Lead Opinion
opinion of the Court:
INTRODUCTION
T1 This сase involves Salt Lake City's (City) petition to validate municipal bonds pursuant to the Bond Validation Act (Validation Act). In 2003, the City asked voters to approve Proposition No. 5, which proposed the issuance of bonds to finance construction of a "Regional Sports, Recreation and Education Complex." Voters approved the bonds. Years later, in 2011, the City authorized issuance of the bonds with Resolution No. 12 and then filed a petition to validate the Proposition No. 5 bonds in district court. Validation is an optional, expedited procedure that permits a governing body to obtain both a judicial declaration that proposed bonds are legal and an injunction preventing any future challenge to the validity of the bonds. Danny Potts, Naney Saxton, and the Jordan River Restoration Network (collectively, Restoration Network) retained counsel and appeared in opposition to the City's petition. Additionally, Ray Kingston, Raymond Wheeler, Hans Ehrbar, and Lucey Knorr (collectively, Citizens) appeared pro se and opposed the City's petition. Together, the Restoration Network and Citizens (collectively, Appellants) challenged the bonds' validity on a variety of statutory and constitutional grounds. The district court considered their claims, denied them, and granted the City's validation petition.
12 Both the Restoration Network and Citizens appealed. We consolidated their appeals into this case. Together, the Appellants raise seven claims that they believe render the bonds invalid and flegal. Generally, the Appellants claim that the validation proceedings conducted by the district court deprived them of due process and violated the Validation Act. They also argue that validation was not proper because the City's
[ 3 We hold that the district court conducted the validation proceedings in compliance with due process and the Validation Act, and that it correctly granted the City's petition to validate the Proposition No. 5 bonds. The validation proceedings conducted by the district court protected Appellants' due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Upon receipt of the City's validation petition, the district court properly ordered publication of notice. This notice appeared in the Intermountain Commercial Record (Commercial Record) and on the Utah Legal Notices website and it satisfied the requirements of due process. As a result, Appellants were properly served with process and subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district court. The notice also provided Appellants with adequate time to prepare for the validation hearing. Additionally, the procedures employed by the district court at the validation hearing protected Appellants' due process rights by providing them with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In particular, the district court permitted Appellants to testify, examine witnesses, and present closing arguments.
T 4 The district court also correctly applied both the Validation Act and the Bonding Act. It accurately concluded that the Validation Act provides a narrow, expedited procedure limited to consideration of the validity of the bonds as financial instruments and does not permit consideration of collateral matters, such as land use and zoning laws, that relate to implementation of the underlying project. Similarly, the district court correctly held that collateral documents did not create binding terms for Proposition No. 5. The project now proposed by the City is consistent with what the City advertised to voters in its statutorily required notice and falls within the bounds of the City's discretion. Finally, the district court properly determined that Resolution No. 12 complied with the Bonding Act and authorized issuance of the bonds. While Resolution No. 12 is subject to a final bond resolution, the constraints it establishes for material bond terms, like the bonds' principal and interest rate, permit it to аuthorize bond issuance and serve as the foundation for the validation petition. Because we conclude that the district court complied with due process and properly applied the Validation and Bonding Acts, we affirm its grant of the City's validation petition.
BACKGROUND
I. THE PROPOSITION NO. 5 BOND ELECTION
15 On September 9, 2003, the City adopted Resolution No. 89, which proposed six bond issues. Only Proposition No. 5 is relevant to this case. Proposition No. 5 asked voters the following question:
Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue and sell general obligations bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed Fifteen Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($15,300,000) and to be due and payable in not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date or dates of the bonds for the purpose of paying the costs of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping a multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads, parking and improvements?
The City scheduled the bond election for Proposition No. 5 contemporaneously with the November 2008 general election.
T6 Prior to the November election, the City sent out a Voter Information Pamphlet (Pamphlet) describing the six bond propositions. The description for Proposition No. 5 was titled "Regional Sports, Recreation and Education Complex." The Pamphlet identified the site for the proposed complex as "212 acres at 2000 North and 2000 West." It then described the purposes of the project as:
@To acquire, construct, furnish and equip a multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex.
@To accommodate the growing needs of youth and adults, participating in organized sports such as soccer, rugby, lacrosse, football and baseball.
*To relieve community and neighborhood parks of continuous high-intensity, multi-use activities that negatively impact park lands.
@To create economic development opportunities by drawing regional and national events.
T7 The Pamphlet also articulated the following "details" for the complex:
® The Jordan River, which runs along the eastern border of the complex, will be preserved as a natural habitat for both plants and wildlife. Access to the river corridor will be preserved for recreation.
©@Complex may also include an indoor structure to support field sports and a nature component to support education.
® Fee-based, scheduled events (e.g., league and tournament play) will help generate revenue, offsetting operation and maintenance costs.
® User groups are committed to raise $7.5 million from other government, community, and constituent user groups to augment bond funding.
18 After articulating the complex's purpose and details, the Pamphlet described the cost associated with approval of Proposition No. 5. The Pamphlet estimated that an average homeowner would pay $7.75 per year for the cost of the bonds and $2 per year for ongoing maintenance of the complex. It then estimated that the cost to a small business would be $14 per year while the cost to a large business would be $81 per year.
T9 In advance of the November election, newspapers reported on Proposition No. 5. In particular, the Salt Lake Tribune published an October 28, 2003 article on the subject. The article appeared in the newspaper's opinion section and its authorship was attributed to the "Salt Lake Tribune." The article outlined the complex's anticipated features, costs, and location and recommended voter approval. It specifically stated that the complex would include thirty soccer fields, two rugby fields, and eight baseball fields on a 212-acre site.
{10 On November 4, 2008, the voters of Salt Lake City approved Proposition No. 5 by a vote of 20,475 to 19,454. Parties had until December 23, 2003 to contest the validity of the bond election. No party raised such a challenge.
{11 After the validation hearing, the district court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law explaining the City's "current" proposal for the complex. The district court stated that the complex, as proposed, will be located on a 160-acre site near the Jordan River and will include fifteen multi-use fields and one championship field. The court further stated that the current proposal does not include any baseball fields but that it does include a natural buffer between the athletic fields and the Jordan River. Finally, the court stated that the proposal also includes a variety of infrastructure, including parking, roads, restrooms, concession areas, maintenance buildings, and administration buildings.
II. AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROPOSITION NO. 5 BONDS
T12 In 2010, the City began proceedings to authorize issuance of the Proposition No. 5 bonds. On February 5, 2010, the City posted and published notice of a February 9, 2010 public hearing to be held regarding authorization of the bonds. At the scheduled hearing, the City adopted Resolution No. 12, which provided initial authorization for the bonds. Resolution No. 12 established the maximum aggregate principal, the maximum number of years to maturity, the maximum interest rate, and the maximum discount from par for the bonds. The resolution also acknowledged that it did not set the final terms of the bonds, but that the final terms would be set pursuant to a Final Bond Resolution to be adopted by the City. The Final Bond Resolution was attached to Resolution No. 12. Resolution No. 12 stated that the terms of the Final Bond Resolution could not exeeed the terms it set forth, including the maximum principal, interest rate, discount rate, and years to maturity.
4 13 Resolution No. 12 also provided for a public hearing to satisfy the requirements of section 11-14-8318 of the Utah Code. It ordered publication of notice of a public hearing to be held on March 2, 2010. The City posted notice at City Hall on February 11,
III. THE BOND VALIDATION PROCEEDING
14 On October 7, 2010, the Restoration Network filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the issuance of the bonds. The City responded by filing a separate petition to validate the bonds pursuant to the Validation Act
[All taxpayers, property owners, citizens of the public body, including nonresidents owning property or subject to taxation therein, all other persons having or claiming any right, title, or interest in any property or funds affected by or to be affected by the bonds, all parties to any contract or instrument which is part of the validation proceedings....
In accordance with the Validation Act, the petition also named the attorney general as a defendant,. See Utax Cope § 11~30-3(2). If successful, the City's validation petition will permanently enjoin the Restoration Network's separate lawsuit, and any future challenges to the validity of the bonds. Id. § 11-30-11(1)-@).
[15 Pursuant to the Validation Act's requirements, the district court scheduled a hearing on February 9, 2011. It published daily notice of the hearing between January 18 and February 1 in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices.
{16 The district court issued a Decorum Order on February 3, 2011, defining the procedures to be used during the validation hearing. Notably, the Decorum Order set time limits for each party's presentation. In particular, it granted the City twenty minutes, the Attorney General ten minutes, and the defendants three minutes each.
{17 On February 4, 2011, prior to the scheduled February 9 hearing, the Restoration Network filed a Motion for Order for Mailing of Notice and/or Publication of Notice in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. In support of its motion, the Restoration Network argued that notice publication in the Commercial Record failed to satisfy the requirements of due process, did not constitute proper service of process, and that the distriсt court had therefore failed to establish personal jurisdiction over them. The Restoration Network requested that the district court continue the February 9 hearing and issue notice by mail to all taxpayers or, in the alternative, publish notice in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News.
118 The district court heard oral argument on the motion at the February 9 hearing and denied the motion from the bench. It memorialized its decision in a written ruling several weeks later. The ruling held that the notices provided in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices satisfied the constitutional requirements of due process and the statutory requirements of section 11-30-5 of the Utah Code.
[19 The district court held the validation hearing on February 9, 2011. The City, Restoration Network, Citizens, and the Attorney General all appeared and participated. The district court heard motions and received testimony, permitted witnesses to be called and examined, and received briefing and other evidence. Notably, the district court heard testimony regarding environmental issues from Citizens.
120 The Attorney General presented a motion requesting that he be dismissed as a
{21 At the conclusion of the validation hearing, the district court stated that the parties could file a "response" in writing prior to issuance of its decision. The court received six letters from defendants expressing their intent to supplement the record. The district court thereafter entered a Minute Entry clarifying that any responses would be limited to "written summations, or argument" and that new evidence would not be accepted. Some parties, nonetheless, submitted new evidence, and others filed objections to the Minute Entry. The district court overruled the objections to the Minute Entry and limited its consideration to evidence admitted during or before the validation hearing.
1 22 The district court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 80, 2011. The conclusions of law first clarified that the scope of the validation proceeding was "narrow," and "not subject to much of the law cited by defendants, including law governing zoning and land use decisions." The district court then addressed whether Resolution No. 12 provided sufficient authorization to permit the City to pursue validation. It held that the resolution was sufficiently final to permit the City to pursue validation, reasoning that Resolution No. 12 "is an action of significant legal substance" and that "[the sequence followed here is legal, and practically necessary to effectuate the bond sale." The conclusions of law also addressed whether statements in the Pamphlet bound the City and whether the project, as currently envisioned, was within the scope of the City's discretion. The district court determined that the Pamphlet is a collateral document and "[the City is not bound by its statements." It also found that "the present proposal is well within the City's discretion." Ultimately, the court held that "[the City] has met its burden to establish every necessary allegation of its Amended Petition, and is entitled to an Order ... determining that the [blonds ... are valid." It then directed the City to "prepare an appropriate Order consistent with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
23 The parties negotiated regarding the terms of the written order, but failed to come to an agreement. The City nevertheless submitted a proposed written order. The Restoration Network filed an Objection to Revised Proposed Order of Judgment. The Restoration Network objected to the following language proposed by the City: "The City, pursuant to notice properly given, held on March 2, 2010, the public hearing required by Utah Cоde section 11-14-318 ... and the notice of intent to issue bonds was validly given on February 11, February 18, and February 20, 2010." The Restoration Network argued that the proposed language exceeded the scope of the district court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Alternatively, the Restoration Network proposed that the order state, "[nJotice of the March 2, 2010 City Council Meeting and notice of intent to issue bonds were properly noticed." The district court adopted the Restoration Network's proposed language.
124 The Restoration Network filed a notice of appeal. It amended this notice after the district court issued its final written order. Citizens filed a separate notice of appeal. We consolidated the two appeals. We have jurisdiction to hear this consolidated appeal pursuant to sections 11-30-10(1) and 78A-8-102(8)(J) of the Utah Code.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
4 25 This appeal presents seven issues, and the parties dispute the standard of review applicable to some of these. For clarity, we begin our analysis of each issue by addressing the appropriate standard of review.
I 26 The City challenges whether the Restoration Network and Citizens properly preserved several of the issues they raise on appeal. We discuss whether the Appellants preserved individual issues below, with our analysis of those issues. For brevity, however, we set forth our preservation rule here.
127 Generally, to preserve an issue for appeal, the party asserting error must (1) specifically raise the issue, (2) "in a timely manner," and (8) support the claim with "evidence and relevant legal authority." Donjuan v. McDermott,
128 Our preservation rule promotes both judicial economy and fairness. Id. 1% 15-16. The rule furthers judicial economy by "giving] the [district] court an opportunity to address the claimed error, and if appropriate, correct it" prior to an appeal. Id. §15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Next, it encourages fairness by giving an opposing party "an opportunity to address the alleged error in the [district] court." Id. 116. Similarly, the rule "prevents a party from avoiding [an] issue at trial for strategic reasons only to raise the issue on appeal if the strategy fails." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
129 Rule 24(a)(5) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure complements the preservation rule. It requires an appellant's brief to provide "[al statement of the issues presented for review" and a "citation to the record showing that [an] issue was preserved in the [district] court." However, in the case of an appellant who appears pro se, we retain discretion to address issues raised that do not strictly comply with the requirements of rule 24. See Cedar City v. Child, 2002 UT App 133U, para. 1,
ANALYSIS
€30 Appellants argue that the district court erred when it granted the City's petition to validate the Proposition No. 5 bonds. They raise seven issues. First, Appellants argue that validation proceedings are broad in scope and must include consideration of any matter that may affect the validity or legality of the bonds, including land use, zoning, and environmental laws. Second, they assert that notice of the validation hearing provided by the district court did not comply with the Validation Act. Third, Appellants contend that notice of the validation hearing published in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices was inadequate and violated their due process rights. Fourth, Citizens assert that the validation hearing did not provide them with the meaningful opportunity to be heard that due process requires. Fifth, Appellants argue that the project currently proposed materially differs from the project the City proposed to voters. Sixth, Appellants claim that the City failed to comply with the Bonding Act because it did not provide final authorization of the bonds prior to filing its validation petition, and it did not hold a timely hearing pursuant to section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code. Seventh, Citizens challenge the district court's statement that the bond validation petition did not present a close case.
131 We are not persuaded by any of the seven issues raised by Appellants As a result, we affirm the district court's grant of the City's validation petition.
I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT VALIDATION PROCEEDINGS ARE NARROW IN SCOPE
A. Standard of Review
132 "We review questions of statutory interpretation for correctness, affording no deference to the district court's legal conclusions." Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P'ship,
B. Preservation
T33 Citizens argue that a bond validation proceeding must encompass any matter that may affect the legality of a bond, including environmental and land use laws. The City
134 Citizens failed to strictly comply with rule 24(a)(5)of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which requires "[a] statement of the issues presented for review" and a "citation to the record showing that [an] issue was preserved in the [district] court." But the argument section of their opening brief does provide record citations identifying where they asked the district court to consider a broad range of issues that may affect the validity of the bonds. Of note is the following exchange between pro se appellant Hans Ehrbar and the district court. Mr. Ehrbar began testifying about the potential consequences of global warming on the proposed complex. The court paused Mr. Ehr-bar and informed him that bond validation proceedings have a narrow scope and that "there's other litigation pending in other venues that may or may not get into these issues." Mr. Ehrbar argued that environmental issues impacted the feasibility of repaying the bond. The court disagreed with Mr. Ehrbar and stopped his testimony, noting that the validation hearing was not the proper place to raise environmental issues. This exchange, along with others over the course of the proceedings, notified the district court that Citizens sought to address a wide variety of issues within the validation proceeding. Nevertheless, the court concluded that "the issues before the [clourt are narrow, they are defined by statute, and they are not subject to much of the law cited by defendants, including [the] law governing zoning and land use decisions." Thus, Citizens did raise their claim regarding the scope of the validation proceedings and the district court was aware of their position. As a result, we elect to grant them leniency from strict compliance with rule 24(a)(5) and we address the merits of their claim.
C. Merits
185 Citizens argue that the district court "must cast a wide net to consider and evaluate any matter relating to the legality and validity of the bond." In particular, Citizens contend that the district court should have considered "the Clean Water Act, the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act, local zoning ordinances, sovereign land laws, and flood plain regulations." We disagree. The Validation Act establishes a narrowly focused, expedited procedure to validate proposed bonds; this procedure does not contemplate consideration of broader issues related to the project, including land use, zoning, and environmental laws.
136 When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, "(olur primary objective ... is to give effect to the intent of the [Llegislature." State v. J.M.S. (In re J.M.S.),
137 We begin our analysis with the plain language of the Validation Act. The Act permits a public body to "file a petition to establish the validity of ... bonds." Urax Cope § 11-30-8(1). It generally defines validity to mean "any matter relating to the legality and validity of the bonds and the security therefor ... without limitation.
138 To further evaluate the seope of what may properly be considered under seetion 2(9)(d), we look to its context. "Under the doctrine of [ejusdem] generis, we read a statute's use of a term or phrase as restricted to include things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those specifically enumerated." Whitney v. Div. of Juvenile Justice Servs.,
1 39 This narrow construction of subsection (d) is supported by construing the purpose and language of the Validation Act as a whole. The Act contemplates an expedited process and such an approach is simply not compatible with Citizens' argument that "any matter" may be considered in a validation proceeding. The Act requires that "[ujpon the filing of the [validation] petition, the court shall issue an order" notifying defendants of a validation hearing. Id. § 11-80-4. The hearing must occur within one month of the court's order. Id. ("'The time of the hearing shall be not less than 20 nor more than 30 days from the date of the issuing of the [notice] order."). Next, the Act directs the district court to manage the proceedings in the way that will best enable it to "enter a judgment with the least possible delay." Id. § 11-80-7 (2011)
T 40 Finally, the Validation Act sets forth procedures and a burden of proof that expedite validation. The Act permits a district court to "enjoin the commencement, prosecu
T41 In summary, the Validation Act establishes a statutory framework for speedy disposition of bond validation petitions. This structure necessarily requires that bond validation рroceedings focus on the validity of the bonds as financial instruments rather than on the validity of the project for which the bonds are to be issued. The limited focus of the other enumerated categories in section 11-80-2(9) bolsters this conclusion. Accordingly, we reject Citizens' claim that a validation proceeding is the appropriate vehicle for raising any and all challenges to the project for which the bonds are being issued, including environmental, land use, and zoning issues.
II THE RESTORATION NETWORK FAILED TO PRESERVE ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE OF THE VALIDATION HEARING VIOLATED SECTION 11-80-5 OF THE UTAH CODE
A. Standard of Review
142 Whether the Appellants received proper statutory notice presents "a question of law, which this court reviews for correctness." Save Beaver Cnty. v. Beaver Cnty.
B. Preservation
148 On appeal, the Restoration Network argues that there is no evidence that the Commercial Record has 200 or more subscribers within the boundaries of the city, which the Restoration Network argues is required by the Utah Code. See Utax Cope § 11-80-5(1)(a)() (requiring notice to be published "in a newspaper published or of general circulation within the boundaries of the [city]") and Uran Cope $ 45-1-1 (classifying a newspaper of general circulation as one with at least 200 subscribers statewide). The City responds that the Restoration Network failed to preserve this statutory argument in the district court and fails to identify an applicable exception to the preservation rule.
1 44 While the Restoration Network's brief claims that publication in the Commercial Record does not satisfy section 11-30-5 of the Utax Cop®, its counsel conceded at oral argument that this argument was not preserved below. Our independent review of the record confirms that the Restoration Network had several opportunities to preserve this argument, but did not.
145 The Restoration Network nevertheless urges us to exercise our discretion and examine this issue because parties who do not receive adequate statutory notice will not know the 'statute has been violated and will not be able to bring a lawsuit challenging the violation. We decline to do so. While we have reached unpreserved arguments
III. APPELLANTS' DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO NOTICE WAS NOT VIOLATED
46 The Restoration Network argues that notice of the validation hearing published in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices violated its due process right to notice and did not constitute proper service. As a result, it claims that it was not subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district court.
A. Standard of Review
147 "Constitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for correctness.... However, because [these questions require] the application of facts in the record to the due process standard, we incorporate a clearly erroneous standard for the necessary subsidiary factual determinations." Chen v. Stewart,
B. Merits
1. Service by Publication Provided Notice Adequate to Satisfy Due Process
$48 The Fourteenth Amendment states that "[nlo State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Procedural due process claims are evaluated under a two-part test. The first question is "whether the [complaining party] has been deprived of a protected interest" in property or liberty. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
149 Under the first prong of our due process analysis, we evaluate whether the validation proceedings deprived the Restoration Network of a protected interest in property or liberty. The City asserts that validation proceedings do not implicate one of the Restoration Network's protected property or liberty interests. The Restoration Network responds that validation proceedings implicate a protected property interest by authorizing increased property taxes and a protected liberty interest by foreclosing future challenges to the validity of the bonds. Because we dispose of this claim under the second prong of our due process analysis, we do not address whether the validation proceedings deprive the Restoration Network of protected property and liberty interests.
150 We now turn our attention to whether the procedures used in this case complied with due process. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that the process due in an individual case is "flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Morrissey v. Brewer,
€ 51 The Restoration Network raises three challenges to the district court's order publishing notice of the bond validation hearing in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices.
a. Notice of the Bond Validation Proceedings by Publication Satisfies Due Process
52 The Restoration Network argues that the means most reasonably calculated to inform the public of the validation hearing would be through mailing notice to all taxpayers. The City responds that notice by publication satisfies due process for bond validation proceedings and that requiring notice by mail would be financially burdensome. The Restoration Network counters that notice by mail would not create a financial burden because "the [Clity routinely sends notices to its citizens as part of its water bills and the additional cost for providing such notice is de minimis compared to the cost of the bonded project and the overall total project budget." We agree with the City and hold that notice by publication was sufficient to satisfy due process.
158 To evaluate whether notice complied with due process, we use the test articulated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company,
54 Mullane involved a challenge to the constitutional sufficiency of notice of a proposed judicial settlement of accounts for a common trust fund. Id. at 807,
55 In its other leading notice cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has also considered private property interests held by individuals or small groups. Those cases involved the adequacy of notice given to a property owner subject to a tax sale, Jones v. Flowers,
1 56 Through Mullane and its progeny, the Court has developed a framework for evaluating notice claims.
1 57 The majority of state courts to consider the issue have held that notice by publication for bond validation proceedings satisfies due process. See, eg., Jackson v. Waller Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 07-3086,
158 We find these decisions persuasive because, in "assessing the adequacy of a particular form of notice [the courts]! ba-lancled] the 'interest of the State' against 'the individual interest sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,'" tailored to the unique factual cireumstances present in bond validation proceedings. Jones,
{59 The dissent argues that we should instead adopt the minority position, which applies Mullane formulaically and holds that notice by publication of bond validation proceedings violates due process. In support of this position, the dissent relies on two Michigan Supreme Court cases. Alan v. Wayne Cnty.
T 60 The second case cited by the dissent, Alam, considered the plaintiffs' claim that publication provided inadequate notice of Wayne County's "Notice of Intent to Issue [Revenue] Bonds."
161 To determine whether Mullane permits notice by publication in this case, we must balance the individuals' interest, the government's interest, and the likely value of additional or substitute notice. We apply Mullane flexibly and practically based on the unique facts and cireumstances present in this case. Mullane,
T 62 We first consider "the individual interest sought to be protected by the [Due Process Clause]."
T 63 In addition, the validation proceeding involves an extremely large group of defendants. The Validation Act requires that the City's validation petition name as defendants
all taxpayers, property owners, citizens of the public body, including nonresidents owning property or subject to taxation therein, all other persons having or claiming any right, title, or interest in any property or funds affected by or to be affected by the bonds, all parties to any contract or instrument which is part of the validation proceedings, and, pursuant to Section 11-30-6, either the attorney general or the county attorney of the county in which thelargest expenditure of proceeds of the bonds is expected to be made.
Urax Cope § 11-30-3(2).
I 64 We need not define the precise scope of section 11-80-8(2) today. But we recognize that, at a minimum, section 11-30-8(2) requires the City to name as defendants "all ... property owners," which includes residential, commercial, public, and other landowners. Moreover, the City must name "all . citizens of the public body ... affected by or to be affected by the bonds." This certainly includes all citizens who live in the vicinity of the complex. The number of defendants in these two categories alone range in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
65 In short, the City's validation petition names an extremely large group of defendants numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands and these defendants share an undifferentiated public right to challenge bond validity.
166 Mullane next requires consideration of the government's interest.
167 Finally, our analysis under Mullane requires consideration of the value of additional or substitute notice. See supra 156. In this case, the additional notice proposed by the Restoration Network-notice by mail-would provide no additional protection of the defendants' public interests. Mullane permitted imperfect notice when individuals shared an identical interest with a larger group because objections by a few group representatives would benefit the entire group. In Mullane, the Central Hanover Bank established a common trust fund for 113 trusts pursuant to a state law that permitted "pooling small trust estates into one fund for investment administration."
{68 The defendants here share a public right to challenge the bonds' validity and have a common interest in ensuring that the bonds comply with Utah law. Because the defendants share a common public interest in the validation proceeding, a few representatives can vindicate the rights of the entire group. As a result, notice by mail that may increase the percentage of defendants who actually receive notice is not required by due process. See Jones,
69 In addition to not providing any benefit, notice by mail would impose administrative and financial burdens on the City, as compared to notice by publication. Administratively, the City would have to identify each member of the large group of defendants, gather their addresses, and mail notice to them. Notably, the City does not administer property tax records and would have to obtain property owner addresses from Salt Lake County. Completion of these steps would impose additional costs on the City. These are not insurmountable barriers. But our task is not to evaluate whether the City could feasibly mail notice. Rather, we must evaluate what benefit additional or substitute notice may provide. And in doing so, we must bear in mind that due process is a practical, flexible doctrine, not a formulaic one. See supro 156. Thus, we need not quantify the specific number of additional hours required to mail notice or the precise cost increase of mailed notice as compared to notice by publication. Instead, we merely need to acknowledge that notice by mail offers no additional benefits and it imposes some administrative and financial burdens on the City.
170 We also find it significant that the defendants' interests are protected by the Attorney General's participation in the validation proceedings. The Validation Act requires that the City's validation petition name numerous defendants, including "either the attorney general or the county attorney of the county in which the largest expenditure of proceeds of the bonds is expected to be made." Urax CopE § 11-80-8(2). Here, the City named the Attorney General. The Validation Act requires that, upon receipt, "the [AJttorney [GlJeneral shall carefully examine the petition." Id. § 11-80-6(1). If, after review, the Attorney General believes that the petition is "defective, insufficient, or untrue, or if ... a reasonable question exists as to the vаlidity of the bonds," then he "shall contest the petition." Id. Alternative ly, "lf neither of those conditions exists or if one or more other parties to the action will competently contest the petition, the [AJttorney [GJeneral may ... be dismissed as a defendant." Id.
T71 In this case, the Attorney General reviewed the City's petition in detail and elected not to contest the bonds' validity. The Attorney General testified that two attorneys "spent many, many hours read{[ing] everything that [had] been provided both by [the City] and [the Restoration Network]." The Attorney General submitted a memorandum to the district court, explaining his investigation and conclusions. At trial, he testified that "we have simply not found anything that would indicate that either the proceedings or the notices or anything else are invalid or deficient in any manner." The Attorney General also noted
{72 In applying Mullane to this case, we hold that notice by publication properly apprised defendants of the validation proceedings. Moreover, notice by mail, as requested by the Restoration Network, is unnecessary. The defendants have a nominal, public interest in ensuring the bonds' validity. But vindication of these interests may be accomplished by several representative defendants. Moreover, participation by the Attorney General in the validation proceedings ensures representation of the defendants' public interests. Accordingly, notice by publication of bond validation proceedings is reasonably certain to notify the defendants and it complies with due process.
(ii) Notice by publication would be permitted in a class action with factual circumstances similar to this validation proceeding
173 Class actions provide an instructive example for evaluating whether the notice provided in this bond validation proceeding satisfied due process. And our review of class actions shows that notice by publication would satisfy rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a class action with factual circumstances similar to the validation proceedings.
T74 Rule 23(b) designates three types of class actions. First, rule 28 permits class actions when "inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members ... would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class," or when "adjudications with respect to individual class members ... would substantially impair or impede [the ability of other class members] to protect their interests." FEDpRCIVP. 23(b)(1)(A)-(B). Second, rule 283 permits class actions when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Id. 23(b)@Q). Third, a class action is permissible when "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Id. 23(b)8).
175 While this is not a class action, the bond validation proceedings in this case are most similar to the type of class action identified under rule 28(b)(1). Rule 28(b)(1) permits class actions when "inconsistent or varying adjudications ... would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class." Id. 28(b)(1)(A). Indeed, when discussing rule 28(b)(1), the Advisory Committee Notes contemplated cases similar to this one. The Notes state, "It]o illustrate: Separate actions by individuals against a municipality to declare a bond issue invalid or condition or limit it . might create a risk of inconsistent or varying determinations .... Actions by or against a class provide a ready and fair means of achieving unitary adjudication." FEDpRCIvP. 28 Advisory Committee's Notes; see also Jackson,
T76 For classes designated under rule 23(b)(1), "[al court may direct appropriate notice to the class." Fro. 23(c)(2)(A). A court has discretion to select the method of giving notice. FEp.R.CIVP. 23 Advisory Committee Notes. The Advisory Committee Notes offer courts some guidance in selecting a method of notice. The Notes acknowledge that perfect notice is not necessary and that, instead, "[nJotice calculated to reach a significant number of class members often will protect the interests of all." FED. R.CIVP. 28 Advisory Committee Notes; 7B CHxarLESs ALAN Wricet Ef Au., FEDERAL Pracrics anp ProcEpurE § 1786 Bd ed.
T 77 The dissent argues, without differentiating among the types of class actions identified in rule 23, that individualized notice is required "[e}ven in cases involving millions of claimants with low-value claims." Infra 1 180. But the authority cited by the dissent addresses rule 23(b)(8) class actions. Under rule 23(b)(8), "questions of law or fact common to class members" must "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." In other words, a rule 23(b)(8) class is joined by common legal or factual issues, but its members also have individual claims, like damages, that may vary among members. See TAA Cmarues Aran WricHut ET AL, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1778 (8d ed. 2012). Because rule 28(b)(8) classes are less cohesive than rule 28(b)(1) classes, rule 23 provides them with additional procedural protections. See id. § 1786 Bd ed.2012). Notably, rule 28(b)(8) class members may opt out of the class. See FED. R.CIvVP. 23(c)(8)(B). The claims and procedures used in rule 28(L)(8) class actions differ from the validation proceedings. The Validation Act permits defendants to pursue shared, public claims challenging the validity of the Proposition No. 5 bonds. It does not permit them to present individual causes of action. Moreover, the Validation Act does not permit the defendants to opt out of a validation proceeding to pursue individual recourse. See Utax Copr § 11-30-38(2). Thus, a rule 23(b)(8) class action differs from the validation proceedings.
T78 Rule 28 provides another procedural protection to rule 23(b)(8) class members. It states that a court "must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort." Frp.R.Cv.P. 23(c)(2)(B). This provides the basis for the dissent's claim that class actions require individualized notice. But the notice requirements for rule 28(b)(8) class actions have no bearing on this case. The defendants in this case are most similar to a class under rule 23(b)(1) and bear little resemblance to a rule 28(b)(8) class. And even if both rule 28(b)(1) and 23(b)(8) could apply in this case, the discretionary notice requirement of rule 23(c)(2)(A), not the mandatory, individual notice requirement of rule 28(c)(2)(B), would still apply. TAA Crarures Aman Wricаt st Au, FEpsrap PrRaCTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1772 (8d ed. 2012) ("Since the class members in a Rule 28(b)(8) action are given the option not to be included in the judgment, it has been held that Rule 28(b)(1) should control when both provisions apply."); id.
(Gif) Richards and Jackson Construction, two cases relied on by the dissent, do not assist our resolution of this case
T79 The dissent claims that the following two cases contradict our conclusion that due process permits notice by publication for this bond validation proceeding: Richards v. Jefferson County,
180 In Richards, petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of a county occupation tax.
181 Richards differs from this case in several significant ways. First, the Court held that the three county taxpayers did not provide representation of the petitioners in the prior action because they did not assert any claims on behalf of nonparties and the judgment did not bind any nonparties. Id. at 801,
1 82 The dissent also argues that
although the Richards court recognized that "the States have wide latitude to establish procedures not only to limit the number of judicial proceedings that may be entertained but also to determinewhether to accord a taxpayer any standing at all," it went on to hold that onee a state elects to recognize a taxpayer claim, it must afford the same notice to that claim as it grants to any other claimant.
Infra 1189 (quoting
1 83 The dissent claims that a second case, Jackson Construction, forecloses the conclusion we reach today. But that case also involved substantially different factual circumstances. In Jackson Construction, we considered "whether Jackson Construction's attempts to locate Douglas and Robert [Marrs] met the reasonable diligence standard required for service by publication" under rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
84 Jackson Construction is relevant to this case to the limited extent that we recognized that due process is a flexible test and requires notice "reasonabl[el under all the cireumstances" of a particular case. See id. 1 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, due process is not a fixed concept to be applied formulaically across different factual cireumstances. Beyond this similarity, Jackson Construction does not guide our decision in this case. First, Jackson Construction applies rule 4, but the Validation Act substituted its own procedures for service of process that supersede rule 4. Infra 198. Second, Jackson Construction did not consider the second cireumstance under rule 4, which permits service by publication "where service upon all of the individual parties is impracticable under the cireum-stances." Urax R. Crv. P. 4(d)(d)(A). If the Validation Act had not provided substitute procedures, this second circumstance would be essential to our analysis of whether service by publication satisfied rule 4's requirements. Third, Jackson Construction and this case have fundamentally different facts. Jackson Construction involved the real property rights of two people: Douglas and Robert Marrs. This case involves the limited public right of tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayers to challenge the validity of the Proposition No. 5 bonds. Because the reasonableness of notice depends on the facts of an individual case and the facts of Jackson Construction differ significantly from this case, Jackson Construction does not inform our decision.
b. Notice by Publication in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices Satisfied Due Process
' 85 The Restoration Network claims that, even if due process permits notice by publication of validation proceedings, the notice provided in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices "was not reasonably calculated, under the cireumstances, to provide
4 86 To assess whether notice published in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices satisfied due process, we again apply the Mullane test, balancing the individual's interest, the government's interest, and the likely benefit of additional or substitute notice.
187 The Validation Act directs that the district court, "[uJpon the filing of the [validation] petition," shall "issue an order in the form of a notice against all defendants" that a validation hearing will be held. Urax § 11-30-4. The clerk of the court must then publish notice of the validation hearing "once each week for three consecutive weeks ... in a newspaper published or of general cireulation within the boundaries of the public body." Id. § 11-30-5(1)(a)@). To qualify as having "general cireulation," a newspaper must, among other things, have "a bona fide subscription list of not less than 200 subscribers in this state, and shall have been published for not less than 18 months." Id. § 45-1-201.
188 Here, the district court selected the Commercial Record as the newspaper for publication of notice. The Commercial Record is regularly used to publish public notices and other court records within Salt Lake County. The district court took judicial notice that the Commercial Record has more than the statutorily required 200 subscribers. Next, the court noted that the newspaper is "very widely read in the legal community and the Salt Lake County Bar has over 4,000 members." It also held that the notice "activated the community grapevine resulting in notice spreading even more widely than to those who read" the Commercial Record. Ultimately, the court concluded that publication in the Commercial Record satisfied the requirement in section 11-80-5.
T 89 The Validation Act also requires that notice of the validation hearing be published on Utah Legal Notices for three weeks. See id. § 11-30-5(1). Notice of the validation hearing was properly published on Utah Legal Notices. Digital notice provided on Utah Legal Notices improves the likelihood that citizens will receive legal notice by providing a convenient, readily available alternative to traditional, print notice. See Lauren A. Rieders, Old Principles, New Technology, and the Future of Notice in Newspapers, 38 HorstrRA L.Rev. 1009, 1089 (2010) ("The Internet will not only improve the chance citizens will receive notices when they are published in the public domain, but in some ways it can make certain that those who wish to receive notice will in fact receive it."); see also Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink,
The Restoration Network contends that statutory compliance is not enough to satisfy due process. Rather, it argues that the district court needed to publish notice in "the newspaper with the largest possible readership and audience in Salt Lake City." Specifically, the Restoration Network argues that due process required the district court to publish notice in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. To support its argument, the Restoration Network relies on Thomas.
91 Thomas involved the Alabama Municipal Electric Authority's petition to validate Bulk Power Supply Services Revenue Notes.
192 The Restoration Network exaggerates Thomas's holding. While Thomas found that notice by publication in newspapers published in Alabama's four largest cities was adequate to satisfy due process, it did not require publication in the largest newspapers within those cities. And it left open the possibility that other forms of notice publication could also satisfy due process. Accordingly, we find the Restoration Network's argument that due process requires publication in the largest newspapers within the governing body's boundary unpersuasive.
T93 It is also relevant that the notice required by section 11-80-5 of the Utah Code was not the only notice Defendants received. Defendants also received notice of the validation proceedings through nonstatutory sources. In determining whether notice satisfies due process, we may consider notice provided in addition to that required by statute.
{94 The Restoration Network and Citizens received notice of the validation hearing beyond that required by section 11-80-5 of the Utah Code when the City provided them with actual notice of the hearing and when the City conducted a series of bond issuance meetings in 2010. First, the City provided direct notice of the validation hearing by email to the Restoration Network. The Restoration Network then distributed this notice to its members. Mr. Raymond Wheeler, one of the Citizens, also received direct notice through a subpoena requiring him to appear at the validation hearing. Second, the City provided notice for a series of meetings in 2010 during which issuance of the bonds was discussed. During a February 9, 2010 meeting, the City authorized issuance of the bonds with Resolution No. 12. The City then held meetings on March 2, 2010, and December 7, 2010, to receive public feedback regarding Resolution No. 12. In advance of these meetings, the City provided public notice by publication in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News and on Utah Legal Notices.
195 We hold that the notice provided by the district court and the City was reasonably calculated to notify defendants of the validation proceedings. The notice may not have been perfect, but due process does not require perfection when, as is the case here, a large number of small interests are at issue. Mullane,
c. Defendants Were Properly Served and Subject to the Personal Jurisdiction of the District Court
196 The Restoration Network argues that, because the district court failed to provide the notice required by due process, they were not properly served and the district court never acquired personal jurisdiction over them. The City responds that the Restoration Network waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by appearing and participating in the validation hearing. The City also argues that the Restoration Network's receipt of actual notice of the validation proceedings permitted the district court to acquire personal jurisdiction over them.
197 "Personal jurisdiction ... is the court's ability to exercise its power over a person for the purposes of adjudicating his or her rights and liabilities. A lack of [personal jurisdiction] is fatal to a court's authority to decide a case with respect to a particular litigant." Jackson Constr.,
T 98 Generally, rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure governs the procedures required for service of process. But the Validation Act provides its own specific procedures that supersede rule 4. UtaK R. Cv. P. 81(a) ("These rules shall apply to all special statutory proceedings, except insofar as such rules are by their nature clearly inapplicable."). Specifically, the Validation Act provides that, "[ulpon the filing of [a validation] petition, the court shall issue an order in the
199 The district court complied with the statutory publication requirements of the Validation Act. Supra 1187-88. Moreover, we conclude that notice by publication, as provided in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices, complies with due process. Supra 195. Because the district court complied with the Validation Act and due process, we hold that all defendants to the validation proceedings received proper service of process,. Thus, the district cоurt properly obtained personal jurisdiction over them.
2. Notice by Publication Provided Citizens with Sufficient Time to Prepare a Defense
1 100 Citizens argue that the notice provided by the district court's Decorum Order did not provide them adequate time to prepare a defense and thus violated their due process rights. The City replies that the court should not consider this sub-issue because Citizens fail to identify where it was preserved.
101 The City accurately notes that Citizens violated rule 24(a)(5)(A) by failing to identify where in the record they preserved their claim of inadequate notice. But the argument section of Citizens' opening brief contains citations showing that the claim was in fact preserved. We accordingly exercise our discretion and address the merits of their claim.
[ 102 Citizens argue that the Decorum Order issued by the district court provided them with inadequate notice of the procedures to be used at the validation hearing and therefore compromised their ability to prepare an adequate defense. In particular, Citizens complain that they were not prepared to testify, examine witnesses, or provide closing argument.
{108 The Validation Act requires that "[ujpon the filing of [a validation] petition," the district court shall "issue an order in the form of a notice" informing all defendants of the time and place of the validation hearing. Urax Cope § 11-80-4. The Notice Order provided by the district court in this case named as defendants "all taxpayers, property owners and citizens of the City including nonresidents owning property, or subject to taxation therein, all other persons having or claiming any right, title, or interest in any property or funds affected by or to be affected by the Bonds, and the Attorney General." It then outlined the content and consequences of the City's validation petition. Next, the order directed defendants who wished to contest the petition to appear at the validation hearing and "show cause why the prayers of the Petition should not be granted." Finally, the order noted that, upon publication, "all defendants shall have been duly served and shall be parties to the bond validation proceedings." Pursuant to the order, notice appeared in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices.
1104 A February 3, 2011 Decorum Order issued by the district court reiterated the content of the Notice Order. It also specified the procedures for the validation hearing. The Decorum Order provided, inter alia, that the City would receive twenty minutes to present the petition, the Attorney General would receive ten minutes, and all other defendants would receive three minutes each. The core of Citizens' complaint is that the Decorum Order did not provide sufficient notice for them to prepare to testify, examine witnesses, or present closing arguments. But Citizens incorrectly focus on the Decorum Order as the source of notice for the validation hearing. In fact, the source was the district court's Notice Order. Citizens fall within the large group of defendants identified in the court's Notice Order. The order required them to "appear" at the vali
IV. THE VALIDATION HEARING COMPLIED WITH DUE PROCESS BY PROVIDING CITIZENS WITH AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
A. Standard of Review
1 105 Generally, due process issues present questions of law that we review for correctness. Chen v. Stewart,
B. Preservation
Citizens contend that the district court violated their due process right to be heard through the procedures used at the validation hearing, by not granting a continuance of the hearing, and by excluding evidence submitted after the hearing. The City replies that we should not consider this claim because Citizens failed to identify where it was preserved. The City also asserts that the district court was not aware that Citizens had presented a due process challenge to the hearing procedures.
1107 Citizens did not pair their statement of this issue-that the procedures used at the validation hearing violated their right to be heard-with record citations identifying where they preserved it in the district court. While the record cites they provide do show where the procedures complained of arose, they do not indicate that Citizens raised any objection to them. Moreover, Citizens do not claim that their inadequate hearing claim falls within one of the exceptions to the preservation rule. Absent an exception, we will not address the merits of a claim that the district court has not first had an opportunity to consider. Because we hold that Citizens did not preserve their inadequate hearing claim, we decline to address it.
1108 Citizens also assert that the district court erroneously failed to grant a continuance of the validation hearing. But prior to closing argument, the district court asked all of the parties if they wanted to postpone closing until another day. Citizens did not request additional time or object to proceeding with closing arguments. Our preservation rule does not permit a party to waive an issue before the district court and later raise the issue on appeal. See Patterson v. Patterson,
1109 Finally, Citizens contend that the district court violated their due process right to be heard by refusing to admit evidence submitted after the validation hearing. After the hearing, Mr. Wheeler filed a brief alleging that the district court had violated due process when it decided not to accept new evidence after the validation hearing. Because Mr. Wheeler preserved the claim for appeal, we will address its merits.
C. Merits
{110 Citizens argue that the district court's decision to exclude evidence submitted after the validation hearing violated their due process rights. We disagree. Citizens received a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the validation hearing. The district court's decision not to permit supplementary evidence after the hearing does not vitiate this conclusion.
112 To properly assess whether the district court's decision not to accept posthear-ing submissions of evidence complied with due process, we must first address the process provided to the Citizens during the hearing. The district court permitted Citizens to participate extensively. So given the opportunity, Citizens testified. In particular, the district court permitted Mr. Ehrbar to testify regarding potential environmental consequences of the project even though this testimony exceeded the scope of the validation hearing. The district court also gave Citizens the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Both Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Knorr took advantage of this opportunity. Finally, the district court permitted Citizens to present closing arguments. Both Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Knorr did so.
113 At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court stated that the parties could submit a "response" prior to issuance of its decision. Six defendants misinterpreted the district court's statement at the hearing and submitted posthearing letters expressing their intent to supplement the record. The district court subsequently issued a Minute Entry to clarify its statеment. It explained that it had "invited written summations, or argument, but [it] did not, and cannot, invite or accept new evidence. Citizens may file what they wish, but the court may only consider argument based on the law, and evidence already in the record." Despite the Minute Entry, several defendants submitted additional evidence, which the district court declined to consider.
T114 The Validation Act permits "[a] defendant [to] file, amend, or supplement any pleading to the [validation] proceeding at any time on or before the hearing." UTX Cope § 11-30-7(1). But after the hearing, a defendant must obtain permission from the court prior to filing, amending, or supplementing a pleading. Id. Thus, the district court acted within its statutory authority when it denied defendants' requests to supplement the evidentiary record. And in doing so, it did not deny Citizens due process. Citizens' participation in the validation hearing, through testimony, cross-examination, and presentation of closing arguments, satisfied due process. The district court's decision not to permit supplementary evidence after the hearing had concluded does not change the fact that Citizens' due process rights had already been satisfied.
V. THE PROJECT CURRENTLY PROPOSED BY THE CITY DOES NOT MATERIALLY DIFFER FROM THE PROJECT APPROVED BY VOTERS
1 115 On appeal, the Restoration Network asks whether the City "may issue bonds to fund a project that ... is barely half the scope of what voters were told they were funding." The Restoration Network's claim requires that we address two separate questions. First, we must determine whether collateral documents produced by the City and by third parties prior to the bond election create binding terms for the bond project. Second, we must evaluate whether the project the City now intends to implement differs in material ways from the project approved by voters.
A. Standard of Review
1116 The parties dispute the standard of review applicable to this issue. The Restoration Network argues that the issue presents a question of law to be reviewed for correctness. The City argues that this issue presents a question of fact subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.
118 The second question, which evaluates whether the proposed project materially differs from the project approved by voters, presents a mixed question of fact and law. See State v. Pena,
1119 We employ a case specific standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law by balancing the following three factors:
(1) the degree of variety and complexity in the facts to which the legal rule is to be applied; (2) the degree to which a [district] court's application of the legal rule relies on facts observed by the ... judge, such as a witness's appearance and demeanor, relevant to the application of the law that cannot be adequately reflected in the ree-ord available to appellate courts; and (8) other policy reasons that weigh for or against granting discretion to [district] courts.
Levin,
1120 Based on our balancing of the three factors, we conclude that the district court's factual determinations with respect to this issue are entitled to only limited deference. First, the question of whether a voter-approved project materially differs from the project proposed for implementation will present a variety of facts that vary depending on the type of bond issued, the elements of the proposed project, and the identity of the issuing authority. The complexity of the facts, however, is limited and only requires comparison of the voter-approved and proposed projects. Second, the legal determination of whether a material difference exists depends on a comparison of the project proposed to voters and the project proposed for implementation. These facts will generally be ascertainable based on a review of the "cold" record, and do not depend on evidence, like witness testimony, that may be uniquely observed by the district judge. And we can identify no policy reasons that weigh for or against granting additional discretion to the district court. Because the facts necessary to make the material difference determination are relatively simple and equally available to appellate and district courts, we accord limited deference to the district court's findings on this issue.
B. Merits
1. The City Is Only Bound by Statements Made in Statutorily Required Notices
T121 The Restoration Network argues that the Pamphlet and a Salt Lake Tribune article published prior to the bond election set forth material terms for the project and that these terms bind the City.
1122 "The usual rule is that it is the notice published pursuant to the statute which binds the [City], and that collateral
$123 The Proposition No. 5 bonds did not require a voter information pamphlet or other additional notice. The bonds were predicted to increase the property tax imposed on the average value of a residence by $7.75 per year, which falls below the $15 per year statutory trigger requiring additional publication of a voter information pamphlet.
1 124 Despite our rule in Ricker, the Restoration Network encourages us to review the Pamphlet, claiming that this court has "often" done so to "determine what voters have approved." In support of its position, the Restoration Network relies on State v. Willis,
$125 These cases, which involved initiatives and constitutional amendments,
126 Finally, the Restoration Network asserts that the City "admits that it intended for citizens to rely on its representations in the [Pamphlet]" and should thus be bound by them. This claim relies on testimony from Richard Graham, Director of Public Services for the City. When counsel asked if the City
representations made by [a governing body] or its members should not be regarded as restricting [the body's] prerogative unless it clearly and unequivocally appears that the [governing body] has made a binding commitment or so acted that justice and equity would require it to follow some predetermined course of action.
Id. at 420. Mr. Graham's testimony that the City intended the Pamphlet to inform voters does not amount to a clear and unequivocal statement that the City be bound by the Pamphlet's terms and the Restoration Network does not even argue that justice and equity require that the Pamphlet bind the City.
1127 The Restoration Network also asserts that statements made in a Salt Lake Tribune article about Proposition No. 5 bind the City.
1128 Under Ricker, we hold that neither the Pamphlet nor the Salt Lake Tribune article set forth binding terms for the project.
2. The Proposed Project Does not Materially Differ From the Project Approved by Voters
{129 On appeal, the Restoration Network claims that the City provided specific details in the Pamphlet and the Salt Lake Tribune article about how the bond proceeds would be used for the project and, in doing so, forfeited any discretion it had to modify the project. The Restoration Network then argues that the project the City now seeks to implement is materially different than the one approved by voters. In particular, the Restoration Network asserts that the project now proposed has fewer athletic fields, is located in a smaller area, has no education component, and will cost more. Citizens present similar arguments.
130 The City replies that neither Proposition No. 5 nor the Pamphlet set forth the type and number of fields to be constructed at the complex. In the alternative, the City contends that project details, including the number and type of fields to be constructed, fall within its discretion.
T131 The Legislature has granted the City plenary power to develop parks and associated facilities Utan CopE § 10-8-8 ("A municipal legislative body may lay out, establish, open, alter ... or otherwise improve . parks [or] public grounds 2..."); see also id. § 10-8-5 ("[The municipality] may erect all needful buildings for the use of the city, and provide for their care."). The City may issue bonds in furtherance of its park building authority. Id. § 10-8-1 ("[The] city councils of cities shall have the power to control the finances and property of the corporation."); id. § 10-8-6 ("[The municipality] may borrow money on the eredit of the corporation for corporate purposes in the manner and to the extent allowed by the Constitution and the laws, and issue warrants and bonds therefor in such amounts
1132 Once voters approve a bond, the City has discretion in disposing of the proceeds and implementing the approved project. See Ricker,
{133 The Restoration Network does not argue, under Rickers second ground, that the City acted arbitrarily or capriciously or, under Ricker's third ground, that the City acted deceptively. And the district court specifically found that the City did not make deceptive or misleading statements to voters. As a result, we need not analyze these grounds.
1134 We focus our analysis on whether the project, as currently proposed, exceeds the seope of the City's statutory or constitutional authority. The Utah Constitution provides that money borrowed by the City "shall be used solely for the purpose specified in the law authorizing the loan."
The Restoration Network argues that the currently proposed complex differs materially from the complex approved by voters because it includes fewer athletic fields, no education component, and is smaller in size, though it costs approximately the same. Specifically, the Restoration Network claims that "[t]he [Clity represented [to voters] that the bonds would fund an athletic complex containing 80 soccer fields, 2 rugby fields, 8 baseball fields, and an indoor facility." It complains that the City now "proposes to construct only 16 multi-use fields, no baseball fields, and no indoor facility." But the language of Proposition No. 5 contained no such quantitative commitments.
1136 Proposition No. 5's stated purpose was to "pay[] the costs of acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping a mul-ti-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads, parking and improvements." In fact, even the Pamphlet, which does not bind the City, supra 123, did not quantify the number of athletic fields. The source of the City's purported commitment to construct a certain number of fields is the article published in the Salt Lake Tribune,
1137 Next, the Restoration Network and Citizens both claim that the currently proposed project lacks an education component. In particular, Citizens argue that the City committed to, but no longer intends to, build an "education complex." Again, Citizens' argument is not supported by the actual language of Proposition No. 5. The proposition stated only that its purpose is to construct a "multi-purpose regional sports, recreation and education complex and related roads, parking and improvements." And while this language requires the City to construct a complex that includes sports, recreation, and education components, the district court found that the proposed project does so. The record, and testimony from the validation hearing, support this finding. The Regional Athletic Complex Riparian Restoration Plan provides for installation of interpretive signage that will "provide education opportunities and help foster environmental stewardship through better understanding of the ecology of the Jordan River." And May- or Ralph Becker testified that the athletic activities provided at the complex inherently provide educational benefits. The City has discretion in incorporating "sports, reere-ation and education" into the broader "multipurpose regional ... complex." By providing education through interpretive signs and athletic activities, the proposed project is consistent with the project presented to voters.
1188 The Restoration Network also complains that "the [Clity proposed to build a 212-acre complex and now plans to build a 160-acre complex." But the language of Proposition No. 5 did not commit to building a complex of a fixed area. Thus, the area of the proposed complex does not materially depart from the terms of Proposition No. 5.
139 Finally, the Restoration Network argues that taxpayers will have to incur significant additional costs before the City can
{140 The Restoration Network presents two additional arguments. First, it claims that the City must strictly comply with the terms of the bond resolution and that this obligation strips it of any discretion in implementing the project. In support of its argument that the City must strictly comply with the terms in the bond resolution, the Restoration Network cites Committee for Responsible Sch. Expansion v. Hermosa Beach City Sch. Dist.,
Second, the Restoration Network contends that the City may not provide specific project details to obtain voter approval only to change the project after the bond election. In so arguing, it relies on two cases where courts concluded that specific details included in a bond proposition constrained the discretion of the issuing authority. See O'Farrell v. Sonoma Cnty.,
{142 In summary, we hold that the proposed complex does not materially differ from the project proposed to voters because it includеs an education component and because Proposition No. 5 did not make quantitative commitments regarding the number of athletic fields or the area of the athletic complex.
VI. RESOLUTION NO. 12 PROVIDED PROPER AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE THE BONDS AND TO FILE A VALIDATION PETITION; THE RESTORATION NETWORK FAILED TO PRESERVE ITS ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY DID NOT HOLD A TIMELY SECTION 318 HEARING
A. Standard of Review
143 "We review questions of statutory interpretation for correctness, affording no
B. Preservation
{144 The Restoration Network argues that the City failed to comply with the Bonding Act in two ways. First, the Restoration Network claims that Resolution No. 12 did not provide final authorization for the bonds and therefore could not be used as the basis for the City's validation petition. Citizens echo this argument. Second, the Restoration Network asserts that the City failed to hold the hearing required by section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code prior to approving Resolution No. 12. The City contends that the Restoration Network failed to preserve these arguments. The Restoration Network's opening brief anticipated the City's position and argues, in the alternative, that we can reach the section 318 issue under the plain error doctrine.
1145 The Restoration Network properly preserved its argument that Resolution No. 12 is not a final authorization, but it failed to preserve its argument that the Bonding Act required the City to hold a section 318 hearing prior to adoption of Resolution No. 12. The Restoration Network respondent's brief, filed before the validation hearing, specifically stated that Resolution No. 12 "does not fully authorize the issuance of the Bond." The Restoration Network claims that it preserved its argument that the City failed to hold a timely section 818 hearing and provides two citations to the record. But neither of the citations support the Restoration Network's position. First, the Restoration Network cites to its respondent's brief. As noted, the brief challenges the finality of Resolution No. 12. It also claims that the notice published by the City in advance of a March 2, 2010 hearing failed to comply with section 818. But the Restoration Network did not raise the claim that the City failed to hold a timely section 818 hearing. To the extent that the Restoration Network did raise the claim, its argument was "so eryptic and vague that [it] did not satisfy the [preservation rule's] specificity requirement." State v. Winfield,
1146 The Restoration Network argues that it also preserved its claim regarding the timeliness of the hearing in its Objection to Revised Proposed Order of Judgment. There, the Restoration Network challenged the City's proposed language stating that the March 2, 2010 hearing satisfied section 818. But the basis for the Restoration Network's objection was that the City's proposed language exceeded the scope of the district court's conclusions of law. It therefore asked the district court to instead include a statement that only the notice provided for the March 2nd hearing satisfied section 318. The district court adopted the Restoration Network's proposed modification. But the district court's acceptance of the modified language does not support the inference that the Restoration Network challenged the timing of the section 818 hearing. Because neither of the record citations identified by the Restoration Network raise the claim that the City failed to hold a timely section 818 hearing, we conclude that the argument was not preserved.
1147 Although it was not properly preserved, the Restoration Network asks us to review its argument under the plain error exception to the preservation rule. To succeed under the plain error exception, a party "must demonstrate that () an error exists; (i) the error should have been obvious to the [district] court; and () the error is harmful, ie., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome." Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Transp.,
[ 148 We first turn our attention to whether the error alleged by the Restoration Network should have been obvious to the [district] court. The disputed portion of section 318 reads as follows:
(1) Before issuing bonds authorized under this chapter, a local political subdivision shall:
[[Image here]]
(b) hold a public hearing:
(i) if an election is required under this chapter:
(A) no sooner than 80 days before the day on which the notice of election is published under Section 11-14-202; and
(B) no later than five business days
before the day on which the notice of election is published under Section 11-14-202; and
(ii) to receive input from the public with respect to:
(A) the issuance of the bonds; and
(B) the potential economic impact that the improvement, facility, or property for which the bonds pay all or part of the cost will have on the private sector.
Utax Cope $ 11-14-318(1)(b) (emphasis added).
1149 The proper timing of a section 318 hearing presents an issue of first impression. The Restoration Network asserts that the public hearing required by the Bonding Act must occur prior to authorization of the bonds. The City replies that the Bonding Act permits the hearing to be held after adoption of a resolution authorizing bonds. Both the Restoration Network and the City read subsections (1)(b)G) and (1)(b)(i) independently. They then focus their analysis on subsection (1)(b)(ii) and disregard subsection (1)(b)G). Based on this approach, both parties conclude that section 818 requires a public hearing sometime after the bond election, but before delivery of the bonds. The parties dispute only whether the hearing must occur before bond authorization.
' 150 Neither party acknowledges a third, equally plausible reading of section 818, which is that the required hearing must be held prior to the bond election. Section 818 states only that the hearing be held "[blefore issuing bonds authorized under this chapter." Id. § 11-14-818(1). And there is no reason to read the statute as requiring public hearings both before and after the election authorizing the bonds. Indeed, the statute requires "a public hearing" in the singular. Moreover, this interpretation is supported by the structure of subsection (1)(b)G) and (1)(b)@M), which are joined by the conjunctive term "and". The two subsections, read together, provide the timing and content for a single hearing that is to be held prior to the bond election.
1151 Because the appropriate time for a section 818 hearing presents a question of first impression that is susceptible to multiple plausible interpretations, we hold that the error alleged by the Restoration Network could not have been obvious to the district court. Because the second element of the plain error test is not satisfied, we hold that the Restoration Network's section 318 claim does not qualify for the plain error exception to our preservation rule and we decline to address the claim on its merits.
C. Merits
1. Resolution No. 12 Properly Authorized Issuance of the Proposition No. 5 Bonds
{152 We now turn to the merits of the Restoration Network's preserved claim that Resolution No. 12 did not provide final authorization for bond issuance. Specifically, the Restoration Network argues that the district court could not validate the bonds based on a nonfinal resolution that allowed the City to modify material terms of the bonds. Citizens present a similar argument.
{158 The City maintains that Resolution No. 12 fully authorized issuance of the bonds. Resolution No. 12 states, "[the City Council hereby authorizes and approves the issuance and sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution and the Final Bond Resolution." The district court held that "the sequence followed [by the City] is legal, and practically necessary to effectuate the bond sale" and that Resolution No. 12 pro
I 154 The Bonding Act requires that, prior to issuance, a bond shall "be authorized by resolution of the governing body." Urax Cope § 11-14-802(1) (2009).
155 The Restoration Network complains that the City will be able to materially change the terms of the bond prior to issuance, but after validation. In particular, the Restoration Network claims that the City could increase the amount of the bond or change its purpose. But this is not the case. Both Resolution No. 12 and the Final Bond Resolution fix the amount of the bond and its purpose. These terms are not subject to later modification.
1156 Citizens also argue that, because Resolution No. 12 is not a valid bond authorization, the City's validation petition was invalid. The Validation Act requires that the petition reference "the ordinance, resolution, or other proceedings by which the public body authorized the issuance and delivery of the bonds." Utax Copm § 11-30-3(8)(c). And the validation petition complied with this requirement by referencing Resolution No. 12 as authorizing issuance of the Proposition No. 5 bonds. Because we affirm the district court's holding that Resolution No. 12 properly authorized issuance of the bonds, the City could properly rely on Resolution No. 12 as the basis for its validation petition.
157 Citizens make a final argument that the City failed to properly publish notice of its intent to issue bonds on Utah Legal Notices, as required by section 11-14-8316 of the Utah Code. In support of this argument, they offer the affidavit of Kirk Simmons, the Chief Financial Officer of Newspaper Agency Company, LLC, who asserts that the City failed to publish notice of intent to issue bonds in the Utah Legal Notices on February 13, 2010. But the record contains a February 13, 2010 order confirmation for publication of notice of bond issuance in the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and on Utah Legal Notices. Absent some foundation for Mr. Simmons's assertion, it is insufficient to con-tradiet the proof of publication offered by the City.
1158 In summary, we agree with the district court that "[the sequence followed here is legal, and practically necessary to effectuate the bond sale." Resolution No. 12 provides significant constraints on the Final Bond Resolution. These constraints eliminate the Restoration Network's concern that the City may adopt material changes to Resolution No. 12 after validation. And some flexibility is a practical necessity for the City. It would be impractical to require the City to fix the applicable interest rate before validation because actual sale and delivery of the bonds may not occur for several weeks or months.
159 In their final claim of error, Citizens assert that the district court "erred in making the sweeping conclusion that the bond validation action was not even a close case." But they fail to tie their claim to any assertion of legal error. In its conclusions of law, the district court stated that "[the [clourt concludes that this bond validation action is not even a close case." This statement has no legal effect and therefore does not provide a legitimate basis for challenging the district court's legal rulings.
CONCLUSION
[ 160 The district court properly granted the City's petition to validate the Proposition No. 5 bonds. The validation proceedings conducted by the district court protected Appellants' due process rights to notice and to be heard. Notice by publication in the Commercial Record and on Utah Legal Notices provided Appellants with proper notice of the validation hearing. And Appellants had a meaningful opportunity to participate at the hearing. They testified, examined witnesses, and presented closing arguments.
1 161 The district court also correctly applied the Validation Act and the Bonding Act. It accurately concluded that the Validation Act provides a narrowly focused, expedited procedure. Similarly, the district court correctly held that the project now proposed is consistent with what the City advertised to voters prior to the election. Finally, the district court properly determined that the constraints set on material terms in Resolution No. 12 permitted the resolution to authorize the bonds and serve as the basis for the validation petition. For these reasons, we affirm the district court's grant of the City's validation petition.
Notes
. The City amended its petition on February 7, 2011.
. The district court amended its Decorum Order on February 8, 2011.
. The complete statutory definition of "validity" reads as follows:
(9) "Validity" means any matter relating to the legality and validity of the bonds and the security therefor, including, without limitation, the legality and validity of:
(a) a public body's authority to issue and deliver the bonds;
(b) any ordinance, resolution, or statute granting the public body authority to issue and deliver the bonds;
(c) all proceedings, elections, if any, and any other actions taken or to be taken in connection with the issuance, sale, or delivery of the bonds;
(d) the purpose, location, or manner of the expenditure of funds;
(e) the organization or boundaries of the public body;
(f) any assessments, taxes, rates, rentals, fees, charges, or tolls levied or that may be levied in connection with the bonds;
(g) any lien, proceeding, or other remedy for the collection of those assessments, taxes, rates, rentals, fees, charges, or tolls;
(h) any contract or lease executed or to be executed in connection with the bonds;
(i) the pledge of any taxes, revenues, receipts, rentals, or property, or encumbrance thereon or security interest therein to secure the bonds; and
(i) -any covenants or provisions contained in or to be contained in the bonds. If any deed, will, statute, resolution, ordinance, lease, indenture, contract, franchise, or other instrument may have an effect on any of the aforementioned, validity also means a declaration of the validity and legality thereof and of rights, status, or other legal relations arising therefrom.
Urag Cope § 11-30-2(9).
. The Legislature amended sections 11-30-7, 11-30-8, and 11-30-10 of the Validation Act in 2012.
. In a related argument, Appellants claim that Resolution No. 12 did not provide valid authorization for the bonds because, at the time of its adoption, the proposed project did not comply with section 10-9a-406 of the Utah Code. Section 10-9a-406 provides that "[after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, no street, park, or other public way, ground, place, or space, no publicly owned building or structure, and no public utility ... may be constructed or authorized until and unless it conforms to the current general plan." We hold that questions regarding land use and zoning law fall outside the narrow scope of a validation hearing. Accordingly, we decline to address this issue.
. Similarly, our review of the record indicates that Citizens did not preserve this argument.
. The City also argues that the Restoration Network invited the district court's alleged error by failing to object that the notice published in the Commercial Record did not comply with section 11-30-5. Having found that the Restoration Network did not adequately preserve its statutory claim, we need not reach the City's invited error argument.
. Citizens join the Restoration Network's due process arguments.
. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Mullane, as opposed to the test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge,
. The dissent regularly cites to the following language from Mullane: "[IIn determining the reasonableness of [notice publication, wel ask whether it would satisfy a prudent man of business, counting his pennies but finding it in his interest to convey information to many persons whose names and addresses are in his files." Mullane,
. The dissent adopts a formulaic, impractical construction of Mullane. It asserts that Mullane established "the general rule" and the "minimum requirement" for due process notice. Infra 1T 166 n.2, 178. This ignores Mullane, its progeny, and general U.S. Supreme Court due process jurisprudence, all of which emphasize that due process is a flexible doctrine to be tailored to the unique circumstances of each case. See supre T1 50, 56.
. We also note that, while Alan found notice by publication of the bond validation proceeding to be unconstitutional, it held that due process did not require notice by mail to all parties. Alan v. Wayne Cnty.,
. Mullane recognized that notice by publication "traditionally has been acceptable" for in rem proceedings when it is supplemental to additional notice that "in itself may reasonably be expected to convey a warning" to owners of private property.
. The City's validation petition does not increase the Restoration Network's property taxes. Proposition No. 5 proposed an increase in residential and commercial property taxes to repay the general obligation bonds needed to finance the proposed complex. Voters approved Proposition No. 5 and no voter contested the election within the time specified in section 11-14-208 of the Utah Code. See Ura Cope § 20A-4-403(3). Voter approval gave the City the right to issue the bonds. Even if unsuccessful, the optional proceedings under the Validation Act, Uran Cope § 11-30-3(1), would not divest the City of its right to issue the bonds and increase property taxes.
. The dissent claims that Mullane involved a "very large" number of beneficiaries and suggests that the number of beneficiaries is not functionally different from the large group of defendants here. Infra 1177. Mullane involved a common trust fund established for 113 trusts pursuant to a state law that permitted "pooling small trust estates into one fund for investment administration."
. The Restoration Network alleges that the cost associated with notice by mail could be eliminated by pairing the notice with an existing mailing, like water bills. Doing so would diminish the effectiveness of notice by mail. The person who receives the water bill may not be the property owner. For instance, in multifamily dwelling units, like condominiums, water bills are often paid by a manager or homeowners' аssociation. The record property owners never see the water bill and would therefore not receive notice. Additionally, utility customers cannot be expected to anticipate notice of litigation related to an entirely different subject matter-the validity of the proposed bonds-in their water bill. Thus, notice sent with a water bill carries a high risk of being ignored by utility customers. For these reasons, notice mailed with utility bills may be of little or no value.
. Here, the Attorney General fulfills a role analogous to that of a class representative in the class action setting. Under the Validation Act, the Attorney General was statutorily required to protect the defendants' interests and assess the bonds' validity. See supra %70. In doing so, he reviewed the City's petition in detail, submitted a memorandum to the district court explaining his investigation and conclusions, and testified at trial. Supra 171.
. The dissent asserts that the Attorney General "bow[ed] out [of the validation proceedings] after a preliminary determination that he saw no obvious defect in the City's petition." Infra I 188. The record contradicts this claim. Prior to the validation hearing, the attorney general filed a memorandum with the district court that explained that he saw no defect in the Proposition No. 5 bonds. The Attorney General also appeared at the validation hearing and testified that he spent "many hours" going over "everything" provided by the City and the Restoration Network, that he specifically considered the objections raised by the Restoration Network, and that he found no defects with the bonds.
. On appeal, the Restoration Network challenges whether publication in the Commercial Record complied with section 11-30-5. It failed, however, to preserve this challenge. Supra 11 44-45.
. The City asserts that news articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News adequately substituted for publication of legal notice in those newspapers. Both of the newspapers published news articles about the validation bearing in their print and online editions. The articles were published independently from the district court's order. They describe the City's pursuit of a bond validation petition and identify the February 9, 2011 hearing before District Judge Kate Toomey. But the articles do not identify details critical to notice, such as the location and time of day for the validation hearing. As a result, they do not provide an adequate substitute for properly published legal notice.
. We acknowledge that these extra statutory sources of notice are not a substitute for compliance with the notice requirements set forth in section 11-30-5 of the Utah Code. But they do inform whether defendants received adequate notice for purposes of due process.
. We hold that the district court properly obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendants to the validation proceeding. As a result, we need not address the City's alternative arguments that the Restoration Network waived its personal jurisdiction objection or that the Restoration Network's receipt of actual notice provided a substitute for proper service of process.
. Below, we address whether the hearing procedures employed by the district court complied with due process.
. Citizens do not claim that their argument qualifies for an exception to the preservation rule. «
. Citizens join the Restoration Network's argument regarding whether the Pamphlet is binding and whether the proposed project has materially changed.
. We refer here to sections of the Utah Municipal Bond Act in effect at the time of the 2003 election. See Urax Cope § 11-14-3(1)(a) (2003). The Local Government Bonding Act replaced the Municipal Bond Act in 2005. See id. § 11-14-202 (2005).
. The Restoration Network asserts that "because the election presented voters with ballot propositions that would increase property taxes by more than $15 per year, the [Clity was required to provide the [Pamphlet]." But the Proposition No. 5 bonds were only predicted to raise property taxes by $7.75 per year. Although not explicitly stated in its brief, the Restoration Network may be arguing that section 11-14-3(2) requires a voter information pamphlet to be published if all bonds proposed by a governing body in one election would result in a cumulative increase in property taxes of more than $15 per year. If that is the claim, it is inadequately briefed. Indeed, the Restoration Network provides no legal analysis in support of such an interpretation. We may reject as inadequately briefed arguments that fail to "provide meaningful legal analysis." W. Jordan City v. Goodman,
. State v. Willis,
. Section 20A-7-701 was previously codified in 1976 at section 20-1 1a-7 of the Utah Code. Thus, the requirement that a voter information pamphlet be published applied to the initiative at issue in Stavros and the constitutional amendments at issue in Willis and Kastanis.
. The Restoration Network relies on Devorsky v. La Vega Independent School District,
. Because we hold that the Pamphlet and the Salt Lake Tribune article do not bind the City, we need not address the City's argument that the two documents were not properly admitted into evidence.
. In the absence of a legal remedy, voters may seek recourse through the political process. A voter may "vote for and elect officials he thinks [are] best qualified to represent his interests." Ricker,
. The Restoration Network cites a number of cases to support the proposition that the City may not implement a project with a different purpose than the one approved by voters. See Sacks v. City of Oakland,
. The Restoration Network also cites an August 17, 2010 memorandum prepared by the City in support of its claim that the City made quantitative commitments to voters regarding the number of fields it planned to build. The memorandum states that the original scope of the project, "as presented to voters[,] included 25 Soccer/Multi-use fields and 8 Baseball/Softball fields." Even though the City authored this memorandum, it came years after the bond election and does not provide contemporaneous evidence of what the City represented to voters.
. We find O'Farrell v. Sonoma Cnty.,
. This alternative interpretation is further supported by the legislative history of the bill. In 2008, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 32, which added section 318 to the Bonding Act. S.B. 32, 57th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2008). Senator Scott K. Jenkins sponsored the bill. Id. Speaking before the Senate, he stated, "Second Substitute Senate Bill requires municipalities and counties to have hearings prior to bondings and requires them, at those hearings, to speak of the potential economic impact that the improvement, facility, or property that the bond ... will have on the private sector." Recorpins or Uran Senate Foor Desates, S.B. 32, Second Substitute, 57th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Feb. 1, 2008) (statement of Sen. Jenkins).
. The City passed Resolution No. 12 on February 9, 2010. At that time, the 2009 version of the Bonding Act governed passage of the Resolution. See Utax Cope § 11-14-302(1) (2009).
. Resolution No. 12 specifies "an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $15,300,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed eight percent (8.00%) per annum, to mature over a period not to exceed twenty (20) years from their date or dates, and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount, of not to exceed two percent (2.00%)."
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
{162 I respectfully dissent because the publication notice provided to the taxpayer respondents in this case seems to me to fall far short under the due process standard articulated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
T 163 The court's conception of due process cannot stand under a proper understanding of the Mullane decision. Its various attempts to distinguish or supersede that decision are unpersuasive, moreover, on both legal and factual grounds. Thus, I view the court's opinion today as establishing a novel and dangerous precedent-one that justifies publication as a primary form of notice in cases involving large numbers of claimants asserting "public" claims. I acknowledge that approach has carried the day in a handful of decisions in other states upholding bond validation proceedings like that before us here. But those decisions are also incompatible with binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, and they accordingly provide no viable cover for the court's decision here. For me, the only persuasive precedents that are directly on point are two decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court-both striking down publication notice in a bond validation context under a careful application of Mul-lame. I would follow those cases, not the contrary decisions cited by the majority.
T 164 Although I share the majority's discomfort with the result sought by the plaintiffs-reopening a bond validation matter long after the issuance of the bond-that
I
1165 Under Mullane and its progeny, publication is a constitutionally deficient means of providing notice to claimants whose interests and whereabouts are known. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
{166 Yet, although the Mullane Court endorsed publication notice for unknown claimants, it unequivocally repudiated it for those whose interests and whereabouts were well known. As to those claimants, the court expressly found "no tenable ground for dispensing with a serious effort to inform them personally of [their right to assert their claims], at least by ordinary mail to the record addresses." Id. at 318, 7O S.Ct. 652. More to the point, the court specifically held that publication fell short of the requirements of the Due Process Clause when it was directed at claimants with a known interest and address. In the court's words, publication notice "to known beneficiaries is inadequate, not because in fact it fails to reach everyone, but because under the circumstances it is not reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand."
{167 Thus, as for known trust beneficiaries, Mullane held that publication notice was inadequate and that first-class mail was
[ 168 Accordingly, the Mullane Court unequivocally held that publication notice was "incompatible with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for ... depriving known persons whose whereabouts are also known" of a right to assert a claim against the trustee for mismanagement of the trust. Id. In so doing, the court noted that "the trust company hald] been able to give mailed notice to known beneficiaries," both "at the time the common trust fund was established," id. at 319,
T169 Our own precedents confirm this construction of Mullane. In Jackson Construction Co. v. Marrs,
1171 The court's principal response to Mullane amounts to an impermissible end-run around it. Although the majority gives an obligatory nod to Mullane as the controlling precedent, supro 1 56 n. 9, it then articulates a "balancing test" to be applied "flexibly to the unique cireumstances and conditions of each case," supra 1 56 & n. 10. In so doing, it effectively jettisons the Mullane standard and substitutes in its place an altеrnative due process formulation drawn from Mathews v. Eldridge,
[ 172 The problem is that Mullane leaves no room for "balancing" away the core right of litigants to individual notice of the prospect of the loss of their right of action in a judgment against them. Instead, for claimants whose identity and location is known, Mullane unmistakably establishes a due process floor-a right to notice on par with that provided by first-class mail.
« 173 The court's pivot away from Mullane and toward Mathews purports to be a subtle one. But it is significant. In applying a flexible "balancing" test in its decision, the court is eschewing Mullane in favor of Mathews. And that move is clearly foreclosed by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
1174 The controlling precedent here is Dusenbery v. United States,
T 175 That decision thoroughly quashes the balancing test applied by the court today. After Dusenbery, we are not at liberty to interject Mathews-based balancing into our evaluation of the notice required under the Due Process Clause. I respectfully dissent from the majority's end-run around Mullane and its effective disregard for Dusenmbery. Those cases unequivocally foreclose the flexible balancing employed by the court today and require a reversal for the reasons explained above.
II
[ 176 The court makes various attempts to justify a contrary conclusion, but none are compatible with Mullane and its U.S. Su
A
1177 As to the number of claimants at issue in this case, the majority rests on the unsupported assertion that the taxpayer class of claimants is larger than the "small of claimants at issue in Mullane, swpro 1 57, and too large to allow for individualized notice by mail. Yet, that assertion is doubly belied by the U.S. Supreme Court's Mullane opinion.
1178 Mullane established that minimum requirement unequivocally-while also rejecting publication as a form of notice for known claimants-under an analysis that assessed the relative costs and benеfits of the two methods of service. Specifically, the court rooted its requirement of notice by mail in the conclusion that a "prudent man of business, counting his pennies but finding it in his interest to convey information to many persons whose names and addresses are in his files," id. at 820,
1179 We are in no position to second-guess the U.S. Supreme Court's assessment on that seore, as it is a square holding on a matter of federal constitutional law that therefore binds us as a subordinate court. Certainly we cannot do so on the basis of our unexplained, generalized sense that we would set the constitutional bar elsewhere. See supra 164 (concluding, without any specific cost-benefit analysis or support in the record, that "publication is the only reasonable method of providing notice" given the "sheer number" of claimants). To justify altering the first-class mail minimum established in Mul-lame, we would have to engage in a careful cost-benefit assessment of the reasonableness question
4 181 In the class action context, the question whether to require notice to individual members arises only with respect to claimants whose identity or whereabouts are not reasonably identifiable See TAA CmaruEs Auan Wricet & Artaur R. MILLER, FEDERAL Pracmics Anp ProcEpuUrRE § 1786 (8d ed. 2012). Where there "is an existing document or readily accessible source that names them," individual notice (by mail or its equivalent) is unquestionably required. Id. (citing cases).
182 The majority's reliance on the large number of taxpayer claimants in this case cannot stand under this precedent.
T 188 The majority vaguely protests that it may be difficult for the City "to obtain property owner addresses from Salt Lake County." Supra 169. That seems unlikely. I suspect that the process of gathering that information from the County would be quite straightforward (at least as simple as that routinely required in class action litigation). At a minimum, the court should not assume the contrary, but should at least consider the possible need for a remand for presentation of evidence of the nature and extent of the accessibility problem. And even if there is
B
{184 As for the nature of the taxpayers' claims, I acknowledge that the claims at issue here may be deemed to involve a "public, not a privatе interest," in that they involve a challenge to the issuance of government bonds based on a general impact on the claimants' property taxes. Supra 157. And for that and other reasons, the court is right to note that the Attorney General has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the bond's validity undergoes outside scrutiny before the court may grant the validation petition, and may have a point in suggesting that the taxpayer claimants' interests may be effectively "vindicat[ed]" by "several representative defendants." Supra 1 72.
1185 But again, these facts do nothing to sustain the court's decision to abandon individualized notice in favor of mere publication. In fact, the majority's analysis is foreclosed by Richards v. Jefferson County,
€186 Petitioners in the Richards case were citizens of Jefferson County, Alabama, who filed a state-court class action challenging the county's occupation tax on constitutional grounds. The Alabama courts held that suit precluded by a prior adjudication of the tax in an action brought by the acting director of finance for the city of Birmingham, which was consolidated with a suit by three individual taxpayers, who were deemed to adequately represent the Richards petitioners' interests. Id. at 796,
The Alabama Supreme Court concluded that the "taxpayers in the [prior] action adequately represented the interests of the taxpayers here," but the three county taxpayers who were parties in [the prior] action did not sue on behalf of a class; their pleadings did not purport to assert any claim against or on behalf of any non-parties; and the judgment they received did not purport to bind any county taxpayers who were nonparties. That the acting director of finance for the city of Birmingham also sued in his capacity as both an individual taxpayer and a public official does not change the analysis. Even if we were to assume ... that by suing in his official capacity, the finance director intended to represent the pecuniary interests of all city taxpayers, and not simply the corporate interests of the city itself, he did not purport to represent the pecuniary interests of county taxpayers like petitioners.... [Thus,] we are unable to conclude that [these] plaintiffs provided representation sufficient to make up for the fact that petitioners neither participated in, nor had the opportunity to participate in, the [pri-or] action. Accordingly, due process prevents the former from being bound by the latter's judgment.
Id. at 801-02,
{187 This analysis precludes the majority's reliance on the "public" nature of the taxpayer claimants' interests to foreclose their right to individual notice. As in Richards, none of the participants in this proceeding purported to sue in a capacity in which they represented the pecuniary interests of any nonparticipating taxpayers.
1188 The Richards case also forecloses the majority's analysis in another way. Richards went on to reject the argument that "in cases raising a public issue of this kind [a constitutional challenge to a tax], the people may properly be regarded as the real party in interest and thus that petitioners received all the process they were due" through the prior litigation.
1189 Richards requires the government to take the bitter with the sweet. Under Richards, the government may have the latitude to eliminate private rights of action for "public" claims involving bond validity. But once it recognizes individual rights of action, it must also confer constitutionally required notice before it forecloses those rights in litigation. That is a federal constitutional imperative, whether or not the claim is characterized as somehow "public."
190 The court runs afoul of that imperative today. Its decision foreclosing taxpayer claimants' rights on the ground that they are "public" and adequately represented by oth
C
{191 The majority's remaining grounds for distinguishing Mullane likewise fail. The majority's arguments against individualized notice are the product of speculation. I see no way to conelude that notice by mail "would provide no additional benefit to defendants." Supra 161. Certainly the record does not support this conclusion, as the district court never considered the relative benefit of individualized notice. And in my view this point is demonstrably incorrect. As Mullane and common knowledge confirm, publication is a "feint" and the mail is a "serious effort to inform."
1192 The court's treatment of the supposed "administrative and financial burdens on the City," supro 1 69, is similarly speculative-and also dubious. I see no judicial notice basis for assuming the high cost of "gather[ing] addresses" for taxpayer claimants in Salt Lake City. Supra 169. Certainly, that does not follow logically from the fact (cited by the court) that "the City does not administer property tax records and would have to obtain property owner addresses from Salt Lake County." Supra 169. If pressed on the matter, I would assume the contrary. I would imagine that taxpayer names and addresses would be there for the asking, particularly in a matter of public litigation where taxpayer interests are at stake and could be jeopardized.
1193 That also goes for the court's ultimate conclusions that "notice by publication . is reasonably certain to notify" the taxpayer claimants and that "notice by mail ... is unnecessary." Supra 172. These conclusions simply cannot stand under Mullane, particularly given the failure of all of the court's more particularized attempts to distinguish this case from that one. And even if there were some basis for distinguishing Mullane, we could not possibly do so on the instant record, which tells us nothing about the relative costs and benefits of publication as compared to serviсe by first-class mail or its equivalent. Thus, even if we had some doubts about the impact of a requirement of individualized notice, the proper outlet for those doubts would be a remand for the careful analysis of reasonableness required under Mullane-not a categorical assertion that publication is good enough and individualized notice is unnecessary.
1194 In upholding service by publication in this case, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent. If our opinion today is accepted at face value, it will open the door to the use of mere publication as a first-line method of service in any case in which the class of claimants is large and their claims are "public" in the sense of a taxpayer challenge to a tax or government program. Granted, the court identifies some other circumstances of this case that purportedly distinguish it from Mullane-that time is of the essence in a bond validation proceeding, that some of the claimants may not be immediately identifiable, and that individualized notice is costly. But those same points can likewise be established quite routinely in a wide range of cases. So the effect of today's decision is significant, and the slipperiness of the slope is concerning.
1 195 To my knowledge, there is no generally applicable precedent endorsing this sort of wide-ranging use of publication as a primary method of service for known claimants. The only cases that come anywhere close are the ones cited by the majority that uphold publication in bond validation proceedings like the one before us here.
1 197 In support of its conclusion that publication notice was inadequate, the Alon court cited Mullane for the proposition that although "due process [does not] require[] personal notification of every taxpayer," it does require "that the method of notice chosen must give reasonable assurance of actually giving notice in light of other available means."
1198 The majority seeks to undercut these decisions, but its bids to do so fall flat. The notion that Ridenour applied Mullane in a "formulaic" manner, suproe 159, is hardly cause for concern. Mullane prescribes a due process formula, so a "formulaic" application of that decision is, quite simply, a faithful one. The court's contrary view-that the public nature of the claims at issue and the large number of bond claimants require special tailoring of the Mullane standard-is untenable for all of the reasons explained above.
1199 The majority's critique of the Alon case is similarly faulty. After lamenting the Alan court's "formulaic" application of Mul-lane, the court proceeds to identify a series of factual distinctions between the Alan case and this one. Supra T4 59-60. Yet, the court fails to explain how or why any of these differences are relevant under Mullane, and they are not. In this case as in Alon, taxpayer claimants' rights are being "cut[] off" without any attempt at individualized notice.
1200 In discounting these Michigan opinions, the court deepens a split in the state courts on what notice the Due Process Clause requires in bond validation proceedings. The split is significant, as it represents a longstanding difference of opinion on the requirements of due process for notice in a recurring form of proceedings in the state courts. At some point I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene to resolve the conflict in the state courts on this issue. When it does, I expect it will reaffirm what is clear from Mullane and its progeny, which is that the constitutional demands of due process are not met when known claimants' interests are foreclosed in a proceeding in which the only form of notice was the feint of publication. In my view our court errs in not reaching that same conclusion.
{201 I am sympathetic to the result achieved by the court today. If the question before us were whether we preferred protracted bond validation proceedings or expeditious ones, my clear preference would be for the latter. But that is not the question presented for our resolution. And achieving outcomes that satisfy our policy preferences is not our function.
1 202 We are tasked instead with deciding the cases that come before us in accordance with the rule of law-whether or not it yields an outcome we favor on policy grounds. That's what distinguishes this branch of government from those that perform more purely political policymaking roles. We undermine our authority when we blur this distinction. I see no way to sustain the decision the court reaches today without so doing.
1 203 That is not to say that our law binds us permanently to the path of protracted litigation in matters involving bond validation. A policymaker intent on facilitating finality in such cases could easily do so-for example, by enacting a short-fused statute of limitations or repose,
{204 The problem is that our legislature has not seen fit to adopt either of these approaches. It has recognized private rights of action for all interested taxpayers, designating them as parties-defendant in a suit to be filed by the government entity issuing the bond. And that decision commits us, under the Due Process Clause, to a right of those litigants to individualized notice on par with that provided by first-class mail. Our discomfort with that result is not a license to reject it. In so doing we distort the law on the constitutional dimensions of the notice required by due process. I accordingly dissent.
. See also 4A Cnartes Aran WricHt & Artur R. Miuer Feperat Practice anp Procepurg § 1074 (3d ed. 2012) ("Publication ordinarily is not a proper means of service in actions based on in person-am jurisdiction. Perhaps the only general context in which service by publication will be sufficient is when it is used to serve an absent domiciliary who cannot be served in any other way." (footnote omitted)); 16D C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 1761 ("[DJue process requires that notice be given by mail or some other method equally certain to insure actual notice, rather than publication, to persons who are known or reasonably ascertainable, since notice by publication is not sufficient with respect to a person whose name and address are known or easily ascertainable and whose legally protected interests are directly affected by the proceedings in question." (footnotes omitted) (citing In re Estate of Anderson,
. The court misses the essence of Mullane in broadly asserting that "imperfect nоtice" is sufficient in circumstances involving "individuals [who] share[] an identical interest with a larger group," while insisting generally that "notice reasonably certain to reach most of those interested in objecting is likely to safeguard the interests of all." Supra % 67 (internal quotation marks omitted). This confuses the general rule (of individual notice by mail or its equivalent) with the rationale for its exception (of publication for claimants of unknown identity or location). Contrary to the majority's representation, Mullane nowhere endorses notice to fewer than all known claimants on the ground that others will "safeguard the interests of all." Instead, it simply explains that a failure to notify unknown claimants is defensible in circumstances where claimants who receive notice have representative claims.
. Notwithstanding the court's various attempts to distance itself from Jackson Construction, that decision is on point and irreconcilable with the result in this case. Granted, the Jackson Construction case arose out of factual circumstances different from those presented here; and it involved the notice requirements of rule 4 and not those of the Validation Act. See supra TN 83-84. But that changes nothing, as in both cases the core question concerns the constitutional limits of due process. In both instances our answer should be the same: mere publication is categorically insufficient as a primary form of notice for known claimants under the Due Process Clause; it withstands constitutional scrutiny only as a
. For these same reasons, I take no umbrage in the court's repeated charge that my approach is "formulaic" in its adoption of Mullane. Supra T1 56 n.11, 59, 82. The Mullane opinion does, in fact, set forth a "formula" for assessing notice under the Due Process Clause. The snippet from Mullane cited by the majority, see supra 1 61, is not to the contrary. In context, the Mullane Court's statement that the court had not committed itself to any definitive "formula," supra 161, is clearly a characterization of the state of the law prior to Mullane. Before Mullane, the court had not committed itself to a "formula." In Mul-lane, the court did just that. And as a subordinate court on matters of federal law, we are bound to employ that formula-even in cases where we find its application unfair or unwise.
. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
. It is no answer to suggest, as the majority does, that Mullane is satisfied by a balancing of "the individual interest, the government's interest, and the likely benefit of substitute or additional notice when determining the reasonableness of notice." Supra 156 n.10. Again, this is Mathews balancing. It is not an appropriate substitute for the analysis required under Mullane, as Dusen-bery confirms.
. Concern for the volume of claimants at issue conceivably could sustain the conclusion that some form of electronic notice might be sufficient in a case where each individual claim is of minimal value. Mullane may leave room for a technological update to the requirement of first-class mail service, potentially permitting principal notice by email or some form of electronic
But although direct electronic communication may, in some instances, satisfy due process, Mullane leaves no such room for a first-resort use of publication notice.
. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
. See, eg., Mader v. Armel,
. See, eg., In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig.,
. See, eg., In re Sugar Indus. Antitrust Litig.,
. The majority's attempt to distinguish these class action cases is rooted in a misunderstanding of my reasons for citing them. The point of these cases is simply to undermine a central premise of the majority's decision"that the existence of large numbers of claimants somehow justifies the use of publication as a constitutionally adequate means of service. Those cases thoroughly undermine that point, and the import of the cases is not at all disturbed by the majority's notion that if this case were pressed in a class action it would be a rule 23(b)(1) class and not a 23(b)(3) class. Supra 1177-78. First, the fundamental requirements of due process extend to all forms of class actions, and the case law suggests that publication may be insufficient as a primary form of notice even for (b)(1) or (b)(2) classes. See, e.g., Eisen,
. The majority insists that "notice by mail would impose administrative and financial burdens on the City, as compared to notice by publication," and that, in any event, it would "offer[ ] no additional benefits." Supra 169. Apparently, the gist of this analysis is the notion that since certified mail is not certain to reach all defendants, publication is just as equally suited to the task and even easier to undertake. But the appropriate response to the practical difficulties of individual service on a large number of defendants is not to give up any effort at individual notice and resort to publication. It is to do the careful cost-benefit analysis required under Mul-lane and to require the notice that is reasonable under all the circumstances (even if it may not reach all defendants).
. The majority claims that Richards is distinguishable because the Birmingham finance director in Richards had not "purport[ed] to represent the pecuniary interests" of third party taxpayers, whereas the defendants in this case "share a public interest," such that "a few representatives may vindicate the interests of the larger group." Supre 181 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is a nonsequitur. The mere existence of a common interest is nowhere near enough to demonstrate representative litigation. The Richards caveat cited by the majority concerns representative litigation, as by a class representative. This case involves nothing of the sort.
. Although the Attorney General is tasked with determining the validity or effectiveness of the proposed bond petition and contesting any invalid or defective bond petitions, he may ultimately defer this responsibility "if one or more other parties to the action will, in the attorney general's opinion, competently contest the petition." Urax Copz § 11-30-6(1).
. The majority disputes this characterization, insisting that the Attorney General's representatives continued to play some role throughout the proceedings. Supra 181 n.18. Whatever the Attorney General's ongoing role, however, one critical point is clear: He was neither charged with acting nor did he purport to act as a formal representative of the absent taxpayers whose rights are being foreclosed by this suit. His informal participation accordingly cannot excuse compliance with the mandate of Mullane.
. The majority also seeks to distinguish Richards on other factual grounds, supra 1 81, but its additional points are all distinctions without a difference. Richards stands for two general propositions, which are unaffected by the factual nuances cited by the majority and which thoroughly undermine its analysis. It holds that the Due Process framework in Mullane cannot be evaded by (1) the mere appendage of the label of "public" to the rights at issue in a case or (2) the bare assertion that a public official is a party to the litigation in a purportedly representative capacity.
None of the majority's factual distinctions affect either of these points. For example, it may be true that the underlying judgment in Richards did not itself purport to bind nonparties without notice. Supra T81. But the whole point of the Richards case was that the initial proceeding would ultimately have that effect as a matter of Alabama preclusion law. See Richards,
. This is a sticking point for the parties, but one aspect of it appears to be uncontested: At the very least, the city's own tax and property records contain the names and addresses of all of the city's taxpayers and property owners. And as for those known individuals, it can hardly be a burden, let alone an unreasonable burden, to require the city to provide individual notice,
. Even if publication notice generally could be sustained as reasonable under the Due Process Clause, I see no reason to sustain the decision to approve publication in the Commercial Record. Under Mullane's reasonableness requirement, I fail to see how publication in a relatively obscure periodical could satisfy the requirement that notice be "reasonably calculated, under all the cir
. Supra 157 (citing Jackson v. Waller Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 07-3086,
. See Jackson,
. See Thomas,
. The majority seeks to invoke Jones v. Flowers,
. In a footnote, the majority also intimates that Alan actually supports its approach. See supra 160 n.12. While conceding that Alan found "notice by publication of the bond proceeding to be unconstitutional," the majority then cites dicta in Alan opening the door to modes of service other than mail. See supra "I 60 n.12. Yet the court cites that language out of context. It omits Alan's caution that, in considering these methods, "the question always to be asked of itself by the government is whether it has chosen a method it would choose if it were really desirous of actually informing the greatest number of electors of what their rights are." Alan,
. See, eg., Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-21-107 (2012) (allowing "[aluy five (5) qualified electors of [a] political subdivision" to "contest an election on the question of the creation of an indebtedness" but only if the suit is filed "within fourteen (14) days after the result of the election [has] been determined" and providing that "[nlo civil action contesting the results of such an election or alleging election errors may be commenced after the expiration of such fourteen (14) day period"); see also Uray Cope § 78B-2-313(2) (newly enacted [in 2012] short, three-month statute of limitations imposed on lenders for collecting deficiencies following short sales).
. See, eg., Wask. Rev. Cope Ann. § 7.25.020 (West 2012) (statutorily establishing a bond validation process in which the court appoints a "taxpayer representative to vindicate the rights of "all interested parties").