in the 2020 General Session for EV infrastructure in rural cooperative service territory (which was subsequently cut due to COVID budget shortfalls).Getting this money reappropriated is important for rural EV infrastructure buildout. ○ Many rural areas of the state do not have the same high cost utility infrastructure in place which enables companies or businesses to easily locate along the Wasatch Front. In rural areas, fewer people pay for this type of buildout - this makes it difficult for the utility, or the business, to have adequate funds to get the power infrastructure they need. The state should consider creating an incentive program that helps fund these high cost electric utility infrastructure projects so our rural areas have better access to competing for new business. ○ The most critical thing for the rural telecom industry is figuring out how to deploy future-proof (fiber optics) broadband to all the homes and businesses in the US. In Utah, this also needs to remain a priority – especially to rural Utah. There are some existing programs to support the delivery of these services in high cost areas (USF funds, ACAM, etc.), but without modified regulations that increase funding or federal legislation that appropriate funds for this effort, it will take many, many years to achieve this goal. For instance, ACAM is a 10-year commitment and will only fund speeds of up to 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up for many locations. That requirement does not have to be met for 6-7 more years, so while there is funding for those projects, it is not funding future proof networks that provide adequate speeds (100 Mbps). ○ One issue highlighted by COVID-19 that needs to be addressed going forward is clarifying the critical employees/infrastructure designations for utility workers/organizations. This should include, among other things, priority testing for these workers. This will ensure continuity in service, and that power/communication operations are not inhibited during a pandemic. ● Requests ○ Support for low cost power ○ Electric Vehicle Charging Deployment ○ Rural high cost infrastructure incentive program ○ Continued support for broadband deployment ○ If needed, the state or federal government should implement programs to assist customers to help pay their utility bill. Most utilities have worked hard to ensure their services are available to customers during COVID (suspending disconnects or working with customers who are struggling), but they can not operate that way indefinitely.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

17

At-Large: Jason Yerka Jason assisted in the development of an Entrepreneur Academy to support small businesses in rural Utah online, including millennial. It helps the student create an individualized and customized checklist for starting a business. The SBDC received CARES funds to support the Entrepreneur Academy.

The Utah SBDC is developing the Entrepreneur Academy to: ● Create an online virtual counselor ● Better connect with young and rural entrepreneurs ● Provide relevant business pre-venture, startup, growth, and succession training The Entrepreneur Academy has been funded through the BEDL appropriations committee, and through the CARES Act. The site should go live some time this fall.

At-Large: Shannon Ellsworth There are various federal, state, and county-level incentives that exist for businesses, state subdivisions, and economic development groups in rural Utah. While there is information on these incentives, publicly available data on their utilization is limited. According to stateincentives.org, Utah spent approximately $107 million in FY2014 on incentives (urban and rural). This level of spending represents an average of $1,152 per business, which is higher than the median average of $875 per business spent in other states that year. In FY2014, Utah ranked 15th in the nation for expenditures per business establishment. ● Challenges ○ Data ● Collecting data on the utilization of incentives in Utah, especially at the regional level, is difficult. Data is often aggregated and sharing across agencies is challenging due to privacy concerns. ● As noted in the 2019 GOED Strategic Plan: A Plan to Evaluate Utah’s Economic Success, “This will require data disaggregation at the county or regional level. Such a disaggregation will create a challenge for the state’s current data sharing agreements and increase concerns among data privacy and confidentiality advocates.” This report also states, “... data available for monitoring program outcomes is limited and not easily validated. To some degree, this challenge reflects the desire to limit the burden on companies in reporting their impacts; however, it also reflects the limited access that Utah’s economic development organizations have to third-party validated data...” ○ Incentives ● There are four types of incentives being offered: grants, loans, tax deferment, and tax credits. ● There are primarily two kinds of economic development that lawmakers are targeting. The first is hiring people, and examples of this include the job creation elements of the Rural Fast Track Grant or the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit. Hiring people in these counties utilizes an under-utilized resource in rural Utah: human resources. The other common incentive type is for built or physical capital, e.g. land, machinery, buildings, etc. ● Further segmentation of incentives can be done on the growth objective of the program. Most incentives fit into one of three buckets: attraction (Enterprise Zones), expansion (Rural Fast Track Grant), or creation. Few incentives exist for those creating a business, the objectives, especially at the state-level, are to attract or expand business. A state-level center of entrepreneurship development (as has been proposed in the 2019 GOED Strategic Plan: A Plan to Evaluate Utah’s Economic Success) may aid the development and management of future entrepreneurial incentive programs.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

18

● Requests ○ Data ● Increase transparency and improve the impact and efficacy of rural incentives by drafting, supporting, and adopting legislation that will require agencies to report incentive use metrics. This will allow the GRPB, lawmakers, and taxpayers to understand the usefulness of incentives and focus on programs with strong returns on investment. ○ Incentives ● Complexity, competition, cycle time, subjectivity, low visibility, and redundancy all decrease the utilization of incentives. ● The constraints common among multiple incentives is that they are incenting the same thing, usually built capital and machinery, or alternatively hiring employees. The two primary “buckets”, or objectives, are capital (including infrastructure) and people. There are at least four incentives that reward companies for hiring people, and most of the incentives offer some compensation to businesses with real estate, building, or machinery needs. These incentives compete with other incentives, providing better or worse terms, and are sometimes mutually exclusive. The Community Impact Board, for example, can grant large amounts of money with little application and low cycle time, thus becoming a favored mechanism for rural infrastructure needs. Focusing and consolidating incentives so that one incentive targets built improvements, infrastructure, and/or machinery, and another targets job creation and hiring, is a stronger approach. ● Some incentives are complex, have long cycle times, few are well marketed, and multiple federal opportunities require an intermediary. Additionally, businesses struggle to see when or where an incentive applies to them (should they apply before or after they hire people?). Some incentives are ill-defined, i.e., Targeted Business Tax Credit. ● Boards that administer incentives, loans, and grants can be subjective. One example of subjectivity is the Community Impact Board (CIB). Administrative rules can’t capture every event or unusual application but removing the politics and relationships from the administration would benefit the right projects, not just the right applicants. ● There are a variety of incentives that reward the attraction and expansion of businesses, but there are few aids for starting businesses. While there is more risk in early-stage ventures, the opportunity for smallscale, tourism-based entrepreneurial pursuits is growing, e.g. campgrounds, short-term vacation rentals, kayak/paddle board rentals, festivals, etc.

Utah Association of Counties: Commissioner Kent Wilson and Geri Gamber There are seven (7) associations of governments (AOGs) in Utah. These areas were originally designated as planning districts in the early 1970s. The AOG’s offer local government coordination of mutually beneficial programs and provides regional collaboration, cost-effective public services for area communities. The seven AOGs also act as economic development districts (EDDs). They help lead the locally-based, regionally driven economic development planning process that leverages the involvement of the public, private and non-profit sectors to establish a strategic blueprint for regional collaboration known as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). ● Challenges ○ Often the monitoring and rules put in place do not match the funding available. The AOG’s need more support to meet the demands of the program. ○ Rural County Program suggestions include streamlining process; ensure staffing can handle the issues/process. ○ It has become clear that the work between SEUALG & UAC requires expanded staff capacity to build upon the existing efforts of both organizations. With the financial support of SEUALG, UAC will be adding a Financial Planner/Analyst.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

19

● Opportunities ○ Ensure participating counties interests are protected ○ Leveraging tools like Opportunity Zones to fullest extent ○ Attracting private capital to counties ○ Reducing risk exposure of participating counties ○ Encouraging regionally focused efforts ○ While positively positioned as a program, the RGP still lacks funding for community development focused work.

Department of Workforce Services: Zac Whitwell DWS, the Salt Lake Chamber, and EDCUtah created a formal partnership which was unveiled at the 2019 Utah Rural Summit. The primary goal of this initiative was to bridge the plentiful jobs available in the urban areas to the qualified workforce living in rural Utah. Since that unveiling, both the USU Rural Online Initiative team and GOED have joined as partners in this endeavor. ● Challenges ○ This year, we have all seen an unprecedented past few months with how COVID19 has impacted the economy both overall on our state and including the severe impact in the rural communities. Some of the most impacted counties have been rural. This is often due to the local economics of a rural area where one industry is the primary sector of employment and when that industry suffers, the entire county suffers, which also makes it difficult to recover. ● Requests ○ DWS is requesting that the GRPB put their support behind the Rural Workforce Network and leverage connections to both the private and public sectors to continue increasing remote employment opportunities across the state. This strategy will help be an economic equalizer, lifting the workforce across urban and rural communities together. This will also help bring relief to the housing challenges that are prevalent in both urban and rural areas in the state. This strategy could also help flatten the seasonal unemployment rates that have plagued Rural Utah for many years.

Southern Utah University: Stephen Lisonbee Entrepreneurs have long been the heart of Rural Utah. To support economic development we believe bootstrapping and supporting ideas of individuals and businesses will generate sustainable employment while minimizing community impacts. The ability to support a business idea through it’s acceleration curve requires direct education, support and most importantly access to mentors. Through the organization of the Southern Utah Speed Pitch individuals can access resources and support that prepares them for a business pitch, giving them exposure to additional mentorship opportunities and partner collaborations. A partnership agreement has been recently established between SUU, Snow College, the Governor’s Office, and State Bank of Southern Utah. This partnership now supports 10 rural counties and has the potential to prepare over 100 business ideas. www.suu.edu/speedpitch ● Challenges ○ Business leaders are realizing that they need to pivot their current business plans to capture new markets and engage with their customers in new ways. Understanding business operations and marketing are more critical now than ever before. In partnership with industry experts we are developing a professional development curriculum that provides immediate support to employers while also leading them to receive institutionally recognized certificates. With the creation of the three year programming our industry leaders can reengage with SUU with a fastpath to their learning while applying what they have learned into their business development.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

20

● Opportunities ○ Supporting local community development is critical to our ability to sustain innovation and growth. Locally elected officials and other community volunteers are shaping the direction of where our communities are going and need support to deploy strategic principles that will lead to thriving communities. ○ In partnership with the Utah Association of Counties and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development we are developing the Utah Rural Leaders Academy that will facilitate powerful exercises and instruction designed to assist emerging and established leaders in Utah’s rural communities. The objective of the Academy is to equip leaders with administrative and leadership skills through relevant learning activities and educational programming. ○ In partnership with community founders we are building Iron Leaders Academy that will facilitate powerful exercises and enlightening interactions to assist emerging and established leaders in becoming changemakers. By the end of the program, members will have foundational knowledge and leadership capabilities to affect change while enjoying an expanded circle of influence.

Division of Indian Affairs: Dustin Jansen Utah Division of Indian Affairs (UDIA), in working with the rural areas of Utah as they pertain to Native American Tribes, and in its work with the State COVID-19 Multicultural Task Force, has seen a need to develop digital equity among the rural areas of Utah. Meaning (1) access to the internet, (2) access to devices that allow internet access, and (3) digital literacy (knowledge on how to use digital resources). ● Challenges ○ The internet has become a major player in communication. Rural area residents who do not have access to the internet are at a disadvantage in many ways.

■ Economically ● With the extension of teleworking becoming more of a reality, employees need access to the internet to effectively participate in their employment, ● Job postings and the submission of job applications are faster and more efficient through online services. Submitting hardcopy applications puts potential employees at a disadvantage, and many small business loans during pandemic times require application through the internet.

■ Educationally ● K-12 students who live long distances from their schools during the pandemic were at a disadvantage from accessing their work and turning in their work in an effective manner, K-12 schools could have saved more money by having students access their homework through the internet rather than delivering hardcopy to each household, or having parents drive long distances to their schools. In one case, Ibapah students driving to school to pick up homework drive a 120-mile round trip to their schools in Wendover, Utah. ● College-Aged Students: College and University students who had classes shift to online formats and had to return to their rural homes could not complete their semesters effectively because they did not have access to online services to receive or submit work. ○ Lack of Effective Delivery of Information ■ Financial opportunities are not delivered: Submitting hardcopy applications puts potential employees at a disadvantage, and many small business loans during pandemic times require application through the internet.

■ Telehealth: health information is not being delivered. Especially in rural areas where hospitals are located far away and ambulance services must travel extended distances.

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

21

● Requests ○ UDIA suggests support of legislation that could first bring internet access to rural Utah. When that has been achieved, GRPB could then focus on device access and education on how parents can set safeguards and accessibility in their homes as they see fit. ○ Internet access could be made cheaper if the costs of internet are dispersed among all Utah households as part of a Utah utility. When a family turns on their electricity, water, gas, maybe they should also be able to turn on the internet.

At-Large: Michael McKee Mike McKee leads the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. This group was able to bring in recreation funds for Daggett County, a railroad near the Uintah Basin, a road near the Navajo in San Juan County, water infrastructure in that same area, and other initiatives, like connecting a road to Flaming Gorge to Yellowstone. ● Opportunities ○ Several important regional infrastructure concepts that they are working toward are: ■ Air Quality Enhancing Concepts ■ Moab to Winslow (AZ) Railroad ■ Regional Recreation Planning ■ Salina to Alton Railroad ■ Natural Gas Product Manufacturing ■ Critical Highway Improvement Projects ■ Electrical Transmission and Generation Enhancements ■ Distributed Logistics Port Facilities in Rural Utah

Appendix A 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

22

Appendix B

Appendix B 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

23

Report Recipient List This report, in accordance with Utah Code § 63C-10-103 (2019) and Utah Code § 68-3-14 (2019), is submitted to the following individuals: Gov. Gary R. Herbert Economic Development and Workforce Services Interim Committee Senator Daniel McCay (R), Chair Representative Mike Winder (R), Chair Senator Jacob L. Anderegg (R) Senator Derek L. Kitchen (D) Senator Ann Millner (R) Senator Jerry W. Stevenson (R) Representative Patrice M. Arent (D) Representative James A. Dunnigan (R) Representative Francis D. Gibson (R) Representative Stephen G. Handy (R) Representative Suzanne Harrison (D) Representative A. Cory Maloy (R) Representative Carol Spackman Moss (D) Representative Derrin R. Owens (R) Representative Susan Pulsipher (R) Representative Marc K. Roberts (R) Julie Humberstone, Policy Analyst Peter Asplund, Associate General Counsel Leila Reynolds, Administrative Assistant Members of the Utah State Legislature Utah House of Representatives Representative Joel Ferry (R) Representative Jefferson Moss (R) Representative Dan N. Johnson (R) Representative Casey Snider (R) Representative Val K. Potter (R) Representative A. Cory Maloy (R) Representative Kyle R. Andersen (R) Representative Steve Waldrip (R) Representative Calvin R. Musselman (R) Representative Lawanna Shurtliff (D) Representative Kelly B. Miles (R) Representative Mike Schultz (R) Representative Paul Ray (R) Representative Karianne Lisonbee (R) Representative Brad R. Wilson (R) Representative Stephen G. Handy (R) Representative Stewart E. Barlow (R) Representative Timothy D. Hawkes (R) Representative Raymond P. Ward (R) Representative Melissa G. Ballard (R) Representative Douglas V. Sagers (R) Representative Susan Duckworth (D) Representative Sandra Hollins (D) Representative Jennifer Dailey-Provost (D) Representative Joel K. Briscoe (D) Representative Angela Romero (D) Representative Brady Brammer (R) Representative Brian S. King (D) Report Recipient List 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

24

Representative Lee B. Perry (R) Representative Mike Winder (R) Representative Elizabeth Weight (D) Representative Suzanne Harrison (D) Representative Craig Hall (R) Representative Karen Kwan (D) Representative Mark A. Wheatley (D) Representative Patrice M. Arent (D) Representative Carol Spackman Moss (D) Representative Eric K. Hutchings (R) Representative James A. Dunnigan (R) Representative Stephanie Pitcher (D) Representative Mark A. Strong (R) Representative Kim F. Coleman (R) Representative Cheryl K. Acton (R) Representative Andrew Stoddard (D) Representative Steve Eliason (R) Representative Marie H. Poulson (D) Representative Steve R. Christiansen (R) Representative Keven J. Stratton (R) Representative Robert M. Spendlove (R) Representative Susan Pulsipher (R) Representative Jeffrey D. Stenquist (R) Representative Candice B. Pierucci (R) Representative Kera Birkeland (R) Representative Tim Quinn (R) Representative Scott H. Chew (R) Representative Kay J. Christofferson (R) Representative Jon Hawkins (R) Representative Derrin R. Owens (R) Representative Val L. Peterson (R) Representative Brad M. Daw (R) Representative Marsha Judkins (R) Representative Travis M. Seegmiller (R) Representative Adam Robertson (R) Representative Norman K. Thurston (R) Representative Francis D. Gibson (R) Representative Michael K. McKell (R) Representative Marc K. Roberts (R) Representative Merrill F. Nelson (R) Representative Christine F. Watkins (R) Representative Carl R. Albrecht (R) Representative Bradley G. Last (R) Representative Rex P. Shipp (R) Representative Phil Lyman (R) Representative V. Lowry Snow (R) Representative Walt Brooks (R) Utah Senate Senator Luz Escamilla (D) Senator Derek L. Kitchen (D) Senator Gene Davis (D) Senator Jani Iwamoto (D) Senator Karen Mayne (D) Senator Wayne A. Harper (R) Senator Deidre M. Henderson (R) Senator Kathleen Riebe (D)

Report Recipient List 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

25

Senator Kirk A. Cullimore (R) Senator Lincoln Fillmore (R) Senator Daniel McCay (R) Senator Daniel W. Thatcher (R) Senator Jacob L. Anderegg (R) Senator Daniel Hemmert (R) Senator Keith Grover (R) Senator Curtis S. Bramble (R) Senator Scott D. Sandall (R) Senator Ann Millner (R) Senator Allen M. Christensen (R) Senator David G. Buxton (R) Senator Jerry W. Stevenson (R) Senator J. Stuart Adams (R) Senator Todd Weiler (R) Senator Ralph Okerlund (R) Senator Lyle W. Hillyard (R) Senator Ronald Winterton (R) Senator David P. Hinkins (R) Senator Evan J. Vickers (R) Senator Don L. Ipson (R)

Report Recipient List 2020 Governor’s Rural Partnership Board Annual Report

26