H.B. 496 Forestry and Fire Amendments

What this bill does

Your legislators on this bill

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

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

Take action

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

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

Every vote

• 6 yes, 1 no, 4 absentHouse Revenue and Taxation Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 55 yes, 15 no, 5 absentFinal House vote · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 1 no, 2 absentSenate Revenue and Taxation Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 3, 2026Who voted how
• 27 yes, 1 no, 1 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how
• 61 yes, 5 no, 9 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 5, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 13, 2026 House Revenue and Taxation Committee
• Feb 18, 2026 House Revenue and Taxation Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (30 turns)

  1. Committee chair (presiding)40:42

     Right on the front row. Come on down. You're the next contestant. So he's promised us this bill's gonna be a little bit easier than the last time he's before the committee. So the Last one was easy as well. It's all about perspective. Yes. It's alright. Welcome. The time is yours for HP 4 96 Forestry and Fire Amendments. And there's no amendments or substitutes, correct? Uh, correct. Okay. Time is yours.

  2. Rep. Troy Shelley41:09

     Thank you. Uh, so this bill, um, I, I believe one of the things that was left out when they did the, uh, the, uh, forestry and fire, uh, retirement plan is they left out the dispatchers. And so what this bill does is it includes the dispatchers, um, and, uh, it, it puts them in par with the, uh, with the firefighters. That's, that's generally the, the basis of the bill.

  3. Committee chair (presiding)41:40

     Do you have anything to add, Corey? Oh, introduce yourself.

  4. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems41:47

     Um, my name is Corey Cox, Utah Retirement Systems. Yeah. Basically what it's doing is gonna move the dispatchers from the tier one or the public, public employee retirement system over to the firefighter system. And, and that's, that's what this does. Yep. Open for questions. Okay.

  5. Committee chair (presiding)42:08

     So that concludes your presentation. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the committee for further discussion. Seeing no lights.

  6. Unknown speaker42:17speaker not certain

     Uh, I'll, I'll just ask one question in terms of other URS plans is, was this kind of an anomaly that the dispatchers were left out? Is this, would this put on par with other similar type of systems?

  7. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems42:31

     Yeah, so ba basically the dispatchers, um, in public safety or dispatcher groups can be in the public safety system, um, with the state dispatchers. Um, other than the DNR wild wildfire dispatchers, they're all in the public safety system. Um, so all the state dispatchers are, are in that system currently.

  8. Committee chair (presiding)42:57

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, we have a question from Representative Christofferson.

  9. Rep. Kay J. Christofferson43:02

     Thank you. So what, why do you move it from one to the other? What are the advantages or disadvantages?

  10. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems43:11

      So an advantage to, well, it allows for a shorter timeframe to work. It's a stressful job being a dispatcher. Um, the, uh, timeframe would be in the tier one system, they would be eligible to retire instead of 30 year, at 30 years, it would be 20 years. For a tier two dispatcher, it would be, uh, instead of 35 years is 25 years. And that, that's the major advantage to this. It is a little bit richer system. Um, there are richer benefits, but that, that's the biggest reason is, is there's a short timeframe to be eligible for retirement.

  11. Rep. Kay J. Christofferson43:51

      So on the fiscal note, it's like, what, $5,700 or something in a year increase?

  12. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems43:57

      Yeah. And that's, that's not our, our fiscal note piece. Um, I believe 'cause 'cause what we had required from a federal law standpoint to be a public safety in, in the public safety retirement system, you need to show that you're doing a public safety job. Right. And so what we're requiring to make sure that they're able to be in this system is that there needs to be a, a certification, um, that, that they have all of the dispatchers in, in the public safety system have post certification, uh, dispatcher post certification. This would require, since they're not necessarily post related, um, it would require that they meet a national wildfire dispatcher certification. They have that, and that that's, and, and what that, that fiscal note is doing is it's, um, requiring the state fire marshal to review that, to make sure that they meet those certifications.

  13. Rep. Kay J. Christofferson44:59

      Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair.

  14. Committee chair (presiding)45:01

      Thank you. Representative Koford.

  15. Rep. Jill Koford45:04

      Yeah, I'm just looking at, at the bill down on, in the last section lines 5 25, it talks about the cooperative agreement for Forest Service Management. It looks like that there's a transfer or matchup money. So this is not just the retirement and the fiscal note says something about this portion could cost the state a few million dollars. Can you just speak to that change?

  16. Brianne Emery, Deputy Director, Forestry, Fire and State Lands45:37

      Good morning. Uh, Brianne and Emery, deputy Director of Operations for Forestry Fire and State Lands. And you're right, Representative Koford. There are a few other items in this bill that would help us, um, continue to do our jobs at the division. One is the dispatch retirement. Another is the, um, costs that could be incurred with the work we're doing with a, under a cooperative agreement that we signed with the Forest Service back in January. Um, and so, um, part of that is looking at doing post, uh, fire rehabilitation work as well as wildfire mitigation work before the fire happens. So, um, part of that fiscal note for that is looking at funding about two and a half million dollars, uh, for post-fire rehabilitation efforts and about 1.8 million for mitigation work prior to fires. Um, and this would, um, building off of the cooperative agreement we have with the Forest Service, look at areas to prioritize where that work would happen, um, and find, uh, kind of crush jurisdictional areas where we could accomplish that work.

  17. Rep. Jill Koford46:39

      Okay. Thank you.

  18. Committee chair (presiding)46:44

      Thank you, Representative Strong. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

  19. Rep. Calvin Roberts46:48speaker not certain

      Um, okay. So we're taking these dispatchers and service employees and we're moving them to, I'll call it a better retirement system, a 20 year versus 30. Can you help me understand why there's a fiscal note? I'm just looking at it going, okay, I say I'm 20 years old and I start being a dispatcher, and by the time I turn 40, I retire and I've got, what, what type of benefits packaged do I have? And then the state is obligated to that for the next 40 years for, uh, what do you call it for, um, tell, tell me about that. Yeah, so I, I assume you're talking about the cost associated with those benefits. Is that, is That, yeah. And, and not just that, but if you can retire after 20 years mm-hmm. You're going to be collecting money from the state unless it's just a 401k, but I think it's more of a, It's a pension. A a pension. Mm-hmm. And so the state's obligated now until you die. Um, so a 20 year service for, you know, if somebody lives to be, um, I'm guessing dispatchers are probably mostly women who have a li longer life expectancy than your men. Yeah. And as a dispatcher, you're perhaps not as subject to the dangers of, uh, being out in the field. And I just see that as a really long term pull for the state to pay that for the next 30, 40, maybe 50 years.

  20. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems48:30

      That's a, that's a great question. Representative. Um, ba basically the way the funding works for the state retirement system for the pension fund itself is that contributions are made while they're working. Um, and then interest is earned on those contributions. And, and about 60%, 66% of the funds, two thirds of the funds that are in the retirement fund itself is through interest earned on those investments. Um, and so what we only do is collect those, those contributions while they're working. Now them moving from the public employee system to the public or to the firefighter system is really interesting. There's actually is a cost savings here, mainly because the firefighter system is fully funded. Um, there, there is no amortization rate on the firefighter fund currently. We're not paying down a liability on that. It's fully funded. And whereas the public, public employee system there is, we are paying some extra money an amortization cost to pay down those unfunded liabilities that's slowly coming down. And so right now, as it stands right now, the firefighter fund is actually cheaper to fund for, for the department, um, than it is to fund in the, in the public. And do you know why that is? Yeah. I mean, I'm guessing life expectancy for a fireman is shorter. I Dunno, typically. Yeah, it is. Um, and, and the, the, the biggest reason is because it is a fully funded fund already. There, there is, I mean, it's, it's fully funded. And so we have all the, the funds we need currently, other than the current employees, they're paying that contribution for their, their cost. And so that, that's, that's really the reason. Now you bring up a good question. Does that liability last long, longer? Yeah. That liability is there until they die. Um, but, um, it is, it is fully funded right now.

  21. Unknown speaker50:49speaker not certain

      Well, and if, if I may chime in. We're not talking about hundreds of employees. We have hundreds of firefighters. We do not have hundreds of dispatchers. We have, um, some that come on seasonally and they would not qualify for this as seasonal employees. The full-time firefighters we have are less than five state employees. So, um, they also do experience, while they're not maybe experiencing the physical demands of a firefighter on the ground, they are experiencing a lot of psychological demands, um, to do to the job.

  22. Committee chair (presiding)51:17

      Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, seeing no more lights from the committee, is there anybody from the public here wishing to speak on this bill? Is there anybody online? Okay. We'll close public comment and then bring it back to the committee for further discussion or action.

  23. Committee chair (presiding)51:44

      Uh, Representative Christofferson.

  24. Rep. Kay J. Christofferson51:47

      Thank you. Uh, I move that we pass out favorably HB 4 96, um, forestry and fire amendments from the committee with the favor favorable recommendation.

  25. Committee chair (presiding)52:00

      Thank you. Would you like to speak to that?

  26. Rep. Kay J. Christofferson52:03

      Uh, I think it's a reasonable move. Uh, I think the people that are in that area and it's self-funded, uh, they, they recommend that, and so I'm willing to accept that.

  27. Committee chair (presiding)52:16

      Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, see no other committee lights to the sponsor.

  28. Rep. Troy Shelley52:23

      I'll waive. Waive. Okay.

  29. Committee chair (presiding)52:25

      Uh, the motion is to pass out HB one 20, uh, excuse me, HB 4 96 with a favorable recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No one No. From Representative Strong. That passes six to one. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um,

  30. Committee chair (presiding)52:52speaker not certain

      We're Going to

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker56:29speaker not certain

     House Bill 4 96, forestry and fire amendments by Representative Shelley. This bill was served in revenue and taxation with the vote of 6 1 4

  2. Speaker (presiding)56:39

     Representative Shelley, Uh, motion to circle. Motion is to circle. Would you like to speak to it?

  3. Rep. Troy Shelley56:46

     Uh, nope. It's got some work to do.

  4. Speaker (presiding)56:49

     Thank you. Representative Shelley. Motion is to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries the bill as circled Representative Tom Peterson.

  5. Rep. Thomas W. Peterson57:00

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle HB 4 89. The motion is to encircle house bill 4 89 Water

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)13:40

     Would you like to speak? Well, we'll just go ahead and place. Aye. I'd like to adopt the first sub. Hang on representative All in favor of un HB 4 96. Say aye. Any opposed? Roll. That motion passes the Bill Uncircled and before the body Representative Shelley, back to you. Thank you. A motion to adopt the first sub. That motion is an order Representative. Shelley, would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Troy Shelley14:04

     Yeah. The the sub does one simple thing. It changes it so that we make sure that, uh, the local sheriff's office oversees all law enforcement, uh, concerning wildfires in their county.

  3. Speaker (presiding)14:20

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute on HB 4 96. See none. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before the house adopt first substitute on HB 4 96. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted and before the body for further consideration. Back to your Representative, Shelley.

  4. Rep. Troy Shelley14:45

     Thank you. What this bill does, and I initially had a lot of trepidation about it, but, uh, I think we've worked through everything. I I am in favor of this bill. Now this is a bill that, uh, um, allows the dispatchers to get a retirement similar to the firefighters, uh, that are the wild line fi or wildfire, uh, firefighters. Um, the reason for this bill is primarily if a firefighter is injured and, uh, and still, uh, you know, if he's worked for a while for the Forest service or for the fire and, uh, and he gets injured, but he's still capable of being a dispatcher, then instead of losing his retirement because of injury, he can move in and finish out his retirement as a dispatcher. There is a physical note on this. Um, and I, I had initially said, you know, maybe we removed the, the part of the firefighting, but the majority of that physical note is for the, uh, joint management that was just negotiated between the Utah state and the, and the Forest Service for fighting fires. The, the rest of the physical note, which is around 25,000, was 7,000 ongoing. That is for the retirement, uh, the retirement program for those who transfer in. And with that, I am open to questions.

  5. Speaker (presiding)16:13

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the bill. Representative Boxier.

  6. Unknown speaker16:17speaker not certain

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Shelley, will you yield to a question?

  7. Rep. Troy Shelley16:22

     Yes, yes. Representative. How many People will this apply to? Um, I, I don't know the exact number, but it's probably somewhere between seven and 20. Okay.

  8. Speaker (presiding)16:32

     Thank you. Thank you. Uh, representative er further discussion to the bill Representative. Strong?

  9. Rep. Steve Strong16:53

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker with the sponsor yield to, uh, question or two? Representative Shelley, will you yield to a series of questions?

  10. Rep. Troy Shelley17:06

      I Will, yes. Representative Strong.

  11. Rep. Mark A. Strong17:08

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, um, just be sure I understand. Uh, dispatcher currently works for 30 years, um, to receive their retirement or their pension. So this would decrease it to 20 years.

  12. Rep. Troy Shelley17:28

      That, so this is specific to the wildland fires dispatchers, which there are very few. There's, there's a very limited number in the state. It does not apply to all dispatchers.

  13. Rep. Mark A. Strong17:42

      Okay. So just the wildland fire dispatchers. So it decreases there. Um, and then let's say this was to pass, they would work for 20 years and they would have then a pension that would last the rest of their life.

  14. Rep. Mark A. Strong18:00

      Yes. And can what percentage does that pension? Is it the same as what the firefighters in that make? Or, or maybe you can just tell me the exact number. I'm not sure what it is.

  15. Rep. Troy Shelley18:09

      I I don't know the exact number, but it does apply to, to that those few people who are the dispatchers specific to the wildfire? Uh, just the, the wildfire department. Not, not to all dispatchers.

  16. Rep. Mark A. Strong18:29

      Okay. Um, thank you Mr. Speaker. And then another question. Did the substitute change it from all to just the wildland fire or was it all beforehand?

  17. Rep. Troy Shelley18:42

      It is specific to the wildland fire dispatchers.

  18. Rep. Mark A. Strong18:47

      Okay. Thank you. Um, representatives, I, I struggle with these kind of bills. We have a, a, a pension and I was told that the pension's fully funded for the fire and that, but if something happens down the road and our economy weakens or, uh, you know, the, the funds go down, um, then taxpayers will continue to pay this. If my 401k goes down, I just have to work it out myself. Um, in my, my little mind, I, I picture a 20-year-old taking a job doing this dispatching work, and when they hit 40, now they're on a pension for the rest of their life, potentially 30, 40, maybe 50 years. And I see that being a, a large burden to taxpayers, um, for a job that really isn't on the front line. Now. Um, I am a son of an Air Force, retired Air Force person. So I grew up after my dad retired on a pension. Um, but my dad was in Vietnam and he was in, you know, areas of danger where, um, a dispatcher wouldn't experience that the same as a first responder or firefighter. And those would, I can see that for them. I, I struggle with this, uh, moving to dispatchers. Thank you.

  19. Speaker (presiding)20:18

      Thank you Representative. Strong further discussion to the bill Representative Snider.

  20. Rep. Casey Snider20:22

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and maybe can clarify some of the questions that were asked by the earlier sponsor or the earlier good representative from Bluffdale. Um, as many of you know, we have state firefighters here in Utah. They are very limited in scope and they are almost exclusively all assigned to the duties of protecting, uh, or fighting wildfires. Our, our primary centers of this are down at point in the mountain and we have a series of crews. We have hotshot crews, type two crews, we have engine crews, and then we go from there. Several years ago, we, we made sure that all of those state firefighters and regular municipal firefighters were treated the same in, in making those adjustments. What we missed is, is the dispatch side. Our dispatchers are, are based out of what is called the Northern Utah Integrated Fire Center, which is also in Bluffdale. What this bill simply does is brings them into that same retirement pool. There's actually not a pension, it's a divine contribution plan that they pay into. So this would treat them not as different or new or put any long-term obligations on the state, but rather maintain them in the type two, uh, retirement sections of our code and forever list them as firefighters moving forward. So that's, again, that's why there's only a few individuals. 'cause when we made the reform several years ago, dispatchers were missed. And again, this, this isn't a new benefit. It does not open individuals up to different changes. It just brings all of our state firefighters or firefighter support personnel into the same pot. So again, for maybe with this context, I'd encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

  21. Speaker (presiding)22:06

      Thank you, Representative Snider. Uh, Representative Shelley back to you for summation, I'll waive summation has been waived.

  22. Speaker (presiding)22:14

      Voting will now be open on first substitute HB 4 96. Seeing all present, having voted Representative Stoddard C now President voting board is now closed. First substitute HB 4 96 passes this body with 55 yes votes, 15 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam reading clerk

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)13:58

     back to you. Thank you. A motion to adopt the first sub. That motion is an order Representative. Shelley, would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Troy Shelley14:04

     Yeah. The the sub does one simple thing. It changes it so that we make sure that, uh, the local sheriff's office oversees all law enforcement, uh, concerning wildfires in their county.

  3. Speaker (presiding)14:20

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the motion to adopt first substitute on HB 4 96. See none. We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before the house adopt first substitute on HB 4 96. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted and before the body for further consideration. Back to your Representative, Shelley.

  4. Rep. Troy Shelley14:45

     Thank you. What this bill does, and I initially had a lot of trepidation about it, but, uh, I think we've worked through everything. I I am in favor of this bill. Now this is a bill that, uh, um, allows the dispatchers to get a retirement similar to the firefighters, uh, that are the wild line fi or wildfire, uh, firefighters. Um, the reason for this bill is primarily if a firefighter is injured and, uh, and still, uh, you know, if he's worked for a while for the Forest service or for the fire and, uh, and he gets injured, but he's still capable of being a dispatcher, then instead of losing his retirement because of injury, he can move in and finish out his retirement as a dispatcher. There is a physical note on this. Um, and I, I had initially said, you know, maybe we removed the, the part of the firefighting, but the majority of that physical note is for the, uh, joint management that was just negotiated between the Utah state and the, and the Forest Service for fighting fires. The, the rest of the physical note, which is around 25,000, was 7,000 ongoing. That is for the retirement, uh, the retirement program for those who transfer in. And with that, I am open to questions.

  5. Speaker (presiding)16:13

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the bill. Representative Boxier.

  6. Rep. Boxier (not on roster)16:17

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Shelley, will you yield to a question?

  7. Rep. Troy Shelley16:22

     Yes, yes. Representative. How many People will this apply to? Um, I, I don't know the exact number, but it's probably somewhere between seven and 20. Okay.

  8. Rep. Boxier (not on roster)16:32

     Thank you.

  9. Speaker (presiding)16:47

     Thank you. Uh, representative er further discussion to the bill Representative. Strong?

  10. Rep. Mark A. Strong16:53

      Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker with the sponsor yield to, uh, question or two? Representative Shelley, will you yield to a series of questions?

  11. Rep. Troy Shelley17:06

      I Will, yes. Representative Strong.

  12. Rep. Mark A. Strong17:08

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, um, just be sure I understand. Uh, dispatcher currently works for 30 years, um, to receive their retirement or their pension. So this would decrease it to 20 years.

  13. Rep. Troy Shelley17:28

      That, so this is specific to the wildland fires dispatchers, which there are very few. There's, there's a very limited number in the state. It does not apply to all dispatchers.

  14. Rep. Mark A. Strong17:42

      Okay. So just the wildland fire dispatchers. So it decreases there. Um, and then let's say this was to pass, they would work for 20 years and they would have then a pension that would last the rest of their life. Yes. And can what percentage does that pension? Is it the same as what the firefighters in that make? Or, or maybe you can just tell me the exact number. I'm not sure what it is.

  15. Rep. Troy Shelley18:09

      I I don't know the exact number, but it does apply to, to that those few people who are the dispatchers specific to the wildfire? Uh, just the, the wildfire department. Not, not to all dispatchers.

  16. Rep. Mark A. Strong18:29

      Okay. Um, thank you Mr. Speaker. And then another question. Did the substitute change it from all to just the wildland fire or was it all beforehand?

  17. Rep. Troy Shelley18:42

      It is specific to the wildland fire dispatchers.

  18. Rep. Mark A. Strong18:47

      Okay. Thank you. Um, representatives, I, I struggle with these kind of bills. We have a, a, a pension and I was told that the pension's fully funded for the fire and that, but if something happens down the road and our economy weakens or, uh, you know, the, the funds go down, um, then taxpayers will continue to pay this. If my 401k goes down, I just have to work it out myself. Um, in my, my little mind, I, I picture a 20-year-old taking a job doing this dispatching work, and when they hit 40, now they're on a pension for the rest of their life, potentially 30, 40, maybe 50 years. And I see that being a, a large burden to taxpayers, um, for a job that really isn't on the front line. Now. Um, I am a son of an Air Force, retired Air Force person. So I grew up after my dad retired on a pension. Um, but my dad was in Vietnam and he was in, you know, areas of danger where, um, a dispatcher wouldn't experience that the same as a first responder or firefighter. And those would, I can see that for them. I, I struggle with this, uh, moving to dispatchers. Thank you.

  19. Speaker (presiding)20:18

      Thank you Representative. Strong further discussion to the bill Representative Snider.

  20. Rep. Casey Snider20:22

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and maybe can clarify some of the questions that were asked by the earlier sponsor or the earlier good representative from Bluffdale. Um, as many of you know, we have state firefighters here in Utah. They are very limited in scope and they are almost exclusively all assigned to the duties of protecting, uh, or fighting wildfires. Our, our primary centers of this are down at point in the mountain and we have a series of crews. We have hotshot crews, type two crews, we have engine crews, and then we go from there. Several years ago, we, we made sure that all of those state firefighters and regular municipal firefighters were treated the same in, in making those adjustments. What we missed is, is the dispatch side. Our dispatchers are, are based out of what is called the Northern Utah Integrated Fire Center, which is also in Bluffdale. What this bill simply does is brings them into that same retirement pool. There's actually not a pension, it's a divine contribution plan that they pay into. So this would treat them not as different or new or put any long-term obligations on the state, but rather maintain them in the type two, uh, retirement sections of our code and forever list them as firefighters moving forward. So that's, again, that's why there's only a few individuals. 'cause when we made the reform several years ago, dispatchers were missed. And again, this, this isn't a new benefit. It does not open individuals up to different changes. It just brings all of our state firefighters or firefighter support personnel into the same pot. So again, for maybe with this context, I'd encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

  21. Speaker (presiding)22:06

      Thank you, Representative Snider. Uh, Representative Shelley back to you for summation, I'll waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on first substitute HB 4 96.

  22. Speaker (presiding)23:08

      Seeing all present, having voted Representative Stoddard C now President voting board is now closed. First substitute HB 4 96 passes this body with 55 yes votes, 15 no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Madam reading clerk

• Mar 3, 2026 Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (95 turns)

  1. Rep. Troy Shelley1:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll re speak very briefly to it as to the second sub or to the first sub. I'll bill 4 96. Um, and, uh, maybe, maybe I'll just turn the time over to you can kind of explain what it does and where it's at. Yeah.

  2. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems1:24

     So my name is Cory Cox. I'm with Utah Retirement Systems. Um, one of the big pieces of this bill, and this is the portion that I'll speak to, is that, um, it does allow for the dispatcher, the wildfire dispatchers to be part of the, um, firefighter retirement system, um, instead of the public employee system. And that, that's what this bill, the, the big piece of this bill does.

  3. Rep. Troy Shelley1:54

     Yeah, I think, I think the one, the one part is this was intended to carry the, uh, dispatchers over when they, when they created this for the firefighters and the dis dispatchers just got missed and they would like to carry those over. I think one of the, one of the important parts here is if a firefighter is injured during a Ophir or whatever happens, um, rather than him just, uh, or he or her, um, just miss out on the, uh, any retirement because of their injury, they can transfer into the, into the office and, and go in as a dispatcher and, and then they'll still qualify.

  4. Committee chair2:39

     Does that conclude your presentation?

  5. Rep. Troy Shelley2:41

     We're open to questions.

  6. Committee chair2:42

     Okay. To the bill Senator Brammer.

  7. Sen. Brady Brammer2:47

     Yeah, I, I understand. After firefighters injured and then going into the program, I'm more curious about when dispatchers who have never been firefighters are in the program. Are they included in this representative? Please.

  8. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems3:03

     Yeah. So, so basically, um, this also does bring, bring these dispatchers in line with what we do with the, the other dispatchers in the state, um, who are in the public safety retirement system. And so they would need to meet certain qualifications, certifications, um, national Wildfire certifications to qualify to be part of the, the Firefighter retirement system as a dispatcher. Um, and so any, any, uh, dispatcher would be allowed to be a part of that that works for the di division of Forestry, fire and State lands, um, to be part of the Firefighter Retirement system, as long as they meet those certification requirements. And like I said, that brings them in line with other dispatchers who are in the public safety retirement system. Okay.

  9. Sen. Brady Brammer3:54

     'cause I guess my concern is typically we have the special retirement for those that are, uh, you know, and I don't want to, um, this is not meant to minimize, but those that are in harm's way versus those that are not really in the flames and the, you know, out in, in the rest. And so I, I'm, you know, it's 4.3 million ongoing on this fiscal note. That's a lot. And so I am a little concerned about the price tag, and if it was just limited to those who had been serving as firefighters were injured and then entered this program, they could keep their firefighter retirement, I'd probably be much more inclined. But I do have some concerns on, you know, um, you know, it, it's the, to me the job descriptions are very different and the, you know, so that, that's, that's where my hesitation is on it. Yeah. And

  10. Rep. Troy Shelley4:49speaker not certain

      Perhaps Jamie could talk to the, speak to the 4.3 million.

  11. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems4:53

      As far as the retirement system is concerned, there's actually a sa a short term savings for the department. Um, there is no cost to, um, the department on Contribu. It's not an increase in contribution rates. It's actually a decrease in contribution rates for the retirement.

  12. Sen. Brady Brammer5:08

      Well, your department is only one part of our state budget. It's a decrease of 4.3 million ongoing with the state budget.

  13. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems5:14

      So the 4.3, I'm gonna, I, I think it would be better to have Jamie talk to this, um, from forestry, fire and state lands. But as far as the retirement side, there is no additional cost.

  14. Committee chair5:25

      Okay. So yeah, please come forward, introduce yourself.

  15. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands5:33

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jamie Barnes, director for the Division of Forestry Fair and State Lands and State Forester. Mr. Bremmer, thank you for your question. Senator Bremmer. Um, the $4.3 million fiscal note is, it's a little bit confusing how that's written, but that was basically done on an average for the other parts of the bill. Um, the bill also addresses the cooperative, um, system under the new forestry agreement and how much money would be spent outta the Utah Wildfire Fund for that agreement that we entered into for the, um, cooperative management of lands, uh, with the Forest Service. And so what we did is we took an average of how much money we had spent, um, over time on shared stewardship projects. So that's where that 4.3 million is coming from, is that's what we average, we would be taking out of that Wildfire fund for those services, um, for the shared stewardship projects or for that cooperative management agreement. So I understand that's a little bit confusing how that's written, but it's two 4.2 9 5 300 for what would be expended under that post-fire rehabilitation. And for those forest projects that would be done jointly with the Forest Service, we do expect that on that the Forest Service would be matching funds on that. Um, and we would be leveraging those funds with them.

  16. Sen. Brady Brammer6:48

      Okay. So, and I apologize, but I do have further questions on it.

  17. Unknown speaker6:52speaker not certain

      Go ahead. So it, you're asking the questions I wanted to ask, it kind of feels like we buried the lead and we said this is about dispatchers getting retirement benefits and not about $4.3 million going outta the budget to a program. And if the dispatcher one is 25,000 in programming, that's a very different thing than 4.3 million. I want to understand that a lot more than what I've heard so far, because that wasn't even part of the presentation. That's a lot of money. Like you gotta tell us why you're spending 4.3 million. Yeah.

  18. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands7:27

      So if I may, Mr. Chair please. So this, this bill, if I may, this bill was actually done as, um, an amendment bill, kind of a cleanup bill for the code. So what we did is this year we entered into a cooperative management agreement with the Forest Service. As I said, when we redid the code, um, HB 3 0 7 last year, there was some things that weren't captured in that code of how we do post-fire rehabilitation and how we spend money collaboratively with the federal government that didn't, that only allowed for money to be spent on state and private lands. So what this bill also does is it allows for us to leverage funding with the, uh, federal government when it's a benefit to state and private lands. So this would allow money to be taken outta the Utah Wildfire Fund. Right now we're allowed to take up to $10 million. There's a cap. That cap still applies under that $10 million cap. But under prevention, preparedness and mitigation, we would be allowed to spend money on federal lands if it's a benefit to state and private lands for post-fire mitigation or lands that are under that cooperative agreement with the Forest Service. So on that fiscal note, you'll see that's an average of about $4 million that was spent last year on those lands. But that cap of 10 million would still apply. That's in HB 3 0 7. And hopefully that answers your questions.

  19. Unknown speaker8:53speaker not certain

      Uh, I mean it kind of does, but it's, it says this would increase expenditures by 4.3 million and it sounds like you're saying no, it would continue expenditures of 4.3 million.

  20. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands9:05

      That's correct. Because it doesn't actually increase where we're already allowed to take $10 million out of that account. HB 3 0 7 actually said that we shall spend $10 million on prevention, preparedness, or mitigation out of the Utah Wildfire Fund.

  21. Unknown speaker9:22speaker not certain

      And is this part of that? It is. So how is it increase if you're already obligated to spend that? It,

  22. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands9:28

      It doesn't actually increase it. That's just the way the fiscal note goes is that there would be an additional cost by allowing it to be spent on federal lands. Unfortunately, that's the way LFA puts in those fiscal notes is that it could have that cost.

  23. Unknown speaker9:41speaker not certain

      It just feels like you're telling me not to believe my lying eyes in 4.3 million reasons. I do understand that. Okay, Thanks.

  24. Committee chair9:56

      Alright, I'm just pulling up, uh, I'm just pulling up the bill from last year house Bill 3 0 7. 'cause this is, uh, I will agree. This was a, um, this was a baffling, uh, fiscal note. The way it's written. I was trying to figure out why it's coming from dedicated credits. And now I understand we've already appropriated money to this account and there is a requirement that you draw down funds for it and that draw down of funds is $10 million annually. Correct. And so you are going to take 4.3 million of that annual draw drawdown and dedicate it to cooperation or to the retirement program?

  25. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands10:38

      Nothing to the retirement program at all. There's no additional cost for that. It could cost 4 million of that 10 million. That's what we've spent over the last year's. On the last year we spent $4 million out of that fund before HB 4 0 3 0 7 was in, we spent in prevention, preparedness, and mitigation $4 million. That's how that fiscal note was calculated. So when you're talking about cooperative management and prevention preparedness and mitigation, that's what that costed was $4 million. But there is that cap now in HB 3 0 7 that not more than 10 million can be spent on prevention, preparedness and mitigation, which falls into those that category of the cooperative management agreement and the post-fire rehab lines of this bill.

  26. Committee chair11:35

      I'm reviewing, forgive me if I don't remember the bill as well as you guys do from last year. So I appreciate patience

  27. Unknown speaker11:57speaker not certain

      He's reviewing, so I see it's line 9 72. It looks like I was trying to find it for you also. I won, Nevermind.

  28. Committee chair12:06speaker not certain

      I was just gonna say, so it looks like 3 0 7 is saying you could spend 9.493 on wildfire mitigation. It's not a shall as I understand it is. Did you, like, are you required to spend 10 million, um, or am I looking at the wrong fund?

  29. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands12:26speaker not certain

      Let's See, I'm looking at the fiscal note from last year, but I'm, I may be, we may be speaking past each other. So In, in on line nine 70 is such as has the division shall pay wildfire prevention costs during the fiscal year in an amount that is great. The greater of 10 million or the sum of 3000010% of the money deposited into the fund, but not to exceed the previous fiscal year for a wildfire costs. So nine 70 if I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah,

  30. Committee chair12:53

      That's where I was just reading. Yeah. The division shall pay prevention costs. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. New accounts, new funds, uh, cleanup language is what I'm understanding from you. Um, the retirement side of things was the, was the question I think Senator Brammer was getting at. Help me with the, um, you know, do we have other similar class employees that were, that are also part of the retirement program? And is there a reason why we left them out in the past and now we're including them?

  31. Rep. Troy Shelley13:28

      So the, the firefighters were put in, and I won't recall the, a Cory will know that the firefighters were put into public safety retirement some years ago. Somehow the dispatchers were not put into that. Um, and that's what basically what this does is allows to align the dispatch dispatchers into that program with them. I think

  32. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems13:47speaker not certain

      That's 2011, if I Remember right.

  33. Rep. Troy Shelley13:48speaker not certain

      I think, I think you're right. Yeah.

  34. Committee chair13:50

      Yeah. Okay. So, uh, okay. It, but was it, was it accidental? Like I I have a hard time accepting that it was accidental when it comes to retirement programs, it feels like there's sometimes there's a decision made or a policy made about why some employees and not other employees were made. Do we know?

  35. Rep. Troy Shelley14:11

      I don't believe it was accidental. Do you wanna speak to that, Corey? Yeah, I'm not sure. I, I'm not sure either of us know that we weren't here. Um, it just wasn't done at that time. Is that fair?

  36. Committee chair14:24speaker not certain

      You get to play revolving chair. Sorry about that. Yeah,

  37. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems14:26

      That's okay. So I, I think one of the things that's, um, I know Senator Harper was involved in bringing dispatchers onto the retirement or the public safety retirement fund, how this was probably back in 2018 or 2015 or something like that. Um, it's been a while. Um, but as, as far as bringing the, the dispatchers on under the, this program, um, with the firefighters, uh, the firefighters, I think it was 2019 that we, we finalized, um, the wildland firefighters as being part of the retirement, the firefighter retirement system. And I, I'm not sure as to why the dispatchers were left off, to be honest. I don't have an answer to that.

  38. Committee chair15:14

      Okay. Um, well, well, we'll figure that out. Maybe Senator Brammer, or sorry, Senator Fillmore.

  39. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore15:21

      Thank you. Uh, since we're on retirement, I'll, I'll ask, so this would put dispatchers into the public safety retirement program for police and fire? Is that what I'm understanding?

  40. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems15:34

      So, so yeah. So in tier two, it's a public safety and firefighter retirement system. In tier one, they would be placed under the firefighter system, um, which is a little different in the,

  41. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore15:45

      And I, go ahead, sorry.

  42. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems15:47

      Yeah. In the public, in the public safety system on tier one is are the other dispatchers. They need to be post certified and to be part of that. These dispatchers are not post certified, but they do have wildfire nationally recognized wildfire certifications. Correct. Um, and, and that was our requirement. We, we need to make sure that that does, so we can maintain our qualified status as a public retirement fund with the federal government. So,

  43. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore16:17

      Well, I, I suppose it strikes me that the reason that these positions were left out of this fund is because it's designed specifically to provide a shorter career window for, for employees whose job takes a demanding physical toll. Um, I, I don't disrespect to dispatchers. Uh, I think their job is hard in many ways, but it is not the same demanding physical toll that firefighters or police officers have. Would you agree with that?

  44. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems16:50

      So I'm, I'm not here to necessarily speak to that, but I do know that it is stressful, uh, it is a stressful job to be here. Well,

  45. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore16:57

      Perhaps I'll ask the sponsor it. I mean, I think you, he is here to speak to that. It's his bill. Would you agree that whatever the demands are on a, on a emergency dispatcher, that it is materially different than the demands on a firefighter who runs into a burning building or forest or a police officer responding to a violent crime? I agree. Okay. Then let me talk transition to talk about the 4.3 million. I, I guess I am wrapping my head around the fact that this doesn't really mean 14 4.3 million because you're gonna be spending that money anyway, but there's still only $10 million in the fund. So if you're spending 4.3 million on this, what are you not spending 4.3 million on instead?

  46. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands17:45speaker not certain

      Well, let me, let me ask when you say this, which part do you mean?

  47. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore17:49

      Well, the cooperative agreements, you know, it's like, this is like, now you're gonna be spending money in cooperative agreements with other agencies. And my question is, what are we sacrificing in order to fund that? Uh, yeah, it's, if it's a question of priority, i'd, I'd like to know why are we elevating this one above whatever else it was going to,

  48. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands18:09

      If I may, Mr. Chair, please. That's a great question. So right now, we haven't made any commitments with the federal government, and we haven't identified any lands that we would be spending money on that are federal lands under that cooperative agreement right now. This just simply gives us the leverage to do that. So right now, the intent of that agreement is to co-manage those lands with the federal government. What we would, would plan to do with that is leverage that funding like we have before. So the model for that in shared stewardship has been, we have spent about $30 million so far in shared stewardship. The state's put put about $14 million of that money in with the federal government putting the rest of that money in. So I don't know that we're really giving anything up. I think what we're doing is we're trying to leverage those dollars and we're trying to get more work done at a landscape scale, uh, model. And sometimes that we're, we're more limited by those fence lines. So by taking those fence lines down and be able being able to do landscape scale projects, we're able to mitigate fuels where it's more beneficial across those landscapes. So I look at this as more of an opportunity than us losing something. I think we're gaining more across the landscapes and in areas of prevention, preparedness, and mitigation rather than losing something.

  49. Rep. Troy Shelley19:32

      Thanks. Can I just add to that? I, I think, uh, I think a movement on a federal level is to push a lot of expenses back to the state and, and give states responsibility. I think if we can maximize our dollars right now to get state or federal matching funds to pull that back, I think it, I think it makes sense on the short term.

  50. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore19:58speaker not certain

      Okay.

  51. Committee chair20:02

      Thank you. Okay. I think that concludes public or that it concludes the committee questions. We'll now take it to the public for public comment. Does anybody here from public comment wanna speak? Figure we'd at least have one dispatcher tell us how stressful their job is, would've been helpful. Okay. Uh, with that, I'll close public comment and we'll bring it back to the committee for action on the bill. Okay. Senator Brammer?

  52. Sen. Brady Brammer20:38

      Yeah, I would move that we, uh, recommend favorably HB 4 96 for substitute.

  53. Committee chair20:45

      Okay. That motion's ordered. Would you like to speak to that?

  54. Sen. Brady Brammer20:47

      Yeah, I appreciate going through, I know it was probably painful to go through the dedicated credits issue and, and all of that, but I appreciate that I do have a little bit of heartburn on, you know, uh, creep into public safety retirement plans. Um, uh, the only thing that kind of, uh, helps me get on board with this is, uh, you know, I do understand that dispatchers are an important part of the team, that there's a, there's a back and forth with them. Um, but I, I, I'm getting closer and closer to the line where I draw the line on it, um, because I do believe that it's those that put themselves in harm's way. And while there may be some psychological, uh, you know, stress, uh, a lot of jobs have psychological stress, it's more the physical that, that is the, the component that I see for public safety. But, um, you know, but this isn't a whole, you know, this, this is a very small amount to do that. Um, but I appreciate the explanations and, and I'm satisfied with them. And so I'm, I move to move it forward.

  55. Committee chair21:52

      Okay. Thank you. Um, any discussion to that motion?

  56. Committee chair21:58

      I have a question for the sponsor really quickly. Um, do you know, uh, adding the dispatcher, will that take them to the, if I remember right, the firefighter's retirement plan is 20 years instead of 25. Does that sound right? That

  57. Rep. Troy Shelley22:15

      That's correct. And it does change the retirement at 20 years.

  58. Committee chair22:21

      Your phone, a friend wants to join in as well. Perfect. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah,

  59. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems22:25

      So, so in the public employee retirement system, which they're currently under, they, in tier one, it would be 30 years, it would be reduced down to 20. In tier two, it goes from 35 years reduced down to 25.

  60. Committee chair22:39

      Okay. Um, uh, I'm still struggling with the policy of that representative. Um, it is not, uh, I'm in favor of the federal coordination on state lands part of this bill, but the movement of the retirement is fatal for me in the bill. So, um, I'm not sure, uh, where everyone is, but, um, I'm wondering if you would consider, uh, that retirement piece not being in the bill and dealing with the other cleanup language and the other, uh, components in order to, uh, you know, in order to make the bill a little more interesting.

  61. Rep. Troy Shelley23:26

      Can I, can I just clarify just to make sure that, uh, that we're on the same, same understanding, this would affect probably around seven individuals.

  62. Committee chair23:37

      Yeah, I totally appreciate that. Again, I'm trying to figure out what part of the language do we really want here is, or what's the most important part of the policy. Your other phone a friend wants to join as well.

  63. Rep. Troy Shelley23:52speaker not certain

      Jamie is great. So anyway, it's a good thing. I have phone of friends. I love having them, so I'm glad when they come.

  64. Committee chair23:59

      Thank you, Jamie. Thank

  65. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands24:01

      You, Mr. Chair. I, I would just like to offer a few comments if I may. Um, what we're really trying to do with this also is we're trying to make this the same as it is on the federal level. Um, right now we have interagency dispatch centers, and so those state employees, uh, are in the same agency as the federal employees. And federal dispatchers are entitled to federal retirement under that system, um, the same as the firefighters. And so, if I may just offer that, I, if I may offer a little bit of information also on the trauma that these individuals experience. Um, as you know, firefighting is strenuous. Um, and when we talk about strenuous activity, it, it's, it's not all physical. Um, we do see signs, um, of psychological issues in these dispatchers. Um, and a lot of times that's because there's no way to put something, an end to what they're doing. These dispatchers are dispatching heavy aircraft to our fires. They're in charge of our firefighters. When they're out on the ground, they're in charge of their safety. They're, they're a very important aspect of what goes on day to day. The training that goes into these positions is very, very important. So while the physical strenuous activity isn't there, the psychological and the mindset for them to be on their game 24 7 when they're working, even though it's not a 24 7 job, it's, it's, it's very taxing on them to keep those men and women safe that are out on the ground. So I would just offer that as something to help you as you make your decision.

  66. Committee chair25:31

      Do, do again, uh, do we have a turnover problem with those seven, uh, positions?

  67. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands25:37

      We do. It's hard to keep people in these positions because we, we have a few dispatch centers around the state, but the pay is competitive. We've had a hard time keeping, keeping people in these positions because of the federal pay levels, also, because of its long hours and it's taxing and the qualifications that they have to get. Um, also getting dispatchers that are qualified to dispatch aircraft and do those certain things. It's, it's something that I've had a hard time keeping people in those positions. It's, it's difficult.

  68. Committee chair26:06

      Do, do you mind if I ask are how, how do we treat, uh, you know, along urban areas? I don't know, do we know if folks that are, you know, dispatchers, if dispatchers for other professional ser you know, professional, uh, first responders, do we know if they are also part of, uh, the law enforcement, you know, professional fire Requirement? Yeah, so

  69. Jamie Barnes, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands26:33

      the firefighter, the Wild Line dispatch is separate from the 9 1 1 dispatch centers. So, like, for example, right now I've had to, um, move like Moab dispatch. We've had to move that to another center because keeping people in those areas is really difficult with the cost, um, to live in Moab and keep dispatchers in the area. It's been very difficult. Running those interagency centers has proven really difficult. Um, so also we've been looking at dispatch consolidations, um, with our feds trying to find a better plan for that. But all of that plays into the benefits that they receive and leveling that, playing ground to how to keep people. As you know, when you have state and federal employees in those centers, people talk pays competitive and benefits are competitive in there. And I really want the state to lead out as the best agency to work for. I wanna be able to hire the best people. And this bill really accomplishes that and gets that done.

  70. Committee chair27:30

      There's another phone, a friend, I just want to just gimme a thumbs up. Are the other 9 1 1 operators are all included in the, the law enforcement first responder retirement? That's correct. Okay. That's helpful information to know. So it's not like we're creating a separation between job responsibilities or anything. Okay. That helps me a little bit to the motion.

  71. Committee chair27:49

      Senator Fillmore

  72. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore27:53

      Make a substitute motion to hold. Um,

  73. Committee chair27:56

      Okay. That motion's in order. You'd like to speak to that?

  74. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore27:58

      Yeah. Uh, there's just too many unanswered questions for me here. Um, I always get nervous when we make changes to the retirement system. Um, you know, especially with, with a bill that's, you know, a number of the four hundreds. Perhaps I could ask, did this go through the Retirement and Independence interim committee for study on this issue? I can appreciate that. Seven employees, if that's the accurate number, is not material. But, um, I assume there is a conscious decision to structure this the way it was to work, to pay down the state's unfunded retirement liability. Uh, to the degree that the federal government is different, they are a fundamentally different employer. 'cause they can print money and they don't have to worry about unfunded liabilities. They've got a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Uh, so I suppose that adding whatever this might add, um, you know, by, by dropping the number of work years, but it, it's not immaterial to take an employee from 35 years to 25 years on the liability. That means there's going to be less contribution into the system and more payouts from the system. Um, so, uh, anyway, that, that's, that's my, my substitute motion to hold.

  75. Committee chair29:13

      Okay. Um, you've spoken to it. We'll go to, uh, Representative Shelley for a response, and then we'll go to the underlying maker of the motion Representative. Shelley,

  76. Rep. Troy Shelley29:27

      Uh, maybe we could speak to it first. Would that be okay?

  77. Committee chair29:32

      Uh, it's you, you part of your friend. Yeah. Part of your, uh, phone a friend. Bring him, bring him on.

  78. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems29:38

      Thank you. Uh, Senator Fillmore, I, I completely understand your concern with the, the liability. Um, one of the good things I guess we could say about this movement is it is moving these seven employees from the public employee system, which has an unfunded liability. Um, there, the public employee system is about 95% funded, um, whereas the firefighter fund is 112% funded. Um, and so we would be moving them into a, a fully funded system. So it wouldn't necessarily create any additional unfunded liabilities that way.

  79. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore30:19

      I, I appreciate that in theory. But by moving them out of the unfunded system, it means that they are not making contributions into that system. And I understand that we lose the liability too. But the reason we have actuaries to go through this, and we have an, an entire interim committee that is dedicated to just this issue, is to consider the effects that small changes have on, uh, you know, on billions of dollars. Uh, uh, I don't know. I, I recognize that making a motion to hold this late in the session means the bill doesn't move forward, but I just can't vote for it to get out of committee with this many unanswered questions.

  80. Committee chair30:59

      Okay. Uh, let me ask a question to the motion, uh, to the sponsor really quickly. Um, lemme go back and ask you again if you had to bifurcate these two issues on the retirement side of things and keep the rest of the policy, or would you rather just let the bill go wherever the committee decides to send it? Um, and, you know, trying to make a decision between those two. Are there parts of the bill that you would, you need that aren't part of the retirement question? 'cause the retirement question is what's getting everyone hung up at the moment? Um, the Senate always tends to be a little bit more protective of the retirement issue. Uh, and I think everybody knows that. Um, and so that's the, that's the concern. And we could one off our way through the, through, you know, getting back into a retirement process. So that's my first question. The second question is, if the, if the answer's no, let me, the second question is, how many of those seven employees are tier one versus tier two? So, um, maybe you can answer them in reverse order

  81. Kory Cox, Utah Retirement Systems32:06

      So I can, I can speak to, there are two tier one employees and, and five tier two.

  82. Committee chair32:11

      Tier two. Okay. That's awesome talk. Let's talk to me about the policy. If we were to encourage a bifurcation, could we survive with a bifurcation or are they absolutely essential for the two pieces of the bill?

  83. Rep. Troy Shelley32:26speaker not certain

      How many more committee meetings do you have?

  84. Committee chair32:29

      I only have one more, but here's what, here's the lifeline that I will tell you. And this is, I'm, I'm trying to throw you a, uh, a lifeline here.

  85. Rep. Troy Shelley32:37

      Please. I need life jackets. That's fair enough.

  86. Committee chair32:40

      Um, uh, if you commit to remove the retirement portion of this bill, okay. I think we could convince Senator Fillmore to undo his motion deal with and, and trust you and your house or your Senate sponsor to make a substitute that removes the retirement part of it. Okay. And if, if you commit to doing that, I think your bill will, will feel free like a bird. If you do not, I think it may find itself, uh, encumbered like a cage bird, so

  87. Rep. Troy Shelley33:20

      Duly accepted.

  88. Committee chair33:22

      Okay. So, uh, what I'm hearing is that you'll make another substitute. We

  89. Rep. Troy Shelley33:28

      Will do a substitute that removes the retirement portion and we will have that sub posted as soon as possible. Yes.

  90. Committee chair33:38

      And the request I'm going to have as part of that substitute. Okay. So just, and I'm happy to email you and send you, you know, this stuff too, and I can have staff do it as well. Megan's very, very helpful. Um, the two components, we remove the retirement, but that we ask the interim committee for retirement and independent entities to review this seven position, uh, you know, this seven position group, uh, and see if they fit the criteria and qualifications for being added to, uh, that service, uh, plan. And if they do, then I will be more than happy to help floor sponsor this next year or whatever it needs to be to help you get it done. But we have been, uh, as a state, we've been very, we've been blessed by sacrifices that were made back in 2011 on our retirement program. And, uh, I would hate to open the gate to undo those things, uh, you know, willy-nilly, so to speak. So, um, if you'll agree to that, Senator Fillmore,

  91. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore34:43speaker not certain

      I'll withdraw the motion.

  92. Committee chair34:44

      Okay. The substitute motion. Okay. Well's delightful. Okay. Um, with I can move forward Like that. Okay. So with that, we'll go back to the underlying motion. I think, uh, the representative has summed and made a commitment on what he wants to do. We usually, we, you know, we would have you come back and make a presentation, but you're a trustworthy guy, right? And so, let's, you know, lets move this forward, and we're late in the session, so let's figure this out. And I think, you know, there's other meaningful policies. So let's, let's get it done. Thank you, uh, to Senator Brammer with, uh, summation on the motion. Okay. He'll waive the motion before us with a commitment to substitute is, uh, to pass first substitute house Bill 4 96 with a Fable recommendation. All in favor, please say, aye. Aye.

  93. Unknown speaker35:30speaker not certain

      Could I explain my vote since my mic is on?

  94. Committee chair35:32speaker not certain

      Yes, you may. I still have some questions on the other

  95. Unknown speaker35:32speaker not certain

      Yes, you may. I still have some questions on the other

• Mar 4, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (12 turns)

  1. Sen. Derrin R. Owens3:41:55

     fire, and fire related issues. We know that this has been a topic we didn't, we wish we didn't have to discuss, uh, as much. But what this bill does is provides for the division of forestry, fire, and state lands, um, enforcement of invest investigatory powers related to wildland fires and heritage trees, uh, addresses the use of money related to cooperative agreements and forest management.

  2. Sen. Derrin R. Owens3:42:21

     I'm sorry, president. I should have, uh, moved to adopt. Second substitute.

  3. President Adams (presiding)3:42:27

     Thank you. Motion to substitutes in order. Do you wanna explain the second substitute, Senator?

  4. Sen. Derrin R. Owens3:42:32

     Yes, briefly. It, uh, it, it, um, brings in the cooperative agreement with the federal government. Um, the substitute does that also would add fire dispatchers and, uh, to the firefighter retirement system. That's what the substitute does.

  5. President Adams (presiding)3:42:48

     Thank you. You have discussion on the motion to substitute Seeing no comments. I'm looking around. I'm gonna place the motion. The motion is delete and title and body first substitute, uh, house bill 4 96. And replace it with second substitute house bill 4 96. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will the motion passes. The bill is substituted Senator to the bill. Any further presentation?

  6. Sen. Derrin R. Owens3:43:16

     Just a little. Um, this, uh, bringing in cooperative agreements allows the state, uh, we kind of artificially set up some boundaries in, uh, house Bill 3 0 7 last year, which narrowly restricted these funds from being able to use them, um, on prevention and rehabilitation efforts on state and private lands. But when we enter in cooperative agreements with the federal government, it's a wiser use to allow these, these dollars to be used in prevention, rehabilitation across those fence lines that we created. So this bill opens that up and, uh, allows more efficient use of these dollars in, um, wild land fire rehabilitation That president I'd be open to. Any questions?

  7. President Adams (presiding)3:44:05

     Hold on. Thank you, Senator Owens. Looking for discussion. Seeing none of the bill. I'll go to you for a motion.

  8. Sen. Derrin R. Owens3:44:13speaker not certain

     Thank you, president. I move that second substitute house Bill 4 96 pass.

  9. President Adams (presiding)3:44:18

     Thank you. The question is, shall second substitute house bill? Four ninety six pass. Roll call vote.

  10. Unknown speaker3:44:23

      Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Brammer Bus Comore. Escamia Fillmore Grover. Harper Kinins. Ipsen Aye. Johnson Juab McKay. McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Aye. Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton.

  11. Sen. J. Stuart Adams3:45:24

      President Adams Aye. Second

  12. President Adams (presiding)3:45:43

      substitute house Bill 4 96. Having received 27 yay votes. One nay vote, one being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

• Mar 5, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Madam Reading Clerk1:59:19

     Madam Reading Clerk Second Substitute House bill 4 96. Forestry and Fire Amendments by Representative Shelley.

  2. Speaker (presiding)1:59:28

     Representative Shelley? Nope. Representative Monson Mo. Motion to circle, Oh, nevermind. Representative, let's go back. I withdraw my motion. Representative Shelley. Representative Shelley.

  3. Rep. Troy Shelley1:59:44

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to Concur.

  4. Speaker (presiding)1:59:46

     Thank you representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to

  5. Rep. Troy Shelley1:59:49

     'em? Yes. This is the, uh, wildland fire, uh, dispatcher. Uh, the original intent was to move the dispatchers under the same retirement program as the firefighters. It also had a, uh, provision in there for the, uh, joint operations between the state and the federal government on wildfires. Uh, the Senate asked to remove everything to do with retirement. So it's just the, uh, coordination effort now. So I, I concur. I think it's a good idea. Thank you.

  6. Speaker (presiding)2:00:19

     Thank you Representative Shelley. Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on second substitute HB 4 96.

  7. Speaker (presiding)2:00:25

     Representative Kohler representative. Okay. Representatives has, we'll go ahead and play, see no discussion. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before us. The house concur with the same amendments on second substitute HB 4 96 under suspension of JR four dash JR four dash four dash 1 0 1 3 B. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes.

  8. Speaker (presiding)2:00:57

     Now be open for final passage on second substitute Representative Voxer, would you like to vote? Seeing all present, having voting, voting is now closed. Second substitute H 4 96 passes this body with 61 yes votes. Five no votes will be sent to the Senate for the signature of the president. Madam Meeting Clerk third Substitute house Bill. Oh wait. I apologize. Madam Marine Clerk, let's go to Representative Blaby.